Sex is the Same as it was

[bouche]

But what if:

"you are in LOVE and want to share the rest of your lives together with all of the benefits that legal marriage has to offer loving and hard working couples and prove to the world that you are together forever(a real reason)"?

Biologically, isn't that wrong? I saw incest cases on Oprah and there's always genetic defects. Major health issues with organs and odd and normally rare conditions occur in the body.

If that weren't the case...then Luke and Leia could have been together.

Oh wait, I guess that doesn't change things. A brother and sister could still adopt or get a surrogate. Ok....let them marry.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Awesome. Glad you see my point ...

People have always argued that homosexuality is biologically (& ethically, & morally, & aesthetically) wrong as well. And if children were a prerequisite for marriage then ... yadda yadda yadda.

This is going to start coming up, and while it will be ignored or beaten down for awhile, eventually it is going to have to be dealt with. There was a tendency to beat down everybody - even those who had demonstrated in every way to be liberal minded - who suggested that SSM might open the door to polygamy, etc.. and to accuse them of being closet-homophobes. I actually believe that a lot of those people genuinely had no problem with same-sex marriage and had sincerely thought this through and realized that it was going to become indefensible - far down the road - to deny rights to other groups demanding them.

I think those people were correct in their assessment, but I think that they were wrong to believe that that was sufficient grounds to maintain a privledged class based on sexual orientation.

We might have to face the fact that the institution of civil marriage is inherently discriminatory, and we may have to look at what it is specifically that we have been trying to economically (and socially) reward by recognizing marriage on the state level, and recognize and reward those things directly instead.

It doesn't sound very romantic, but then the state isn't in the romance racket to begin with. That is something that has to happen between the individuals themselves.

I'm pretty sure the "erosion of marriage" argument was a correct one, even if most of those who parroted it had little ability to back it up (and didn't really know what they were saying). But I'm not sure it should be any other way, if it means perpetual discrimination and arbitrary concessions to one select priveledged class.

(^-- I'm talking state/civil marriage, not religious marriage. I see no reasons why the various churches shouldn't go about their business as usual)

[bouche]

a lot of those people genuinely had no problem with same-sex marriage and had sincerely thought this through and realized that it was going to become indefensible - far down the road - to deny rights to other groups demanding them.

That was a great post :thumbup: But, I'm stumped on that still. How big of a group are we talking about?

[d_rawk]

I dunno. But I'm sure there are a number of people in threesomes (for example) who would like the same tax advantages, community recognition, rights to property following a spouses death, custody guarantees, etc.. as the rest of us.

And, as your oprah viewing has demonstrated, there are even people from the same family who, I'm sure, would like access to the same.

I don't think StatsCan has collected any statistics in this particular area, however, so I'm really not sure just how big

And while it might have made sense to offer such incentives exclusively to male-female couples (with the presumption that they would procreate) in an era of un-emancipated women, absence of birth control, and lack of experience demonstrating that single-parent or seperate-parent families could function, it seems to be making less and less sense now. Why should, say, a father and daughter who aren't fucking and not romantically attached but cohabitating be receiving less in the way of an economic break than a married couple who is no longer fucking and no longer romantically attached?

Is it sex? Is it children? What are we on about? What are we trying to do here?

(I'm asking ... I really don't know)

[bouche]

where we're going, we don't need roads.

[Rob Not Bob]

I always find the "marriage is exlusively about having children" argument particularly offensive ... it's basically saying my own marriage is invalid.

[Freak By Night]

I'm glad that everyone is staying level-headed in this thread and not threatening to beat me to death with an 18-inch black rubber cock.

You still got it LR.... funniest guy on the board!

Seriously though, even though I totally disagree with your stand on this issue, I will defend your right to express your viewpoints.

[Booche]

funniest guy on the board!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

funniest guy on the board!

How can something be so funny and so deeply disturbing at the same time?

[AdamH]

Interesting debate, too bad I'm getting to it so late.

In theory I have nothing against same sex marriage, but should we force ourslves to ignore the glaring lack of natural reproductive methods between such a couple? It is biologically impossible for two men to conceive a child, or two women to conceive a child that shares their two sets of genes. A man and woman can give birth to a child but a gay couple cannot. I realize that is one aspect of marriage, and it doesn't negate elements such as sharing a life with another person, becoming one economic unit and basically having a lifelong friend that you boink from time to time. But why do we put down people who point this out?

