A question about sex..

**gnome** · June-16-09, 07:07 AM

My bubby's uncle was 65 had been married for 45 years and his wife said she was finished with sex, he wasn't and since he didn't want to break his marriage vows, they got divorced. He still loved his wife but couldn't live with her refusal; end result was a huge catastrophe of grown children taking sides, financial ruin on both sides, a sad mess.

Now each side has seperate holidays, the family is ruined and the only people who made out were the lawyers.

**Pam** · June-16-09, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

My bubby's uncle was 65 had been married for 45 years and his wife said she was finished with sex, he wasn't and since he didn't want to break his marriage vows, they got divorced. He still loved his wife but couldn't live with her refusal; end result was a huge catastrophe of grown children taking sides, financial ruin on both sides, a sad mess.

Now each side has seperate holidays, the family is ruined and the only people who made out were the lawyers.

So what are you saying- the family wouldn't have been ruined if he could have brought home another wife? What sane woman would have wanted to be part of that arrangement? As usually happens in plural marriages, one wife bosses around the other wives or one is the favorite and the others are jealous. I don't think it's the answer to anything.

**gnome** · June-16-09, 08:00 AM

you're asking a hypothetical question and extrapolating from limited information. I say you're either for freedom of choice or not. The central question is whether laws are designed to maintain the status quo and support the control of the majority or laws are designed to protect the rights of the minority.

Sticky stuff this business. It's difficult to be for minority rights, except when someone's world-view is directly in oppostion to the majority.

Don't mean to be confrontational, but I've found in conversations with feminists, that plural marriage is a deal breaker, but gay marriage is not. I've also found that being sensitive to the various sexual orientations seems to come to a halt when plural marriage is introduced to the discussion. I don't know why that is, why being liberal is demanded on one hand but squashed on the other.

Freaky.

**Pam** · June-16-09, 08:42 AM

Don't mean to be confrontational, but I've found in conversations with feminists, that plural marriage is a deal breaker, but gay marriage is not. I've also found that being sensitive to the various sexual orientations seems to come to a halt when plural marriage is introduced to the discussion. I don't know why that is, why being liberal is demanded on one hand but squashed on the other.

I thought I explained it? There is less chance of having any power or equality for wives in a plural marriage. There is a reason it died out. Not practical or easily workable. Where is the demand for plural marriage? I haven't seen it except among certain religious cults in this country.

Extending the same rights straight couples have to gay couples is simple fairness. I don't think it takes much "liberalism" at all to grasp that.

**bailey** · June-16-09, 08:49 AM

Don't mean to be confrontational, but I've found in conversations with feminists, that plural marriage is a deal breaker, but gay marriage is not

To expand a bit on Pam's post...the problem being that plural marriage is not an issue right now. Adding that to the gay marriage discussion is a canard meant to derail the discussion. That and the ridiculous claims that bestiality and consanguineous marriage are also on the table is just to paint the gay issue as somethign scary or perverse so that it may be demonized and thus more easy to reject.

Each change to marriage must be viewed on its own. Over the millennium marriage has changed from polygamy to a property arrangement between two families to a co-equal partnership based on love and family . Along with that divorce has gone from absolutely impermissible to no-fault walk away divorce. To pretend marriage hasn't evolved as mankind's perception of itself has, is disingenuous at best. To say that to allow two gays to marry MUST, in a straight line, no passing debate, or even an evaluation of its merits...MUST pass directly to bestiality and polygamy is equally as disingenuous.

The issue now is are we as a country going to treat it's citizens equally? Right now federally and at most state levels, there are two classes of people when it comes to marriage laws [[and a host of other protections). Heterosexual and homosexual. While all people are burdened with the same responsibilities only the heterosexual is permitted to enjoy all the rights and benefits of citizenship. The permissibility of that denial of rights and benefits to some is the debate.

**Sstashmoo** · June-16-09, 09:15 AM

Typically, people that want to be "married" in this day and age, interest stems from the desire to obtain financial security and quell their own insecurity. Why get married at all? Seriously, what's the point? I've been around long enough to see "marriage" ruin a lot of good friendships. When they end they are a legal quagmire.

That's what all this really boils down to, one party wanting to legally attach themselves to their mate's assets, and have some sort of legal means to retain their mate. That's what the gay marriage issue is all about. They can say what they want, but just as in hetero relationships, economics and insecurity are the underlying drivers.

**bailey** · June-16-09, 09:34 AM

That's what the gay marriage issue is all about. They can say what they want, but just as in hetero relationships, economics and insecurity are the underlying drivers.

