Gay Marriage

[Coggeh]

I was just wondering maybe to stir up some discussion about our position on Gay marriage , why not call just for Civil unions will the full benefits of marriage but not marriage itself?

I say this because the church disagrees with it and its their religion should we enforce them to marry homosexual couples? are the state or the governing body in a position to do so ?

Thoughts ?

[Sentinel]

I was just wondering maybe to stir up some discussion about our position on Gay marriage , why not call just for Civil unions will the full benefits of marriage but not marriage itself?

I'd never get married in a church, whether they want me or not, that's for sure. I agree that it's enough to acquire the full legal benefits of marriage -- whose relations the church chooses to 'bless' can be totally up to them, I don't give two shits about that.

The refusal to marry gay couples only makes the stupidity of religion more evident for all, and hopefully turns more people off it.

[BobKKKindle$]

I say this because the church disagrees with it and its their religion should we enforce them to marry homosexual couples

Marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony, as it is now possible get married without having to speak to a priest or even enter a church simply by conducting a legal process in the presence of a public official, and so it would be wrong to exclude gay people from getting married on religious grounds, even though there may be certain religious leaders who regard homosexuality as a sin. Not allowing homosexuals to get married is discriminatory, and legitimizes the idea that homosexuals should not be treated in the same as straight people, and so supports homophobic ideas.

[Mariner's Revenge]

If marriage is seen under the eyes of the state, any two citizens, of legal age, should be able to get married and get economic benefits.

If marriage is seen under the eyes of a particular god, then those who speak for this god should decide who gets married by their religion. If economic benefits are given, then the same should be allowed to any two citizens, of legal age, as well.

[Black Dagger]

Calling for 'civil unions' has the same problem as calling for 'same-sex marriage' it caters to a specific demographic, ignoring the rights of everyone not in a monogamous relationship.

I don't think anyone in a relationship with one (or more) people should face legalised discrimination or maltreatment. LGBTI or hetero peoples in polyamorous relationships, non/monogamous relationships, married or whatever should enjoy the same basic rights regardless of whether their relationship is officially sanctioned by the state or church.

[Lector Malibu]

Bob and Sentinel pretty much hit the nail on the head and articulated what I would say as well in response.

Basically we need the exact equivalent legally and status wise. Church marriage should not be more special than "Unions"

[Winter]

Calling for 'civil unions' has the same problem as calling for 'same-sex marriage' it caters to a specific demographic, ignoring the rights of everyone not in a monogamous relationship.

I don't think anyone in a relationship with one (or more) people should face legalised discrimination or maltreatment. LGBTI or hetero peoples in polyamorous relationships, non/monogamous relationships, married or whatever should enjoy the same basic rights regardless of whether their relationship is officially sanctioned by the state or church.

I completely agree with this. Even if you call it a different name but give the same benefits as marriage you are soley targeting a specific group of people. By using different terms we are ostracizing them from the rest of humanity.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I don't think a government that claims it doesn't favour one religion over another should recognize any marriage.

Leave marriage as a religious institution, and if the government wants to recognize civil unions (for tax exemptions or whatever), recognize all civil unions equally; two or many partners, same or different sex, romantic or friendship, etc.

[Plagueround]

I don't think a government that claims it doesn't favour one religion over another should recognize any marriage.

Leave marriage as a religious institution, and if the government wants to recognize civil unions (for tax exemptions or whatever), recognize all civil unions equally; two or many partners, same or different sex, romantic or friendship, etc.

Why does marriage need to be a strictly religious institution in the first place and not just the word to describe such a civil union? Sounds like euphemistic bullshit to me. I'd love to see them explain to all non-religious marriages they are now a "civil union". :laugh:

[apathy maybe]

I've said it before, and here I go again, the state has no right to know or care about my relationship/s. Fuck off nanny state! I don't want your kind 'round here.

This applies equally to hetero, gay, poly, mono, whatever.

(And not all religions refuse to recognise gay relationships, the Swedish church has said it will marry two person's of the same gender. Doesn't help people in multi person relationships, but whatever.)

[Holden Caulfield]

i have never understood marriage, (as oppose to civil partnerships which sound a better option, but i dont know the details)

and especially not gay marriage, for thousands of years a homophobic organisation is prejudice against you and preches that you will end up in eternal damnation, then changes it mind, and gay couples actually want this organisation to bless their love, why not just get a nazi to do it?

