What is it like dating polygamous gay
But that's enough for guys to become furious, taking their comments to every social media platform. These comments never bother me because I know they're wrong. They have, however, led me to repeatedly ask the same questions: Why does the mere mention of a non-monogamous relationship make these guys' blood boil?
I understand it's not for them, but why do they get so angry that open relationships work for other men? Why do they feel that it's important that everyone be like them, in a monogamous relationship, when it doesn't affect them? Is it a matter of arrogance?
How My Three-Way Polyamorous Relationship Works
Do they assume everyone is like them? Have these men been cheated on? This shouldn't be such a sore subject and source of unrelenting rage. I've tried engaging with the monogamy-or-bust folks, going straight to the source, but I've never learned anything useful. They are so consumed by anger, that they can't speak logically about why something that has nothing to do with them provokes such outrage. Honestly, they sound like the anti-marriage equality crowd. They say the same things repeatedly about how it ruins the sanctity of marriage or in this case, relationships , but when you ask how it affects them personally, they don't have an answer.
Site Index
But for whatever reason, this remains a source of animosity. That said, here's what I have noticed. When I speak to gay men who are in satisfying monogamous relationships, they're never angered. Do they know that an open relationship would never work for them? Yes, very aware. Are they skeptical that it will work out? But angry? The only people who are actively angered are men who are single or unhappily committed in a monogamous relationship.
So polygamy should be OK now! Heck, if men can legally sodomise each other and get Social Benefits, let's hear it for the polygamy crowd too. The promiscuity discussion and comparison between straight and gay men I think is misleading. Straight men must convince a straight woman to have sex with them. As a whole, I think men are more willing to participate in no strings attached sex, so when both parties are men, more such sex is possible.
Whether that's a cultural artifact, i. There's a voice in the back of my head saying this might be a sexist position to take. If so, I'd welcome comments. The argument that homosexual marriage will lead to plural marriages fails due to the fact that homosexual marriage involves merely the extension of an existing institution marriage to a new set of facts same gender partners , while plural marriage involves creating a new institution -- the subordinate marriage. When interracial marriage became legal worth noting is that EVERY argument against same sex marriage was brought up against interracial marriage , the institution of marriage did not change, it was simply applied to a new situation; men and women of different races getting married.
Same sex marriage can simply apply the same institution to same gender couples. The institution need not change. Plural marriage, however, requires creating a new institution, the subordinate marriage. If my spouse male or female is entitled to half of my estate, then my second, simultaneous, spouse either gets the same rights the other half of my estate leaving me with nothing, or is subordinated to my first marriage and takes half of the half I have left of my estate.
It is that subordination of legal rights that creates the new institution. Likewise, if my marriage to my second spouse involves the consent of the first spouse, then the first marriage is recognized as controlling the second, making the second subordinate. So, no, gay marriage does not lead to plural marriage.
Plural marriage requires a new institution, gay marriage does not. This whole discussion exposes a lot of the hypocrisy we see in the arguments of the gay marriage movement.
- Multiple Lovers, Without Jealousy!
- finding a gay partner?
- how much gay escort make?
- gay people meme?
Many of the same advocates of gay marriage were just saying that marriage was a fundamental civil right, which could not be denied to homosexuals regardless of the fact that traditionally speaking, marriage, in its very essence, has always been known as an exclusively, opposite-sex institution. All the laws which refer to marriage, either directly, or implicitly, as an opposite-sex union are solely a result of bigotry and must be changed in order to erase the hatred and intolerance inherent in them.
Interestingly and quite ironically, marriage is a fundamental civil right only until the subject of polygamy is raised.
These same people are now arguing that we should not allow polygamous marriage to become legal. Think of the thousands of laws we would have to change!! It would clog up the legal system!!! The lawyers would have a feast!!! If marriage is a truly a fundamental civil right, it belongs to everyone. I find it strange that gay marriage proponents need to be reminded of this fact since it happens to be the central premise of their very argument.
There should be no legal prohibition against any activity undertaken by consenting adults which does not substantially harm others. This includes gay and polygamous relationships. However, from sociological and individual perspectives, marriage has always contained an aspect of power politics.
And this, as the author says, varies widely from culture to culture and century to century. But my sense is that MS's emphasis is off. The primary driver for polygamy's decline in the modern era is the historic shift in power from kings and fathers to institutions and individuals. In traditional societies, power was vested in relatively few institutions state, family which in turn vested it in their individual leaders kings, fathers.
If say you were an orphan girl, any man could rape you, because you were not affiliated with or protected by any man or power structure. Because legal power, economic power, social power, etc were vested in a narrow hierarchy of individuals, and if you wanted to enjoy the protection of those powers, you had to marry it. Now we have constitutions, rights, laws, police, lawyers, juries, judges, journalists and twitter. If a powerful man rapes the proverbial orphan girl, he will find his powers are circumscribed.
She enjoys individual rights, and through traditional media or the new personal media, she can gain access to the court of public opinion. And the public has changed. It is now full of wealthier individuals who enjoy the same rights and protections that she does.
Comments on Gay marriage: And now on to polygamy | The Economist
And she will have changed too. She will enjoy a basic education and safety net, so that she is freed from ignorance and the fundamental threat of starvation. Significantly, the proverbial orphan boys have enjoyed the same transformation in status. Indeed, the social transformation of the individual has been so great that she may enjoy serial marriage, or if she chooses a life devoid of marriage altogether.
I argue that she should be able to go further and enjoy polyandry in a society which makes it legally available, but rather unnecessary. The gay marriage debate, because it stirs up strong emotions and cannot ever seem to be justly resolved, is a perfect example of 'first world problems. Seriously, people take to the streets over this nonsense, while whole cities burn and drown, severe economic inequality runs rampant, governments use technology to track everything everyone does, and millions die of starvation and malnutrition.
I'm sorry, homosexuals, but you are wasting our time. We have more important things to do than define your relationships legally. Yes, you have been persecuted and killed in small numbers in the West , and that is wrong. But there are very many far more important things for politically involved citizens and their representatives to do than figure out how exactly to sanction your lifestyle.
Please wait in line. Adults making choices that don't affect me If 10 people want to enter a relationship to facilitate property transfer or whatever, I simply can't bring myself to care.