Apollo
Do you lick pussy?
Damn that sounds familiar...where did I...OH!
To be clear, I don't support plural marriage either.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?
- Thread starter construct
- Start date
To be clear, I don't support plural marriage either.
"I don't have to be gay to know that two gay people sharing a union is an abomination before the Lord."
You're doing the same thing there. You're defining your perception of another group as a reason why they will never be equal to you.
On gay rights issues, we argue that equality should not be based on perceptions of others but on inherent rights. I have difficulty seeing how this case is any different.
And again, I'm not making logical comparisons with these varying types arguments, only stylistic ones. Try not to focus on the content so much and just look at the reasoning.
"Personally, I have nothing against gays. But 'gay marriage' should not be considered equal to traditional marriage. It is not the same."
You keep ignoring the parallels. You are saying that three people is "just not the same". And well, of course its not but is that any reason to treat it as inherently of less worth? Two gay people getting married is not exactly "the same" as a man and a woman, but of course we consider it equal. I'm just not sure why we see other types of arrangements differently. The same thought process you are using to say "different, lesser, et al" toward plural marriage is what traditionalists use to oppose gay marriage.
Same with your other arguments. I don't see any "good reason" to reject three people being married if they all want to be.
As I said above though, I definitely don't support incorporating it into the gay marriage issue because then it will go nowhere. If the polygamists want to be recognized they are going to have to advocate for that as a group themselves.
That all depends on your definition of the relationship. Since you've never been in a multiple person relationship and have no desire to be, I'm not sure you are the best person to analyze the dynamics of it.
For example, some people consider marriage as a situation when two people together become stronger than either of them could individually. Using that logic, one could say that three people become stronger together than two people could, etc.
Again, I'm not analyzing the logic of any of this. Everyone thinks differently. I just think that your decision that a different relationship should necessarily be treated as lesser because of your arbitrary definition of it seems a bit in the same vein as the gay marriage opposition.
Again, I've heard the same kind of thing from anti-gay folks. On another forum I post on someone said he was against gays because they were "not conducive to species continuity".
If you have to find some kind of greater societal benefit to allow anything, a lot of things would be illegal that aren't.
But that was not always so. "Gay" was classified as a psychological disorder by the medical community until the 1970s.
Wasn't a tangent, it was a direct response to the point you were making.Let the tangents devolve into spirals of nonsense
But I agree, this is going nowhere. I've said what I think. I'll leave it at that.
I've touched on them multiple times. You've just continually ignored my points.
Oh please just stop. Nothing I've said was "attacking" you. It was pointing out what I considered flaws in your argument, but that was it.
Yes, and those types of comments come from the same people who argue that if we allow "Gay Marriage" "What's next? Someone marrying a goat, or their dog, or their cat?"
The only group that I'm aware of that might be remotely in favor of plural marriages are the Mormons, and we all know how they feel about us.
So, I voted NO in this poll.
I can't even imagine how anyone within the GLBT movement would even consider advocating for such thing, especially when there seem to be so many who still question why we even have a T at the end of that acronym.
Let's at least get to two people of the same sex being afforded the same rights before we start adding others into the mix.
Why not?
From what I've read, and people I've met; I think that multiple relationships, say Triads, offer more, not less, than traditional pairing.
They might be wondering why you would want to limit yourself so, and parcel out your love in such small portions...
I've read where both of you are coming from, and I'm pretty much in agreement with where both of you stand on this debate.
If I might add, I'd say that both of you are debating the moral arguments for the inclusion/exclusion of plural marriage within the GLBT fight for marriage equality, while completely overlooking the political arguments.
Politically I don't see how we can win by including plural marriages.
The term "marriage" itself is already a hot potato, and the political argument against us is that we're trying to "redefine marriage."
I can't think of anything that more redefines what marriage is than by making it plural.
Damn, you do sound exactly like those religious bigots who would be "insulted, I say" to have their marriage compared to one of two men. Listen to yourself...
Well three people could live together in peaceful and loving harmony for 40 or more years. Could happen.
You and your boyfriend might only last a couple of dysfunctional years that end in physical abuse. Could happen.
You're right, they aren't equal, are they?
Saying two gay men are "equal" to a traditional marriage is often deeply offensive to the religious, for what we would certainly call "asinine" reasons.
Why do you care what other people do with their lives or call themselves? If three people want to say their relationship is just as important to them as yours is to you, what is that to you really?
You're acting like you can define other people's relationships for them which is exactly what the religious bigots do to us.
I can't speak for others, but that's not what I was debating. I already said I do not support adding polygamy into the LGBT category of political activism. I saw it more as debating the larger question of whether polygamy should ultimately be legal (however that would happen).
MrWright
Sex God
I definitely believe that polygamy should not be included in the gay agenda for a few reasons.