[Ismail]

Marriage is unnecessary and even harmful due to superficiality and focus off of love. Ideally, the Bolsheviks just wanted unions for everyone. Only thing required was love between two persons. I see nothing wrong with this and everyone is probably in agreement here. The only reason the Bolsheviks didn't implement this was due to the backwards views most of the USSR shared, especially in the Central Asian SSRs.

[Holden Caulfield]

and the fact all (well most) the (newer easier) divorces were asked for by men,

which didnt really help in the whole equality thing

[Lector Malibu]

i have never understood marriage, (as oppose to civil partnerships which sound a better option, but i dont know the details)

and especially not gay marriage, for thousands of years a homophobic organisation is prejudice against you and preches that you will end up in eternal damnation, then changes it mind, and gay couples actually want this organisation to bless their love, why not just get a nazi to do it?

Actually there is this element too. I raised this point briefly last night but then the psp decided to be weird (I'm obsessed)

It's more of a point. Personally I chose , like alot of others to stay as far away from religion as possible but the point is; is that there is no reason any groupings of people should not be equally married by the church.

Than like Apathy said it's not anyone's business (especially the states ) as well.

[black magick hustla]

Calling for 'civil unions' has the same problem as calling for 'same-sex marriage' it caters to a specific demographic, ignoring the rights of everyone not in a monogamous relationship.

I don't think anyone in a relationship with one (or more) people should face legalised discrimination or maltreatment. LGBTI or hetero peoples in polyamorous relationships, non/monogamous relationships, married or whatever should enjoy the same basic rights regardless of whether their relationship is officially sanctioned by the state or church.

To be honest, I don't think "polyamourous" relationship hold the same weight as monogamous relationships. I read somewhewre that poligamy is esentially a patriarchal invention, and I have to agree with it. Even if it is the way around, like 2 males and one female, it wouldn't be a reciprocal relationship, I think. Anyway, I guess you could make the argument for 2 males and 2 females, or other similar things lol.

[Dr Mindbender]

I was just wondering maybe to stir up some discussion about our position on Gay marriage , why not call just for Civil unions will the full benefits of marriage but not marriage itself?

I say this because the church disagrees with it and its their religion should we enforce them to marry homosexual couples? are the state or the governing body in a position to do so ?

Thoughts ?

once upon a time the church also wanted us to believe that the sun spins round the earth and that the earth was made in literally 6 days.

I don't see why we should have to concede ground on the gay marriage debate either.

[ifeelyou]

once upon a time the church also wanted us to believe that the sun spins round the earth and that the earth was made in literally 6 days.

I don't see why we should have to concede ground on the gay marriage debate either.

also, as recently as 1967, in the united states, the church used biblical arguments, similar to those currently being used to condemn gay marriage, in order to support anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited interracial marriage. sadly, bigoted limits on who could marry who is nothing new.

[Mujer Libre]

To be honest, I don't think "polyamourous" relationship hold the same weight as monogamous relationships. I read somewhewre that poligamy is esentially a patriarchal invention, and I have to agree with it. Even if it is the way around, like 2 males and one female, it wouldn't be a reciprocal relationship, I think. Anyway, I guess you could make the argument for 2 males and 2 females, or other similar things lol.

Polyamoury has nothing to do with polygamy, which is marriage (or similar, patriarchal understandings of a relationship) imposed on a relatioship of one man and many women... Polyamoury as a political concept is an alternative way of imagining relationships, emphasising autonomy, respect and freedom (as well as... love, sex and all the rest). It's also not necessarily about one person in a long term relationship with two people of the opposite gender... Polyamoury comes in many forms, open relationships, triads.... whatever.

Also, of course they don't "hold the same weight" as monogamous relationships- monogamy is the norm in our society, and I think that's pretty much all you're basing your opinion on.

[Decolonize The Left]

Calling for 'civil unions' has the same problem as calling for 'same-sex marriage' it caters to a specific demographic, ignoring the rights of everyone not in a monogamous relationship.

I don't think anyone in a relationship with one (or more) people should face legalised discrimination or maltreatment. LGBTI or hetero peoples in polyamorous relationships, non/monogamous relationships, married or whatever should enjoy the same basic rights regardless of whether their relationship is officially sanctioned by the state or church.