Similarly can two women or two men provide the ideal supportive and nurturing environment for a child? If there's a significant rise in same sex marriages (which I suspect there won't be), and near as many adoptions and invitro fertilizations that go along with that, what will the same sex parent generation be like, and what is the future of conventional marriages?

I also wonder about monogamy. It's surprising that we humans think we're intended for one person, when our mammalian counterparts for the most part do not pair off. WE are derived from creatures that fucked as much as possible to perpetuate the species. I think that for the most part we've retained that psyche but have been forced to suppress it because of the Judaeo-Christian notion of monogamy and lifelong partnership that betrays our own natural instincts to love and lust after multiple partners. To that end in another world free of traditionalist views it could be perfectly normal to sleep with men and women, to court and be in union with one person while still having sex with others. The whole world's sexuality would be liberated and this debate wouldn't be a debate in the first place.

[TomFoolery]

Polkaroo,

As per usual - you crack me up :-)

I agree whole heartedly with part three, think that part one is true but not necessarily on the mark and am very happy you brought up the issue of same sex parents.

While I think that you are correct in pointing out that there is an aspect of parenting that can be made better through the availability of male and female influence, it isn't necessarily as simple as that.

I know a lot of people who've been royally fucked up by their "traditional" male-female parents. I have also had the benefit of knowing two people who are the product of loving same sex couples (one from a lesbian couple - product of divorce - and one from a gay male couple - adoption of sorts).

They've got issues from the stigma of their family backgrounds but they both know that they have the full support of their parents whenever they need it.

From my assessment of their personalities and stability in their lives I'd say its better to have loving gay parents than unsupportive "traditional" parents.

Yes, having a loving male-female influence on your life is probably the most healthy (although, I say this based on nothing more than my intuition - don't know what the psych lit has to say on this). But the world isn't so simple that the options are:

- male/female parents

vs.

- same sex parents

There's all sorts of grey area that messes up the debate.

So, is it ideal - probably not.

Is anything ideal?

[bradm]

Is anything ideal?

Sure.

Aloha,

Brad

[d_rawk]

Right. The primary function of traditional/conventional marriage has to do with the procurement of security. The physiological desire to have one's genes passed on, and a man's related need to know that if he is expending resources on a child that it is in fact his own offspring (observable through the customs of chastity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, the testing for an unbroken hymen prior to the ceremony in many cultures, etc..) and the woman's need to be guaranteed same resources and not be left stuck with child. Marriage is (was) a way, among other things, of encouraging or enforcing monogamy in the face of fleeting carnal instincts to act otherwise.

Binding unions between one man and one woman derive from practical matters. The sentimentality and idea of marrying for love is historically quite new.

But the idea of pairing up (in whatever configuration, in whatever number) for love is a beautiful one, isn't it? And it seems more relevant now than all that other stuff.

So the question is how much any of this relates to where we are now in contemporary society, particularly given a guaranteed social safetynet and the fact that women are no longer, thankfully, at the mercy of men or family for survival.

[edit to add:]

Edited June 30, 2005 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

So the question is how much any of this relates to where we are now in contemporary society, particularly given a guaranteed social safetynet and the fact that women are no longer, thankfully, at the mercy of men or family for survival.

I think that's exactly to the point, and I think so much of the resistance to same-sex issues comes from a deep-seated terror a number of people have about the uncertainty we have before us on a vast scale (just throw globalisation into the mix, to boot). Plus, there's the whole matter of having to face the question of whether all the repression we're compelled to do is, in the end, worth it, which is a question, whatever the answer, that is hard - impossible, for some - to face.

I always thought a good end-run argument on the point of procreation would be to issue only temporary marriage licenses - like they do with driver's licenses - until said couple produces offspring. Yes, it's completely stupid, but I'd hope the logic of it would give pause to those people who insist on the point of "biological complementarity."

[d_rawk]

Haha, brilliant. I'd hate to see it actually happen, but I'd love to see someone vocally promoting it (with feigned earnestness) to make the point.

[Kaidy Mae]

But the idea of pairing up (in whatever configuration, in whatever number) for love is a beautiful one, isn't it? And it seems more relevant now than all that other stuff.

