See, I told you this would happen.

[Liberty]

Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley have opened another front in the liberal crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America.

It's the new polygamy, and according to the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, their relationships are at least as ethical as other marriages -- gay or straight.

"Polyamory is never having to say you've broken up,'' said Sally Amsbury of Oakland, whose sex and love life openly includes her husband and two "other significant others," known in polyamory parlance as "OSOs."

Amsbury serves on the national board of directors of the Unitarian Universalist organization, which defines polyamory as "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.''

"Polyamory is not an alternative to monogamy. It's an alternative to cheating,'' said Jasmine Walston, who lives in Louisville, Ky., and is president of the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness.

Source


Now, how many times did the Libs tell us that we were just being silly to think that allowing gay marriage would lead into Polygamy et al.?

I wonder how many of you Libs will have the courage to say that what they are doing is wrong. Even better, what will be your reasoning?

[curious]

My honest reaction is that they're greedy. So many single people unsuccessfully looking for a partner, and these people have three partners.....I say we need sexual socialism and redistribute the wealth -- one partner per person.

But in a more serious vein, are youi really surprised? This has been going on since the dawn of human history. Some cultures were based on it. And is it really different than the straight, respectable guy who has a woman on the side?

These polywhatever's are silly. You're always going to find people in the margins of any society who are going to push the boundaries. These relationships have been going on informally anyway. If these people want to live that way, I say let 'em. Why force them into a mold? I'm a libertarian in that sense.

I don't think that bigamy or polymagmy should be legalized as marriage, however. Not for moral reasons, but for practical issues.

IMO the difference is that everyone should have the right to have a legally designated "partner" for legal and business purposes. If two gays want to combine their lives in marriage that is not really different in a practical sense than two straight people in terms of sharing of property, legal benefits, etc.

But when you start adding people to that arrangement it does run counter to that.

I agree with Barney Frank on CNBC last night. he pointed out that when Vermont was debating civil unioins, it was treated like it would destroy Vermont. "Now that it's been in effect for a few years, most people find the subject really boring."

[Liberty]

I don't think that bigamy or polymagmy should be legalized as marriage, however. Not for moral reasons, but for practical issues.

What is practical about homosexual marriages as opposed to "civil unions"?

As to how all of this relates to Polygamy, I'm reminded of some of the arguements you yourself made in support of gay marriage - love, property rights, civil rights, and so on.

Now, if you are going to argue "practicality", doesn't that shoot homosexual marriages down? Seriously, what is so practical about homosexual marriages?

[curious]

What is practical about homosexual marriages is the ability to be have a legal and business personal primary partnership, just vas straight people have the right to do.

I believe everyone ought to have that right. Even couples (gay or straight) who want to share that with someone platonically. (Which already happens in straight marriage. There's not a police force making sure married couples are making whoppee regularly.)

But when you start extending that to more people that does run counter to that idea. People could start simultaneously marrying all of their friends on that basis.

There's a distinction that has to be made between legal partnerships and defacto ones. There's already people in "Three's Company" relationships, and I don't advocate arresting them. But they are not sanctioned as marriages, and I don't believe they should be for the reasons I outlined above.

If you choose not to consider a gay couple as a "legitimate" marriage in the eyes of God that is your right. But that does not mean you should be able to dictate whether or not they are allowed to consider themselves as a couple and be equal in the right to form a partnership in the eyes of the law.

[TXNavy]

Okay, we've been through this before.

Marriage is not a "right." It is a privilege. Nowhere is it written in any document that people of any sort have the right to be married.

Second, marriage receives its validity, even Biblically, as a socially-recognized contract. This society has chosen not to recognize gay marriage. Whether you're personally for or against it is irrelevant. We have an excellent social structure for defining marriage - we're a representative democracy. When society decides to recognize it, things will change. Until then, gay marriage is no more valid than marriage between cats and dogs. This is how the "eyes of the law" see it. The tax privileges that come with marriage aren't rights, either - they're a benefit given to marriages by society recognizing the burden of supporting more than one or two people on a single income. Society hasn't seen that gay couples should receive that benefit. (They could, theoretically, still receive dependent and child EIC's anyway, so there's one less argument.)