:thumbup1:

- August

[bcbm]

The state shouldn't sanction any marriages, period. Problem solved.

[black magick hustla]

Polyamoury has nothing to do with polygamy, which is marriage (or similar, patriarchal understandings of a relationship) imposed on a relatioship of one man and many women... Polyamoury as a political concept is an alternative way of imagining relationships, emphasising autonomy, respect and freedom (as well as... love, sex and all the rest). It's also not necessarily about one person in a long term relationship with two people of the opposite gender... Polyamoury comes in many forms, open relationships, triads.... whatever.

Also, of course they don't "hold the same weight" as monogamous relationships- monogamy is the norm in our society, and I think that's pretty much all you're basing your opinion on.

Well I mean "hold the same weight", not in a social sense, but in a political sense. I don't really mind if someone enjoys free love, or something like that. I am saying from the point of view of tax breaks and other sort of things that come with the institution of marriage. I don't think it is possible to have life long relationships with more than two people without there being some sort of non-reciprocal relationship. (For example, someone that has three girlfriends, or a girl that has three boyfrieneds). Or someone that has one boyfriend and a girlfriend. Hence why hippie communes tended to collapse on their own weight.

Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this discussion because I think the institution of marriage should be abolished - so basically I am discussing here on the terms of the ruling class.

[feminist dyke whore]

I think monogamy is a capitalistic - patriarchal invention.

[Reuben]

The thing is FDW monogamy preceded capitalism by thousands of years. While polygamy and monogamy do not exist in a cultural vacuum - the dominant culture encourages the former and derides the latter - i really do see this as a matter of personal preference. Just as people may desire polyamourous relationships, people may also genuinely desire monogamous relationships - and not simply because they have been blinded by the dominant culture. When you've been around the left a bit you get a bit sick of the superscillious polyamorous types who are convinced that they are far more liberated than those who happen to be in monogamous relationships.

[John Lenin]

If straight people have to suffer through marriage ... so should gays. ;)

[Sentinel]

Topic split -- in case you are looking for your posts, alp, they're in Opposing Ideologies where they belong. Please don't post outside that forum from now on.

A homophobe comes to RevLeft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/homophobe-comes-revleft-t86363/index.html?t=86363)

[PigmerikanMao]

Isn't forcing churches to recognize homosexual unions a break in the separation of church and state?
In any case, I don't think marriage should matter if you actually "love" the person you're with. The idea that the pinnacle of a relationship is a binding legal contract upheld by the state over the issue of material possessions makes the whole idea a bit bourgeois and unappealing to me. To be frank, I'd rather be a hippie.

[PigmerikanMao]

I think monogamy is a capitalistic - patriarchal invention.

Sing it, sister! :thumbup1:

[Decolonize The Left]

Isn't forcing churches to recognize homosexual unions a break in the separation of church and state?

Well this implies that churches are involved in marriages, which is a state institution, which is already an enormous breach of the separation of church and state....

- August

[black magick hustla]

I think monogamy is a capitalistic - patriarchal invention.


Too bad there where monogamous relationships even before civilization existed. :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

I think monogamy is a capitalistic - patriarchal invention.Too bad there where monogamous relationships even before civilization existed. :rolleyes:

Some penguins have monogamous relationships too. I would blame capital/patriarchy for that as well.

Devrim

[chimx]

There have also been matriarchal tribal societies that have been monogamous.

[Dr Mindbender]

magpies are also monogonous.

[Reuben]

Total pwnership

[PigmerikanMao]

Granted that the capitalist patriarchal societies didn't "invent" monogamy, it is mostly carried by those groups and used as a tool even by the bourgeois opportunists in the modern world.
:lol:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I find Polyamoury to be a bunch of activistoid silliness in most cases. In the outside world people call it "friends with benefits," but leftists need to give their sex some sort of political twinge so it becomes some sort of revolt against societal norms. Really its just two people who like fucking each other, but aren't willing to commit to anything too serious. That's perfectly fine by me, but when I do that, I call it for what it is.

Love requires a degree of exclusivity, that's why its such a big deal and such a big gamble. You feel so taken in by another that you irrationally devote yourself to them and only them. With an open relationship, you're renouncing what makes love love, the risk and the complete devotion. Without it,you get just another relationship.