Yes, it certainly is a beautiful one. You are truly lucky if you find someone to share all of the joy and ugliness of life with.

I've loved this thread folks. Great points were made for both arguments. Bravo to all for being so mature about this. And well done to Low_Roller for not cowering away from this debate. I look forward to meeting you one day to agree and disagree further.

I think one thing that this thread illustrates is how dull it would be if we all agreed. While I have a firm stance on this issue I certainly love a good debate.

What happens when you are raised with contradicting traditions?

My mother's family are rigid Irish-Catholics.

My father's family are debaucherous heathens.

I had 2 very different ideologies to embrace and comprehend when I was growing up. I am proud that they have both held onto a lot of their traditions. I am amazed at how similar these "differing" traditions are. I am impressed that they still love each other despite the few (significant) differences in said ideologies. Most of all I am very lucky to have 2 parents who are very happy with each other and with their lives. If there's anything I have learned from them, it is to accept others. Others being those with differing sexual orientations, and others being those who do not share my opinions. THAT ACCEPTANCE is my family's tradition. We can all carry on legacies while simultaneously remaining true to ourselves.

Choose your traditions!

[bradm]

Choose your traditions!

And don't be afraid to create your own! My family (that is, my parents and my brother) started a tradition of opening a bottle of champagne on Christmas morning while we open our presents. That's one I want to see continued!

Aloha,

Brad

[Kaidy Mae]

Brilliant! And something both my Irish and heathen forefathers could agree on.

[jonyak]

First off, it was never homosexuals that destroyed the sanctity of marriage, it was straight couples, homosexuals have nothing to do with moral decay. Just because they wanna get married doesn't mean you have to get married to a man, or a woman, or be present at said weddings.

Secondly, if we uphold all of our "traditions" how will we ever evolve as a society? The whole point of society, in my eyes, is to constantly evolve and make ourselves better. I just don't get why so many people are against this in thi day and age.

This is more of a human rights issue, up there with abolition on slavery, woman getting the vote, it just makes sense.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Guest

[PalacePrincess]

hey, remember when they were passing the "women are allowed to go topless" law, and so many people were all up in arms about how it would destroy the morals of our country and damage our kids by seeing bare breasted women all over the place?

yeah, i almost forgot about that too... you know, since you don't see hoardes of topless women running about. and our country certainly hasn't fallen in on itself because of it. as hux said, same sex marriages were practically legal already. just because this is official across the whole country now, it doesn't mean there's going to be a huge surge of it. and if there is, then so what?!?! it's not hurting anyone. yay to anyone who is lucky enough to find someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with!!!

i view marriage as a formal recognition of love and commitment between two people. not between a penis & a vagina, or even a vagina and a vagina or a penis & a penis. i've yet to see a solid argument as to why this privilege should be kept exclusively to penis-vagina pairings. and if there is one, i'd like to hear it. (and by the way lowroller, i am in no way directing this specifically at you, or even just this thread, i am talking about any debate i've come across on this.)

you can't choose who you love. if you could, we'd sure see a lot more single and lonely assholes and wifebeaters and alcoholics, and a lot more of those "really nice boy next door" types would be happily married. if you are lucky enough to find someone that you share a mutual love and respect with, to a degree so great that you want to spend the rest of your life with each other, then what difference does it make if they are the same gender as you?? you're not marrying their genitals. you are marrying their personality. there are many, many male/female couples who can't or don't want to have children, using the fact that same sex couples can't in a regular convential way is a moot point (and as rob not bob has said, an insult to hetero couples who don't have kids).

and now, the bible rant. (again, not directing this at you, lowroller, i am speaking generally). we are allowed freedom of religion in this country. i think a huge part of that is that religion absolutely, positively, does NOT have ****ANYTHING**** to do with ANY law we make. the ever popular "because the bible says so" stance i see all over the place is a complete BULLSHIT argument. BULLSHIT. i'm sure there are teachings in other religions that state terrible things we don't agree with, (i.e. "women should be stoned to death for having their own opinions!"), and yet (hipocrasy anyone?) any devout christian is going to simply dismiss those because they aren't the "true word". who's to say one person's bible is "better" and more true than another's? just because your religion says something doesn't make it LAW that EVERYONE has to agree with and abide by. those are your PERSONAL beliefs. i am sick and tired of seeing this bible card played as a true factual argument against this issue, when really, in my eyes, it is just a very thinly veiled excuse for hatred and fear of homosexuals. pathetic!!!