Which is why the religious fanaticism is so ridiculous. Civil Marriage is an economic and civil construct meant to bring legal security and shared economic benefits and burdens to a couple as they build a life together. Yes, gays can go out and have and estate plan and a power of attorney and a medical directive drafted. However, time after time...these directives are ignored or refused precisely when needed most BECAUSE of the confusions about the law or simple bigotry. Further, simply entering into a contractual relationship does not address the many other benefits denied to gays. International spouses do not get citezenship....social security does not apply to gay relationships....tax benefits are not available.

If the evangelicals who are most fervently and fanatically opposed to gay marriage would advocate the removal of the State from all marriages, and remove all legal and financial benefits from all marriages... I'd be on board with their message. But, of course they are not. They object purely on religious grounds and wish to dictate their views about marriage into our civil laws. Could have sworn we were fighting in hot wars against religious extremists ...but I must have been mistaken.

**Locke09** · June-16-09, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

If the evangelicals who are most fervently and fanatically opposed to gay marriage would advocate the removal of the State from all marriages, and remove all legal and financial benefits from all marriages... I'd be on board with their message. But, of course they are not. They object purely on religious grounds and wish to dictate their views about marriage into our civil laws.

Evangelicals who object to gay marriage are actually objecting to homosexuality and their fear that gay marriage is the final step to legitimizing homosexuality. They might not admit it but that is the real reason for their fervor against it.

Evangelicals have no reason to advocate the removal of financial and legal benefits from marriage because the bible is pretty much in agreement that this is the purpose for marriage. This includes the benefits passed on to the children through inheritance. So a side benefit of marriage is the ability to believe that the children born during the marriage are the offspring of the husband and therefore have a right to inherit his property. Marriage increases the liklihood that the man is actually supporting the survival of his genes. Which answers why there is rarely a society where the woman can have many husbands. A woman knows with certainty that a child is hers, no matter how many partners she has. She knows her genes are being passed on. A man has to have some construct that reduces the liklihood that he is supporting another man's offspring.

How can we believe in evolution and be so surprised at what it has bred in us?

LodgeDodger · June-16-09, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Typically, people that want to be "married" in this day and age, interest stems from the desire to obtain financial security and quell their own insecurity. Why get married at all? Seriously, what's the point? I've been around long enough to see "marriage" ruin a lot of good friendships. When they end they are a legal quagmire.

That's what all this really boils down to, one party wanting to legally attach themselves to their mate's assets, and have some sort of legal means to retain their mate. That's what the gay marriage issue is all about. They can say what they want, but just as in hetero relationships, economics and insecurity are the underlying drivers.

Sstash, what a sad commentary on your ability to sustain a loving relationship. A real marriage, is based on respect, love, and the desire for a life-partner. Not the expectation of some sort of financial windfall by either party. My partner and I have something that I know exists in other good marriages, but to me, having such wonderful luck to have found the one person in this world who makes me happiest is nothing short of a miracle. Is it perfect? Heck no.

Is marriage for everyone? No. But it should be for anyone who has found their love.

I don't care which sex marries which, but I still do not favor plural marriages. Interestingly enough, why aren't there more plural marriages wherein a woman can marry more than one man?

**Locke09** · June-16-09, 09:55 AM

The initial question admitted some confusion as to how to label and view those undergoing the changes that Bono is undergoing. Another question is how to deal with the changing definitions of marriage. Some responses question the need to label and at least one questions the need for marriage.

Like it or not, labeling serves some evolutionary purpose. It allows humans to make some quick [[albeit prejudiced in many cases) assumptions. This is beneficial because there is not always time to analyze a situation. Taken to the extreme, labeling leads to discrimination, genocide, racism, etc. But it has value in allowing us to act more quickly instead of having to analyze each situation as though it is entirely new.

For instance: I stood afar off and watched as a bear mauled someone to death. Next time I see a bear [[or anything resembling a bear), I know there is the likelihood of danger and I take action to escape or not get close enough to be noticed. Or, I am a woman. I see a handsome man with no ring on his finger. I would like to be able to assume he is single and interested in women so I can begin my flirting

I don't want to have to ask him a list of questions before I get my prowl on. That's why we tend towards labeling. Yes, we are of a higher order than other animals and are supposed to use our brains more, but the shortcuts are really very helpful. The woman who doesn't go through the list, but accepts the label instead, might get the man before I do. Evolutionary advantage goes to labeling. This is also why, like it or not, people get so offended when you confuse their labels. Some people are outright dismayed when they meet a minority who is actually intelligent. Now they have to take time to think about each person as an individual.Not having labels is just a lot more work and makes our brains hurt.

Marriage exists as has been said, to provide legal rights to assets, and also the legal ability to make decisions about the care of a person [[be it spouse or children). It establishes inheritance rights for children born to the marriage. It's just a contract, and if it is abolished some other contract will have to take its place because you will still need to have a framework for establishing the rights afforded in marriage. And that contract will have to state who can legitimately enter into it.