[Black Dagger]

I find Polyamoury to be a bunch of activistoid silliness in most cases. In the outside world people call it "friends with benefits," but leftists need to give their sex some sort of political twinge so it becomes some sort of revolt against societal norms. Really its just two people who like fucking each other, but aren't willing to commit to anything too serious. That's perfectly fine by me, but when I do that, I call it for what it is.

I'm in a relationship at the moment, been together for five years - two years or so have been as an open relationship.

There is no difference between the 'commitment' we have as a couple and the 'commitment' of anyone in an monogamous relationship - though i don't classify sexual ownership as 'commitment'. Whilst we have emotional 'exclusivity' - in the sense that we love each other deeply, and without parallel - sexual exclusivity does not follow, and IMO has nothing to do with 'love'. Sex can exist without love and love itself is much more than sex so i see no reason why love be dependant on sexual exclusivity.


With an open relationship, you're renouncing what makes love love, the risk and the complete devotion. Without it,you get just another relationship.

This is a thoroughly monogamous perception of 'love' - if only having sex with one person is 'love' to you - that's great - but that that is not the definition of love (hint: there is no definition). For me love is more about exclusive emotional 'devotion' than physical 'devotion'. If i have sex with someone else that doesn't mean i love my partner any less or that i now 'love' the person whom ive sexed - the two are not connected. It's just a silly notion, hopelessly arbitrary and without reason - perhaps it works for the insecure, or in the case of immature 'love' - but IMO if you're seriously, deeply connected to someone it should not be an issue but for ego.

[Raúl Duke]

I say this because the church disagrees with it and its their religion should we enforce them to marry homosexual couples? are the state or the governing body in a position to do so ?There're are more then just one religion... The bourgeois state could just permit gay marriage but not force it and there will still be some religions willing to marry gay couples.

The problem with banning it is that it would carter to a specific group of religions over others. The fact that the bourgeoisie state in some places have not allowed it and, in federal systems like the U.S., have slightly (but failed) aimed for a federal (as in all the states in the U.S. for example; constitutional amendments) ban of it shows that all that "seperation of church and state" is non-existent (or, more specifically, not so strong) in some nations, specifically the U.S.. Other religions probably have no problem with same-sex marriages and would happily marry them.

Although, considering the fact that marriages and civil unions come with benefits, such as economical benefits; would it be "useful" in a communist (as in the classless, stateless one) society? What would marriage be in the context of a communist society?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Note: This may have a lot of typos.


I'm in a relationship at the moment, been together for five years - two years or so have been as an open relationship.

There is no difference between the 'commitment' we have as a couple and the 'commitment' of anyone in an monogamous relationship - though i don't classify sexual ownership as 'commitment'. Whilst we have emotional 'exclusivity' - in the sense that we love each other deeply, and without parallel - sexual exclusivity does not follow, and IMO has nothing to do with 'love'. Sex can exist without love and love itself is much more than sex so i see no reason why love be dependant on sexual exclusivity.

Well you’ve just won the argument by changing the goalposts here. If sexual exclusivity no longer factors into commitment, then you are correct sir, polyamory is just as good as monogamy. However, that is not the case.

This inability to bridge the body/mind dichotomy is the major failing of polyamory. For the vast majority of the human population, sex and love are intrinsically linked. For most people, gay, straight, bi, or whatever, sexual exclusivity is a key part of love. Physical intimacy and emotional intimacy are not divisible qualities. They intermingle and interact with one another. Physical intimacy can bring on emotional intimacy and visa versa. That’s why sexual exclusivity is so important. When you make love to someone you don’t just exchange bodily fluids, something more happens. By sharing your body with multiple partners you dilute the strength of that bond.

Then there is the other major flaw, which manifests itself all the time in polyamorous relationships. Someone says, “Oh we can have sex with other people, but we really are in love.” Well sure you may love that person more than anyone else at the moment. But are you headstrong in love, to the point where there need be no other? Well no, because you clearly require other sexual partners in order to keep the relationship healthy. And that’s a key difference. Love is more than anything about irrational risk. Love is not safe, by its very definition it is a dangerous gamble. Open relationships are a way to hedge your emotional bet; you don’t have to fully invest in the other person, just as much as you feel comfortable.