Lastly, if they need "legal partnerships" so badly, they should form an LLP or LLC. No rights are being removed. They simply aren't being given the privileges by their peers, and there's nothing a minority can legally do about it. You'll just have to wait until the rest of us are convinced.

[Noble]

Because I know a gay couple who have been together for a long time, 12 years, and they are happy I tend to not worry about wether gays are faithful or not.

Not to condone promiscuity but I tend to believe that if Marriage is an institution entered into by a man and a woman that even if some state gives a document saying it recognizes gay marriage it has about as much weight to sensible people as say me printing out a license saying that I give people the right to travel in space without a space suit.

The concept has no place in reality.

I have heard arguments every which way to Sunday on the gay marriage issue and I still can't get past the fact that...

1. As much as I like people being happy I can't see past the fact that the Church is the authority on Marriage and somehow (I.R.S. clauses in Taxes) the State became an Authority on religious institutions and that somehow gives states the right to ascertain marriage legality.

2. Since the very foundation of Marriage is based upon faithfulness to another individual and now polygamy is being touted it kind of defeats the purpose right?

I mean why enter into a plea of faithfullness when you are trying to be promiscuos

3. Since homosexuality is a sin then I tend to believe it has cosmic reprecussions. SO that being said....even if we give people the right to marry a cow or a rock or 5 men that if God doesn't like it then I suppose let God deal with it when Judgement comes.....

But that being said here comes the catch....

and This is a fundamental Root of being a conservative for me...

The catch is that when society allows another Taboo to become a norm we always, and I do mean always, see a ripple effect in the youth culture in which since old taboos become the norm new taboos are tried in an effort to "be different" then the generations previous to it.

Conservatives knew/know that when it was/is no longer taboo to do something that is or used to be taboo we see a flux in the culture.

EXAMPLE:

When I was young in the early 80's it was almsot considered an "event" when some one cussed. Said the F work or similar.

Now days, even on fox news, I see clips where people are cussing and getting bleeped out. All day during the day time hours are shows on TV where people are cussing out Judges, Talk show hosts, Jerry Springer...on and on and on.

And on top of that we now see regularly girls constantly cheating on thier spouses/boyfriends in nearly every plot in soap operas.

I mean this stuff has been around for centuries when you look at it. But in America it was a clean slate for a long time. EVen though the Hippie culture started back in the 60's the mainstream culture was still very clean cut and respectable. Now days it is actually in the minority.

SO back on topic....IF we allow something like Polygamy to thought of a normal I can assure you that there will be a reprecussion in the culture.

Do not deny it. Everytime a taboo slips into norm we see yet another culture shift.

I mean....look at my generation..genx. You think one of these tattooed nose ringer, cussing, flipping off, angst ridden people is going to lead our nation into a new era of greatness?

I don't think so. And I also don't think that even if Gay marriage is shown on paper I suppose its about as real as my newly printed license saying I have the right givin by the state of California to breathe underwater without any scuba gear.

HEck I think I'll go try and test it out right now....

Not!

[curious]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
Okay, we've been through this before.

Marriage is not a "right." It is a privilege. Nowhere is it written in any document that people of any sort have the right to be married.

Second, marriage receives its validity, even Biblically, as a socially-recognized contract. This society has chosen not to recognize gay marriage. Whether you're personally for or against it is irrelevant. We have an excellent social structure for defining marriage - we're a representative democracy. When society decides to recognize it, things will change. Until then, gay marriage is no more valid than marriage between cats and dogs. This is how the "eyes of the law" see it. The tax privileges that come with marriage aren't rights, either - they're a benefit given to marriages by society recognizing the burden of supporting more than one or two people on a single income. Society hasn't seen that gay couples should receive that benefit. (They could, theoretically, still receive dependent and child EIC's anyway, so there's one less argument.)

Lastly, if they need "legal partnerships" so badly, they should form an LLP or LLC. No rights are being removed. They simply aren't being given the privileges by their peers, and there's nothing a minority can legally do about it. You'll just have to wait until the rest of us are convinced.

