T Nation

Alternative Marriages:


I think the debate over marriage remains 154,134th on the list of political priorities to tackle in the 21st century, but at the request of the Enlightened, a separate thread exploring the "next in line" in the glorious path to Progress (TM) in the field of marriage rights:

Polyamory-relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners-has a coming-out party.


Have a read. Strangely, this:

Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause-lest it give their enemies ammunition.

How can that be? After all, Progress means that eventually gets their turn - as gay marriage advocates argue, blacks were first, then gays...certainly next in line are the polyamorists?

But, standing in defiance of that inevitable Progress is nothing but rank bigotry - so why would gay marriage advocates "be leery" of polyamorists and distance themselves from them? Why are they not marching arm in arm with their fellow oppressed brethren against the bigoted devils of intolerance? Why are gay marriage advocates, being, you know, bigots?

C'mon, let's separate the benighted, knuckle-dragging Bigots from the courageous paladins of Enlightened Progress - who stands for the rights of those "next in line" for marriage rights, the polyamorists? Say ye!


That slope had some grease on it, after all?


I brought this up to a group of people a few days ago at work, it was amazing to see how many where in support of gay marriage but where against polygamy and the sorts.

Funny side note tho, the one gay person I asked(a lesbian) said she did not support gay marriage.


Can't say I really care. Isn't going to affect me. Marry a fuckin dog for all I care.


I agree.

Although, I doubt this explanation will be sufficient for certain individuals.


The problem with debating alternative marriage is we are avoiding the real question.

Is marriage a Government concern or is it Religious concern?

As long as we ignore this these problems will keep popping up.


Huh. Neither you, I, nor TB23 predicted that, did we?

Maybe first cousin marriages to minors should be allowed now too. Then we could have a society that resembles Pashtun society. Yay!

I say let the gays play at marriage. The sooner the whole thing collapses, the better, IMO.


Yea, just like it collapsed Canadian society...

Wait a second..


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Oh snap! So Canada is allowing polygamous first cousin marriages to minors and it's doing just fine? Talk about egg on my face...Who forgot to send me that memo?


While I agree with you that if the government has any say so it's the state that does, I have a hard time defending why the state should even be involved.


Our society is turning the Jerry Springer show. Remember when a guy married a pony?

"Titled "I Married a Horse," the show includes a guy describing his five-year marriage--yes, marriage--to a horse named Pixel, a woman recounting her whirlwind romance with her dog and a man who says he pines only for canines.

That's too much for some TV stations, and they're refusing to air the controversial episode from the top-rated syndicated talk show. Springer spokeswoman Linda Shafran tells Associated Press that a rerun of the "Past Guests Do Battle" episode will be available for broadcasters who find the topic too, er, racy. (Shafran says she doesn't know exactly how many stations objected.)"



I think that's already happening:


Again, marriage should not be the jurisdiction of the state. If consenting human adults would like to enter into marriage contracts with each other, the job of the government is to arbitrate contractual disputes or violations through the courts.

Just like writing a will, you could settle for the $50 boiler plate version or work with the lawyer to customize it to your situation.

Animals are property, not rational entities that can willingly enter into a contract. You can't marry an animal.


Obvious answer: as far as the law is concerned, it is a government issue and not a religious one.


No, actually it turns out the slope isn't that slippery.


What ever happens I am sure government interference will surely make marriage more sacred.


Marriage, as in between a man and a woman, is only responsible for raising future generations of humanity.

So let's play with it. Let's encourage same sex parents and such. Im sure the kids will be perfectly adjusted and normal. lol.

IMO, most gay people were traumatized in growing up. I've never met a gay guy who didn;t have BIG TIME issues with his father, mother or both. In other words, they come from homes that were very toxic to them.

Some I'm sure can be born gay, but whatever. They Need to lay off the title of "marriage" and fight for all equal protection under law if they have a lifetime partner. Then they need to make up another name for their club so as to not offend heterosexual and traditional couples.

Why are they hell bent on "marriage"? As in using that title. That's the real reason there is controversy. Members of the the "marriage" club feel it is their own and defined as between a man and a woman. The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution.


Hasn't it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?


I'm a member of the "marriage" club who is in a traditional heterosexual marriage and having gay people refer to themselves as married doesn't offend me one bit. I certainly don't feel like it is my own, or defined as between a man and a woman.

Heaven forbid people, who aren't hurting anybody, want to feel accepted.

Maybe the problem isn't them... maybe its you.