That’s why most open relationships aren’t serious. I have no doubt yours is wonderful and serious and great. I’m glad for you, I hope it continues comrade. But most instances of ‘polyamory” are just a radical veneer to a timeless and pedestrian arrangement, friends with benefits.


This is a thoroughly monogamous perception of 'love' - if only having sex with one person is 'love' to you - that's great - but that that is not the definition of love (hint: there is no definition). For me love is more about exclusive emotional 'devotion' than physical 'devotion'. If i have sex with someone else that doesn't mean i love my partner any less or that i now 'love' the person whom ive sexed - the two are not connected. It's just a silly notion, hopelessly arbitrary and without reason - perhaps it works for the insecure, or in the case of immature 'love' - but IMO if you're seriously, deeply connected to someone it should not be an issue but for ego.

There you go changing the conceptual goalposts again.

Love and monogamy are sort of tied together. Humans are largely, monogamous creatures, and the concept of love evolved to convey those monogamous ideas. Love is so valued precisely because monogamy is such an illogical, possibly unhappy, arrangement. To claim that there is no definition is a lot like claiming there is no human nature. You’re taking an idea that has a blurry definition, and claiming that there is no discernible definition because it’s blurry. This is wrong, we can still see through the conceptual fog, often with great detail.

Just like human nature, love has a general definition that most humans recognize. Love first and foremost is about risk. All cultures agree that romantic love has a lot of risk. Why? Well because you are devoting yourself completely to another, not only in an emotional commitment, but a physical commitment as well. BFFs have absolute emotional devotion to one another, and they are categorically different from lovers. Love is about putting it all on the table. Not just your thoughts and feelings. Polyamory fails this test unequivocally as it only requires emotional devotion.

The other defining characteristic is an intimacy, so pronounced that the two individuals become linked in a metaphysical and epistemological way. When you talk of one you inevitably talk of the other. When you make plans, they function as the highest priority. Do we witness this sort of “tied at the hipness” in open relationships? I certainly don’t. I never met anyone involved in a polyamorous relationship where one intrinsically evoked the other. Actually, the two are easily separated. Why wouldn’t they be? If you’re sleeping with other people the general human response is that you’re not fully devoted to that other person. You’re far more autonomous; in fact, you could leave your love for one of your lovers with relative ease. There you see that physical intimacy flowing into a stronger emotional intimacy, again destroying this body/mind nonsense.

That’s important to understand. In any polyamoros relationship, the two “in love” could suddenly separate without the utter metaphysical and epistemological destruction that you see in long term monogamous relationships. Why? Because physical and emotional intimacy are linked! And if you’re fucking someone else, you can immediately form new bonds.

Now after we weigh all the argument, I think it’s clear that polyamory is no more “mature” than monogamous relationships. I think real life, and reasonable analysis show that open relationships are often the less mature option. It allows those who are not willing to take the irrational and foolhardy gambit that is romantic love, a safer alternative. That’s why people tend to associate “settling down” and marriage with getting older. You no longer want low risk, but less fulfilling arrangements, but opt for high risk, more fulfilling relationships.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think we need to go into much philosophy about what is "love" etc. i am sure you could be fucking a ton of people and yet you really like one of them a lot. but i do think like joe hill that the whole "polyamourus" thing sounds more like making a political statement out of something very mundane. its in the same level of people stripping naked and riding bikes as a political statement, or people who think monogamy is a patriarchal capitalist invention (lol)

[Black Dagger]

Well you’ve just won the argument by changing the goalposts here. If sexual exclusivity no longer factors into commitment, then you are correct sir, polyamory is just as good as monogamy. However, that is not the case.

There is no argument to be 'won' here - your conception of love is different to mine - but that's the nature of love - there is no objective definition - it is a subjective thing - an experience, feelings, emotions - a process, habits formed. In light of this, such definitive words... 'However, that is not the case' are hollow and on the face of it, quite absurd.

I am accused of 'moving the goal posts' (repeatedly), but have you not done the same thing? I say one thing, but this is dismissed - i don't know what love is - it's something else that you define. If i say my love is capable of this, you say that it is not - i am wrong and that my love is not meaningful (or as meaningful) - who are you to say such things?


This inability to bridge the body/mind dichotomy is the major failing of polyamory.

I don't understand, how have i failed? How is my relationship, my love flawed?