That's the point. Most gays (not including the crazy fringe) are using the time-tested rules of democracy to gain rights. Sometimes that oversteps what opponents see as the boundaries of appropriate behavior and civl disobedience. But blacks did not get things like the right to vote by only saying "please,please,please..." They had to shake the trees to get attention.

I honestly think most people don't really care about gay couples on a profound level, and are more "live and let live" about it. Most people will say they are against "gay marriage" when asked, but they don't have a problem when it is put in terms of allowing them equal rights outside of the definition of marriage.

Since, as you pointed out, "marriage" is basically a social contract, IMO the solution is to allow civil unions in a legal sense, and let people argue about "gay marriage" and the definition of marriage among themselves and within their churches.

Just as people used to be incensed and outraged at allowing interracial marriage, now most people don't much care one way or the other when they see an interracial couple....Or they keep their personal distaste to themselves rather than demanding that it be prohibited.

[curious]

But that being said here comes the catch....and This is a fundamental Root of being a conservative for me...The catch is that when society allows another Taboo to become a norm we always, and I do mean always, see a ripple effect in the youth culture in which since old taboos become the norm new taboos are tried in an effort to "be different" then the generations previous to it. Conservatives knew/know that when it was/is no longer taboo to do something that is or used to be taboo we see a flux in the culture.

Just to make clear, I am not endorsing polygamous marriage.

That being said, here comes the catch, in the larger sense.

You are describing historical trends as a one-way trip. In some ways it is, in some ways it's a never-ending cycle. Society gets loose and licentious, then there is a reaction and it becomes more straightlaced for a while, then things loosen up for a while, then it goes back to being more straightlaced, etc. etc.etc.

(In fact, in some ways modern society is a lot more conservative than many older ones in terms of what sort of sexual relations were allowed or accepted.)

But the forward momentum is more do do with basic progress in terms of rights. Until relatively recently it was unheard of that women should even have the right to vote. The dominant opinion until the women's sufferage movement was that allowing women the right to vote was a violation of the natural order....Now their right to vote is taken for granted, but back then it was a deep conflict fought by conservatives.

I'm old enough to remember when seeing a woman in a professional position of respoonsibility was rare and noticable. A woman executive or politician was almost unheard of (and considered to be probably a lesbian to boot).

My point is that these things are seldom cut and dried. Neither a purely liberal approach of "anything goes" nor a conservative "if it's different it's bad" can truly be used to weigh it.

Whenever something dramatic comes along -- like gay civil unions -- it is initially going to be resisted as a violation of nature and God's laws. But the initial reaction has to be put in perspective.....The changes that are valid will likely take hold. Those that aren't -- such as inter-species marriage -- will not.

[TXNavy]

I can mostly agree with Curious - I'll also throw out the caveat that Protestant denominations do not subscribe to the idea that the church controls marriage. (How many Protestant churches insist you be "remarried" in church if you only have a civil ceremony? The answer is none - this was one of Martin Luther's reforms.) The states do not, either, since the states control marriage. This is concurrent with the mainstream Protestant definition and recognition of marriage.

In the big scheme of things, this is one of those things that just won't affect me much, so I don't spend a lot of time on it. I don't think gays getting married would ruin it for me, and I don't think it would spell the end of civilized culture. I don't believe that other God-fearing people would recognize their marriage outside of the legal sense, either, so who cares?

On the other hand, when given the opportunity, I would vote against gay marriage or even civil unions on my own principles. If I'm outvoted, so be it. Unlike abortion where death is involved, its just not that high on my list of threats to society.

[sju_pol16]

Originally posted by curious:
Since, as you pointed out, "marriage" is basically a social contract, IMO the solution is to allow civil unions in a legal sense, and let people argue about "gay marriage" and the definition of marriage among themselves and within their churches.

I'm with you on that one, Curious. I view marriage in a religious light, and I wouldn't at all be opposed to Civil Unions. In fact, I think that's probably the best compromise.

Also a part of it is that I'm finding that I'm a fiscal and foreign policy conservative much more so than a social conservative...so it's just not as important an issue for me.