'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

Yes, I am waiting for that answer too. I know there are polygamous societies which is not the same thing.

You don't get to define how people should live and how they should relate to each other.

If 3 dumb bichez want to be justashooter's domestic slaves, that's their right. You have no right to say their arrangement isn't 'marriage' just like justashooter has no right to say mawilson's arrangement with the unnamed male member isn't marriage.

[Peikko 1,575]

Marriage? Plural relationships, sure, but marriage?

Why not? Wouldn't it better for a child to have 4 parents instead of 2?

From the child's point of view? I honestly don't know. It's hard to see how a plural marriage could work in all honesty - I can see why a man would want more than one wife, but I can't see why or how say 3 men and 3 women would derive a useful relationship and then add children into the mix. It just seems highly destabilizing to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

What if you want to live with multiple partners and "derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship"?

Property ownership and raising children. Which, let's face it, is easier when there are three or four "parents".

Have an affair or two I guess...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Madame Cleo,

Permitting gay marriage is all about having an open mind about how people want to live their lives and define their own relationships.

Your mind is anything but open.

[Peikko 1,575]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

Yes, I am waiting for that answer too. I know there are polygamous societies which is not the same thing.

You don't get to define how people should live and how they should relate to each other.

If 3 dumb bichez want to be justashooter's domestic slaves, that's their right. You have no right to say their arrangement isn't 'marriage' just like justashooter has no right to say mawilson's arrangement with the unnamed male member isn't marriage.

I haven't yet attempted to. What I have asked, is how such a marriage would work. What would any of the participants get out of such an arrangement? How would such arrangements change society and show me a model of such a society so I can judge more accurately the benefits of such arrangements as a reality and not as some theoretical suggestion.

[mawilson 2,133]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

What if you want to live with multiple partners and "derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship"?

Property ownership and raising children. Which, let's face it, is easier when there are three or four "parents".

Have an affair or two I guess...

Affairs are not for me - I want exclusivity and commitment!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What I have asked, is how such a marriage would work. What would any of the participants get out of such an arrangement?

None of your business.

[Peikko 1,575]

Madame Cleo,

Permitting gay marriage is all about having an open mind about how people want to live their lives and define their own relationships.

Your mind is anything but open.

So Charles keeps telling me I'll tell you this, I am not open to a plural relationship, period!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Madame Cleo,

Permitting gay marriage is all about having an open mind about how people want to live their lives and define their own relationships.

Your mind is anything but open.

So Charles keeps telling me I'll tell you this, I am not open to a plural relationship, period!

And I am not open to a gay marriage, my butt is exit only. But I still support their right to marry. How they relate to each other and how their relatonship will work is none of my business.

If only you could look at plural marriage rights the same way, you'd not come across as so dogmatic and closed-minded.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Madame Cleo,

Permitting gay marriage is all about having an open mind about how people want to live their lives and define their own relationships.

Your mind is anything but open.

So Charles keeps telling me I'll tell you this, I am not open to a plural relationship, period!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

Yes, I am waiting for that answer too. I know there are polygamous societies which is not the same thing.

You don't get to define how people should live and how they should relate to each other.

If 3 dumb bichez want to be justashooter's domestic slaves, that's their right. You have no right to say their arrangement isn't 'marriage' just like justashooter has no right to say mawilson's arrangement with the unnamed male member isn't marriage.

I think the plural marriage argument is pretty spurious as the debate only exists in "theory" as a way to avoid discussions about gay marriage.

As I said - gay marriage isn't controversial from a practical point of view, it can be facilitated without impacting anyone else and without fundamental rewriting the law books.

That isn't the case if you allow plural marriage, or throw out the concept of marriage entirely.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

I'll sign that petition although one woman is way more than I can handle so I'll choose to not partake

three was good, but four was just too much. they got all katty and $hit. threw them back to their dorm rooms and quit paying for the clubbing. used to see them occasionally after that. always in pairs.

How many men were in this relationship? Just you? Seems like you were being terribly selfish.

Just out of interest, how do you envisage the sex to work, exactly? Must everyone be sexually attracted to everyone else? How do they decide who sleeps with who and when, or is it a sex free for all all the time? The mind boggles...just a little bit

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

What if you want to live with multiple partners and "derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship"?

Property ownership and raising children. Which, let's face it, is easier when there are three or four "parents".

Have an affair or two I guess...

Affairs are not for me - I want exclusivity and commitment!

How will you get that from your 3 wives and 2 husbands?

What if you want sex with wife #2 but you can't get any because Husband #1 is keeping her to himself and is nobbing her at every opportunity?

Edited June 8, 2009 by Private Pike

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

Yes, I am waiting for that answer too. I know there are polygamous societies which is not the same thing.

You don't get to define how people should live and how they should relate to each other.

If 3 dumb bichez want to be justashooter's domestic slaves, that's their right. You have no right to say their arrangement isn't 'marriage' just like justashooter has no right to say mawilson's arrangement with the unnamed male member isn't marriage.

I think the plural marriage argument is pretty spurious as the debate only exists in "theory" as a way to avoid discussions about gay marriage.

As I said - gay marriage isn't controversial from a practical point of view, it can be facilitated without impacting anyone else and without fundamental rewriting the law books.

That isn't the case if you allow plural marriage, or throw out the concept of marriage entirely.

I'm all for that. I find it quite anachronistic, really.