For the vast majority of the human population, sex and love are intrinsically linked.

At present - yes, but this or any notion of love is not eternal - there is no transhistorical 'love' - only what is culturally constituted from time to time, and by people themselves.



For most people, gay, straight, bi, or whatever, sexual exclusivity is a key part of love.

And that is fine - that is a conception of love with which most people are raised, and which is promoted as the highest ideal of our culture - so for 'most people' to identify with this is only natural, but that says nothing of what love is.



Physical intimacy and emotional intimacy are not divisible qualities. They intermingle and interact with one another. Physical intimacy can bring on emotional intimacy and visa versa. That’s why sexual exclusivity is so important. When you make love to someone you don’t just exchange bodily fluids, something more happens. By sharing your body with multiple partners you dilute the strength of that bond.

Can you not see how odd this sounds? You are ascribing objective qualities to a subjective experience, immutable, universal laws to one of the most culturally fluid products of human society.

For you this may be the truest thing in the world, but to speak as if this holds true for everyone is fallacious. You conceive love in 'classical' terms, and of course you are correct, there is a relationship between physical and emotional intimacy - the two compliment each other. But humans are incredibly intelligent, sophisticated beings we are capable of much more complex interaction and relationships.

My relationship is built upon the strongest, deepest friendship i have ever known - upon mutual respect and trust. For me sex is not a bad thing, i'm glad that my partner is free to satisfy themselves, their desire when they feel it - that they need not feel guilty or worse to hide this from me, or lie to themselves and pretend it does not exist - that our bond would simply disolve their humanity.

I could not hope to be the only desireable human on the planet - and i accept that humbley, happily. But nevertheless i know that they love and desire me, and that our relationship is more than our physical desire for each other. Because our relationship is built first on an emotional level and second on a physical level, the latter flowing seamlessly from the former. For me, this state of affairs only stengthens our bond, we share this complete trust and honesty with each other, which is the undoing of so many monogamous relationships.


But are you headstrong in love, to the point where there need be no other? Well no, because you clearly require other sexual partners in order to keep the relationship healthy.

Given you know nothing of my relationship, this is rather presumptious don't you think? Our relationship need not be open to remain strong, you think too much of sex and its role in my relationship.



And that’s a key difference. Love is more than anything about irrational risk. Love is not safe, by its very definition it is a dangerous gamble. Open relationships are a way to hedge your emotional bet; you don’t have to fully invest in the other person, just as much as you feel comfortable.

There is nothing 'open' about my emotions - i am wholeheartedly dedicated to my partner in that regard.



But most instances of ‘polyamory” are just a radical veneer to a timeless and pedestrian arrangement, friends with benefits.

Polyamorous relationships are not of one particular type, 'in most cases' is a gross-generalisation, especially considering you seem to have an irrational (?) disdain for such relationships.

There are probably people who claim to be in 'monogamous' relationships that practice swinging or are otherwise sexually non-monogamous in some way (and i'm not talking about 'cheating'). I think it is misguided to speak of polyamourous relationships as if they share all share a common structure, foundation, flaw or strength - all relationships, regardless of their stucture are merely the sum of the participants. People are what make relationships work (or not as the case may be).

Of course it is true that for some people '‘polyamory” may 'just a radical veneer to a timeless and pedestrian arrangement, friends with benefits' - for some people monogamy is merely an insurance policy - for the emotionally insecure or dependant, or otherwise plagued by mistrust or boredom. For others, and i imagine you are one of these, it is a beautiful sun that bathes everything in an endless warmth and glow. Never ceasing to brighten your day and warm your heart, and this is something we share in common - that's love.



Love and monogamy are sort of tied together.

In our culture perhaps, in your mind too - but not beyond this. I'm sorry, but love is not the property of monogamy or any particular type of human relationship, that is baseless assertion.



Just like human nature, love has a general definition that most humans recognize.

I'm finding it difficult to respond to your 'argument' - it consists mainly of unsupported assertions of fact? Short of saying, 'prove it' - i'm kind of at a loss. No, i don't think there is a universal definition of love accepted by most humans, and even if there was - so what? I don't care what other people think 'love' is - least of all its popular conception. Love is the property of individuals not society or culture.



All cultures agree that romantic love has a lot of risk. Why?