Gays need to achieve their own. Whether or not you believe polygamy should be a legal the question is not a gay question but rather a pluralistic relationships question: one that should be answered by supporters of plural marriages.
Gay marriage asks to redefine the people included in the marriage not the structure of the marriage. These are, simply put, different subjects in regards to the reshapings of marriage and should be addressed separately.
Outside of its non-relation to gay marriage, the most important reason why I disagree with plural marriages is their lack of equal security and care for the partners. Numerous studies have pointed towards the sexual abuse and violence - along with the general non-sexual abuse - found in 'plural' marriages. These marriages often lead to a powerfully misogynistic environment whereupon a man acquires many wives and the women effectively split their time with him (making the importance of one partner greater than all of the rest). A previous poster brought up that on a worldwide level, plural marriages are the norm. Being the norm does not, however, make them a healthy and loving (the point of marriage) option. Often the countries that most openly support plural marriages do so in environments that are again highly misogynistic in character and levitate the role of the man far beyond that of the women.
As gays, we are calling on our nation (and of course hopefully other nations down the road) to allow the love of two people (any two people) to be equally recognized because we posit that our love is no less than that of a heterosexual couple...that we also would be willing to die for that someone else and care about them more than anyone else in the world. How then does the watered down plural marriage add up? (save perhaps more sex time)
Gays need to achieve their own. Whether or not you believe polygamy should be a legal the question is not a gay question but rather a pluralistic relationships question: one that should be answered by supporters of plural marriages.
Gay marriage asks to redefine the people included in the marriage not the structure of the marriage. These are, simply put, different subjects in regards to the reshapings of marriage and should be addressed separately.
Outside of its non-relation to gay marriage, the most important reason why I disagree with plural marriages is their lack of equal security and care for the partners. Numerous studies have pointed towards the sexual abuse and violence - along with the general non-sexual abuse - found in 'plural' marriages. These marriages often lead to a powerfully misogynistic environment whereupon a man acquires many wives and the women effectively split their time with him (making the importance of one partner greater than all of the rest). A previous poster brought up that on a worldwide level, plural marriages are the norm. Being the norm does not, however, make them a healthy and loving (the point of marriage) option. Often the countries that most openly support plural marriages do so in environments that are again highly misogynistic in character and levitate the role of the man far beyond that of the women.
As gays, we are calling on our nation (and of course hopefully other nations down the road) to allow the love of two people (any two people) to be equally recognized because we posit that our love is no less than that of a heterosexual couple...that we also would be willing to die for that someone else and care about them more than anyone else in the world. How then does the watered down plural marriage add up? (save perhaps more sex time)
No, it should not be added to the Gay marriage issue. THere are many reason why but most of all because the outlawing of polygamy has actual legal reasons behind it an not simply religious ones. The one main issue that I can remeber of the top of my head is taxes. Everyone knows that people get tax exemptions for having dependents. Polygamy allows huge amonts of tax evasion for a person to have 50 wives and hundreds of children and never really have to play any money to the government because of dependent benefits. This possible and highly probable situation would wreak havoc on the way we do Taxes and to allow this would call for an entire overhaul on the tax system that requires more time and effort that could even be calcualted. Imagine the tax system now and how complicated it is and having to redo the whole thing and teach it to people. There are more reasons agains polygamy that have nothing to do with religion like family benefits at work that would all but disappear if Polygamy were allowed. I don't thign anyone wants there family health care benefits taken away from their jobs (if you need me to elaborate on how this would happen I will be mreo than happy to just let me know). There are more but I don't have time to list them.
Besides I truly believe that the way things work in AMerica is that if enough people want something to happen it will happen. That has proven itself to be true throughout our history. There s no reason for Gays to pick up the Polygamy Flag because there are people out there who will pick it up if they want it. THere is no need to join a fight that you don't need to be in.
Edit: Have you ever heard of the Proverb if you chase 2 rabbits you will catch niether. Ultimately I think Plygamy should be left out becasue adding it does neither cause any good. It simply conncets them in a way fatal to both. Niether would be achieved defeating the whole point of the cause in the first place. If you want achive either you have to do so sepreately it is just the way things work especially in our current system of government.
Besides I truly believe that the way things work in AMerica is that if enough people want something to happen it will happen. That has proven itself to be true throughout our history. There s no reason for Gays to pick up the Polygamy Flag because there are people out there who will pick it up if they want it. THere is no need to join a fight that you don't need to be in.
Edit: Have you ever heard of the Proverb if you chase 2 rabbits you will catch niether. Ultimately I think Plygamy should be left out becasue adding it does neither cause any good. It simply conncets them in a way fatal to both. Niether would be achieved defeating the whole point of the cause in the first place. If you want achive either you have to do so sepreately it is just the way things work especially in our current system of government.