Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[Kulindahr]

Again I don't think your definition of polygamy as part of the gay "community" is a correct one. There are just as many (probably more) straight polygamists.

It's a different issue entirely. The fundamental unifying characteristic of LGBT groups is 'type of sex'. Number of partners is separate question. If you are gay and in a multiple partner relationship, then you are obviously in both groups, but that doesn't mean they aren't still separate groups.

If the fundamental unifying characteristic is "type of sex", then why address the issue in such a way that some of the defined type are excluded from sought benefits?

If any gays at all desire mutually-loving relationships with more than just two members, how can the movement address the issue of gay committed relationships without including them?

By saying that multiple-partner relationships aren't part of the gay community is to define the gay community in such a way as to exclude some gays. That's what the straight community has done for generations: defined the community of committed relationships in such a way as to exclude everyone but the heterosexual dyads.

 

[Kulindahr]

By "thus" I mean "for these reasons." My reasons are supported not only by my historical and ideological (including feminist and libertarian) reasons but also by several previous posters on this thread. Thus there is a foundation for my view which you have failed to adequately address.

There are no libertarian reasons against multiple-partner relationships: liberty says that every individual is sovereign, and can enter into whatsoever relationships he or she may please.

Feminism has nothing to do with the issue, unless you want to maintain that women aren't capable of choosing such relationships as they desire.

History? History shows a continuing line of oppression of the free choices of individuals, which you seem to favor continuing.

The foundation for your view boils down to the notion that some people are permitted to tell others what to do, if those others have lesser numbers.

 

[construct]

There are no libertarian reasons against multiple-partner relationships: liberty says that every individual is sovereign, and can enter into whatsoever relationships he or she may please.

Feminism has nothing to do with the issue, unless you want to maintain that women aren't capable of choosing such relationships as they desire.

History? History shows a continuing line of oppression of the free choices of individuals, which you seem to favor continuing.

The foundation for your view boils down to the notion that some people are permitted to tell others what to do, if those others have lesser numbers.

You still have not answered what I wrote before the "thus." Let me repeat them for you.

Libertarian--The government should not regulate our relationships.

Feminist--Marriage should be rejected along with all other patriarchal institutions.

Historical--Serious gay liberationist exploration of alternatives did not start until about forty years ago and has been sidetracked by other concerns, notably AIDS and the renewed possibility of winning the right to marry.

Now then, I see from the poll that all this arguing that has continued in this thread for two weeks (and in many other threads that you have tried, successfully or not, to derail with this issue) is for winning the hearts and minds of the uncommitted 7%. For my part, I don't care about winning the hearts and minds of the 7%, and I'm not much concerned about the 20% either. You can argue about the validity of my arguments with other people if you want. It's just that I think it's beating a dead horse (which was part of my stated reason for the poll in the first place). See my response to AdmiralAlfie on the first page.

 

[Kulindahr]

You still have not answered what I wrote before the "thus." Let me repeat them for you.

Libertarian--The government should not regulate our relationships.

Feminist--Marriage should be rejected along with all other patriarchal institutions.

Historical--Serious gay liberationist exploration of alternatives did not start until about forty years ago and has been sidetracked by other concerns, notably AIDS and the renewed possibility of winning the right to marry.

Now then, I see from the poll that all this arguing that has continued in this thread for two weeks (and in many other threads that you have tried, successfully or not, to derail with this issue) is for winning the hearts and minds of the uncommitted 7%. For my part, I don't care about winning the hearts and minds of the 7%, and I'm not much concerned about the 20% either. You can argue about the validity of my arguments with other people if you want. It's just that I think it's beating a dead horse (which was part of my stated reason for the poll in the first place). See my response to AdmiralAlfie on the first page.

Your first two argue against your conclusion -- in fact, they argue against the whole gay marriage movement at all. What they argue for is my position: that all the government should do is write it down when people come in and say they're in a committed personal union, regardless of gender or numbner.

The "historical" isn't a reason for a position, it's an excuse -- and a contradiction to your first reason, because you think we need to "win the right to marry". We already possess all the rights there are; the only thing we need to win is freedom from government interference with our rights. What you're saying is that because events in the past have been a certain way, we shouldn't be engaging in that fight.

 

[construct]

For my part, I don't care about winning the hearts and minds of the 7%, and I'm not much concerned about the 20% either. You can argue about the validity of my arguments with other people if you want. It's just that I think it's beating a dead horse.