Which cultures?
As a general rule, I find it difficult to take any sentence that begins with 'all cultures agree', seriously.



Love is about putting it all on the table.

I'm not sure what you mean 'it all' - but i can assure you that, unlike most mongamous couples which lack a state of complete honesty - predicated on exclusivity and the illogical limits that imposes- i keep nothing from my partner.



Not just your thoughts and feelings. Polyamory fails this test unequivocally as it only requires emotional devotion.

I don't see how polyamory can honestly 'fail' a 'test' that designed with the conclusion already in mind? That is fallacious. Obviously polyamory is not the same as monogamy, they entail different perspectives on what love is.



Do we witness this sort of “tied at the hipness” in open relationships? I certainly don’t. I never met anyone involved in a polyamorous relationship where one intrinsically evoked the other. Actually, the two are easily separated. Why wouldn’t they be?

This says nothing of open relationships as a concept, other than that the people who are a part of them are a heterogeneous group - that some of what are called 'open relationships' function in one way and others in a different way. That you have no experience with people in an open relationship with a greater level of commitment to one another is not a strike against all open relationships. Certainly i don't think my friends would agree with you.



If you’re sleeping with other people the general human response is that you’re not fully devoted to that other person.

I guess perhaps, if by 'human' you mean, judgemental, one who has disdain for polyamoury or an otherwise rigid conception of human sexuality and relationships.



You’re far more autonomous; in fact, you could leave your love for one of your lovers with relative ease.

Perhaps i have no made myself clear.

Because clearly you have no appreciation or understanding of my relationship (really how could you?). Indeed, you seem rather incapable/unwilling to conceive of any kind of love that contradicts your own definition. I don't have a harem of 'lovers' from which i pick and choose lead by my 'special' love. I have one love, one partner, one lover.

Being open to the idea of having sex with another person outside of this relationship is not the same as living in a commune. For you to suggest that it would be 'easy' for me or my partner to run away with some random with whom we might have a one-night stand is both laughable and insulting. We are deeply committed to each other, anyone else we meet is secondary not equal to our relationship. I don't love anyone else. It would be no easier for me to leave my love for another than it would you or anyone else in a committed relationship - i cannot fathom the hurt and pain that would cause i would never want to inflict that upon them.



That’s important to understand. In any polyamoros relationship, the two “in love” could suddenly separate without the utter metaphysical and epistemological destruction that you see in long term monogamous relationships. Why? Because physical and emotional intimacy are linked! And if you’re fucking someone else, you can immediately form new bonds.

In reality theory and practice are somewhat different.

Given your ideological commitment the possibility of anything contradicting your own ideas is unfathomable.

You continually talk as if your statements are facts, and your conception of love gospel truth - that anything else is an evil heresy, doomed to fail, inherently vile, debasing of love and humanity. I'm sorry but you're wrong, i am testament to this, my love is a testament this. Of course what you say may be true for some people, some relationships - but all that really means is that people approach relationships differently and some people in open relationships are less committed to their partner than others.




Now after we weigh all the argument, I think it’s clear that polyamory is no more “mature” than monogamous relationships. I think real life, and reasonable analysis show that open relationships are often the less mature option. It allows those who are not willing to take the irrational and foolhardy gambit that is romantic love, a safer alternative. That’s why people tend to associate “settling down” and marriage with getting older. You no longer want low risk, but less fulfilling arrangements, but opt for high risk, more fulfilling relationships.

Hmmm yes yes, monogamy is more mature because it is popular and culturally acceptable, rewarded etc. i agree yes yes.

This is the most bizarre discussion i have had in some time.

[bcbm]

Humans are largely, monogamous creatures, and the concept of love evolved to convey those monogamous ideas.Humans are largely monogamous? Care to cite some statistics that back that up? How many "monogamous" relationships, marriages, etc end due to infidelity? How many cultures have historically accepted that arrangement? Given what I know of history, I can safely wager on an answer- not many. Humans are, largely, non-monogamous creatures- we fuck a lot of people, a lot, even if social norms tell us we shouldn't. Some cultures have systems that allow this to make sense, allowing polyamory without any strings, or perhaps with some strings but accepting the basic fact that people like to sleep around. I would argue that monogamy is in fact the deviation from the norm in this scenario, and the way it has generally been carried out has definitely been in a patriarchal way. Monogamy has generally existed as a way to prevent women from sleeping around in order for men to know that their children were, in fact, their children and thus they could leave them their property, etc without any guilt. Why do you think so many societies have had some level of polygamy present? Men are allowed to fuck around, but women aren't, and that is where polygamy and monogamy come together. In more recent times the definitions have become more strict but, again, historically monogamy in its modern form simply has not been on the table.