and the "oh well if we let gays marry then what's next, dogs, kids, brothers & sisters, 3somes"..... puh-lease.... even making that statement is basically just saying "those gays are not as human as ME". dogs, kids - not consentual. brothers & sisters -- against the law because it CAN be harmful to others (birth defects). 3somes -- well, for one thing, i highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt there are any consentual, happy 3somes where all 3 parties are interested in committing to each other for life. generally 3somes are not equal relationships (or "relationships" at all), and the whole point of the commitment of marriage is that you are giving yourself to that ONE person. not two people or 10 people or whatever, just ONE.

anyway, i'll halt the rambling for now, but in short, i am pleased as punch this bill was passed and i am so incredibly proud to be part of the 3rd country in the world to allow same sex marriages.... i'm just sorry we weren't the first.

oooh, pretend i have photoshop & there's a maple leaf in the middle.

[Rob Not Bob]

3somes -- well, for one thing, i highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt there are any consentual, happy 3somes where all 3 parties are interested in committing to each other for life. generally 3somes are not equal relationships (or "relationships" at all), and the whole point of the commitment of marriage is that you are giving yourself to that ONE person. not two people or 10 people or whatever, just ONE.

Not trying to start a fight or anything but I know lots of people in the polyamory community that would strongly disagree with you.

[AdamH]

PP here's what this whole debate comes down to.

Do you own a dictionary or a country?

[PalacePrincess]

or dictionary dictonary, country country, then?

Not trying to start a fight or anything but I know lots of people in the polyamory community that would strongly disagree with you

okay, now i'm curious about this -- you actually know people in the polyamory community? (i'm not being sarcastic or smart alecky, i am honstly curious) as in lifelong commitment with 3 (or more) people all involved. and i'm not talking about just dating, but marriage calibre, "FOR LIFE" commitment. how exactly does that work? is it 2 wives to one man, or do all 3 equally love and want to marry each other? (so the wives are married to each other too) or one woman and 2 men and the 2 men are together too? i just find it hard to believe that there would *never* be any jealousy or hurt feelings in a situation like that. you can't entirely give yourself to one person if you've giving just as much of yourself to someone else... and if you can, then it's not really a "marriage" in that it IS between more than one person. i've never met anyone who is into that (on a level of lifelong commitment that is a marriage), so i honestly don't know their stance on it. and i'm not ragging on it, to each their own, and if that's what you're into then as long as it makes you happy then i'm sure not going to judge you.

but from what i have read, "poly" (gamous, amory, andry, etc.), also do not believe in divorce (as in no legal proceedings for it, they just get more partners and/or end it with others) so technically, that would not make them interested in traditional, legal, government recognized marriage, would it?

[d_rawk]

Oh, PP - I was loving your post, and then you went and broke my heart

3somes"..... puh-lease.... even making that statement is basically just saying "those gays are not as human as ME"

No ... it is saying that those people are as human as everyone else.

well, for one thing, i highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt there are any consentual, happy 3somes where all 3 parties are interested in committing to each other for life. generally 3somes are not equal relationships (or "relationships" at all)

One is reminded of the old argument that suggested homosexuals were incapable of meaningful relationships because all signs pointed to them being unable to remain monogomous or even stay with a single partner for long. That argument, of course, ignored the fact that most homosexual couples had to hide their affections for each other and were dealing with the constant threat of scorn and misunderstanding from everyone around them. As gays and lesbians have become increasingly accepted, and thus able to love each other freely and openly and the barriers that have pretty much *ensured* that their relationships will fail begin to crumble, we are seeing that such arguments had no merit. People need to be given the chance to succeed before we can judge them so harshly for failing.

just find it hard to believe that there would *never* be any jealousy or hurt feelings in a situation like that

Totally agree with you here. Just as I find it hard to believe that there would *never* be any jealousy or hurt feelings in any relationship of any sort (conventional or otherwise).

[bouche]

Threesomes wouldn't be threesomes if the didn't want to be. I can only assume it would be bad if it was forced. I'm sure there could be a case where someone is so deeply in love with another, yet so weak to allow the other person to force them into that situation.

Now Harems....what's up with those?