So, I think that labeling is not going anywhere and marriage [[or some replacement contract) is not going anywhere. But my mind can always be changed by additional information.

**gnome** · June-16-09, 09:41 AM

But plural marriage is not a rarity in most of the world. It seems rather chauvenistic to consider that the established euro-centric structure is the only one to be considered.

What makes the european tradition the only one that can be discussed? On a global scale, christianity is dwarfed by other religous and culturial beliefs. Why are people, who believe they are open to all beliefs, are selective in the beliefs and traditions that can be practiced by others? Just doesn't seem fair that euro-centric traditions and beliefs are the only ones that can be followed.

In this, the best of all possible worlds, free men and women should be able to express their love in a manner that suits them. What makes euro-centric traditons better than any other? To misquote Barry Goldwater," discrimination in the defense of liberty is a vice!"

**Sstashmoo** · June-16-09, 10:06 AM

Quote: "christianity is dwarfed by other religous and culturial beliefs."

Oh really? Christianity in one form or another is the most practiced religion globally. And not by a little, by a factor of about 3 times more than the next, which is Islam. 160 million people right here in the US classify themselves as "Christian", over half the population. Around 80% of the US population believes in God or a God. Some polls have it closer to 90%. US Women typically poll near 90%.

**rb336** · June-16-09, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "christianity is dwarfed by other religous and culturial beliefs."

Oh really? Christianity in one form or another is the most practiced religion globally. And not by a little, by a factor of about 3 times more than the next, which is Islam..

2.1 billion for xtianity
1.5 for islam
1.1 atheist/nonreligious/secular/humanist/agnostic
900 million hindu

ccbatson · June-16-09, 03:47 PM

Yep, Christianity is the biggest religious group in the world...Sstash got this one right.

**gnome** · June-16-09, 08:12 PM

I stand corrected. Thank you for opening my eyes to the real numbers.

... now, back to your regularly scheduled argument.

ccbatson · June-16-09, 11:42 PM

Kudos Gnome....rare to see a gracious admission of error here [[including myself).

**rb336** · June-17-09, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Kudos Gnome....rare to see a gracious admission of error here [[including myself).

that is funny, and everyone but you understands why

ccbatson · June-17-09, 11:09 PM

Missed the "including myself" part, did you?

Ravine · June-18-09, 09:34 PM

Let's not be so hard on [[tee hee!) plural marriage.
Like most things, it has its strong points and weak points.
Weak Point: If you're the guy, you're probably going to be responsible for buying more food.
Strong Point: Having multiple wives who don't give a damn whether or not you ever get a decent meal will forestall you from feeling too much anger and/or resentment directly toward any one of them. Also, the decline in cooking will, eventually, help in defraying the expense cited in "Weak Point."
It's not exactly what they call a "win-win," but I'm not very competitive, anyway.
Just hungry.

**Locke09** · June-18-09, 10:46 PM

Plural marriage can make sense in any society where there are more women than there are available men to go around, especially as we age, since women live longer. What are the extra women supposed to do? Remain celibate? Commit adultery with a married man? What if these women want to have children? The only reason it doesn't make sense is because we're selfish and don't want to share.

LodgeDodger · June-18-09, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

Plural marriage can make sense in any society where there are more women than there are available men to go around, especially as we age, since women live longer. What are the extra women supposed to do? Remain celibate? Commit adultery with a married man? What if these women want to have children? The only reason it doesn't make sense is because we're selfish and don't want to share.

Here's a question: Is it considered adultery [[on the woman's part) if she were single and slept with a married man?

ccbatson · June-18-09, 10:59 PM

Plural marriages are incongruent with the value of individual dignity and pride. In other words, you can't have both.

ccbatson · June-18-09, 11:06 PM

Uhhh, yea. If your spouse were having an affair with a single person, would you not consider it adultery?

**oladub** · June-18-09, 11:23 PM

19 states allow first cousins to marry. In Michigan it is illegal for first cousins to marry. Will two same sex cousins who love each other be allowed to marry in Michigan if gay marriage is legalized? If not, why not?

**Locke09** · June-19-09, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

19 states allow first cousins to marry. In Michigan it is illegal for first cousins to marry. Will two same sex cousins who love each other be allowed to marry in Michigan if gay marriage is legalized? If not, why not?

Historically, first cousins were not allowed to marry to reduce the risk of passing on genetic defects. So, there seems to be no reason to prohibit gay first cousins from marrying in Michigan. With the advances in genetic screening, there is no scientific reason to prohibit any relatives from marrying. There are only social and religious taboos.

Again, in the interest of honesty though, marrying any near-relative just seems icky. At least down through 3rd cousins. But that's just me.