So, no, humans are not largely monogamous and trying to bring in shit about love and tie it to monogamy as a trait of "human nature" in society is flat out absurd. Humans basically act in relationships as the cultural climate permits them to. In our society, that is generally monogamy and so the cultural perception of concepts like "love," etc relies on that. That does not make them innate. And "love" is a rather fickle concept anyway. Its the result of certain chemicals in our brain and they wear off much quicker than you would expect, making things beyond that point something else entirely.


In any polyamoros relationship, the two “in love” could suddenly separate without the utter metaphysical and epistemological destruction that you see in long term monogamous relationships. Why? Because physical and emotional intimacy are linked! And if you’re fucking someone else, you can immediately form new bonds.

Perhaps you are familiar with the term re-bound fuck? It happens when a monogamous relationship ends and the partners seek sort of comfort in a physical interaction with another. Guess what? It doesn't work. Ending a monogamous relationship and then fucking one (or lots) of other people does little to lessen the pain. The same principle applies in polyamory. Ending a serious emotional connection with another human being still fucking hurts and I frankly find it insulting for you to suggest it doesn't. I've been in both situations and they both hurt a lot and are very rough to get through. So fuck you.


I think real life, and reasonable analysis show that open relationships are often the less mature option. It allows those who are not willing to take the irrational and foolhardy gambit that is romantic love, a safer alternative. That’s why people tend to associate “settling down” and marriage with getting older. You no longer want low risk, but less fulfilling arrangements, but opt for high risk, more fulfilling relationships.

Yes, being honest about the fact that human beings like to fuck lots of people and enjoy a variety of situations but can still have long-term emotional commitment to one (or several) people and figuring out a way to deal with that is way less mature than locking yourself into a relationship and not being honest about your desires. Or hey, maybe both options work for different people and involve the same level of emotional commitment on the part of the participants, so every one should shut the fuck up about which is better or more mature or natural or whatever and allow for the fact that we all interact differently and stop placing judgments on how we choose to form romantic relationships?

[RevMARKSman]

Love first and foremost is about risk. All cultures agree that romantic love has a lot of risk. Why? Well because you are devoting yourself completely to another, not only in an emotional commitment, but a physical commitment as well.

All right, take an example.

Two people are in a romantic relationship. They are completely emotionally devoted to one another. However, they never have sex, because neither feels the need to do so. Is their love any less than that of a strictly monogamous couple because they do not need the "illogical, risky boundary" of self-imposed monogamy? Is it only "love" when people are having sex? Or when someone wants to cross the boundary (i.e. "cheat") but decides not to?

[feminist dyke whore]

Some penguins have monogamous relationships too. I would blame capital/patriarchy for that as well.

Devrim

Yes! One day our penguin sisters shall be free from the oppression of capa-pengu-patriarchy! :lol:

O.K. so "invent" was the wrong word to use. I profusely apologize for the misunderstanding. I'll reiterate - I think monogamy has been exploited by capital-patriarchal society as the default form of a relationship and love. I personally have nothing against monogamy, it can be great, but I don't think all relationships should be confined to a certain formula. Each individual and individual relationship should be able to express "love" in any form they wish.
So therefore Gay marriage should definitely be legal and so should polyamours and polygamous relationships be realized as real expressions of love, and also be entitled to equal rights that hetrosexual monogamous couples receive.

[bcbm]

So therefore Gay marriage should definitely be legal

No, marriage should not be a state issue.

[Hawk_]

Gays should have the right to marry, but churches shouldn't be forced to marry them.

[Prisoner#69]

Marriage is a business. It should be removed.

[trivas7]

No, marriage should not be a state issue.
I agree. The state has no business here.

[Prisoner#69]

Humans are largely, monogamous creatures, and the concept of love evolved to convey those monogamous ideas.

Human beings are not monogamous creatures. Monogamous relationships are a result of religious and social pressures.

How many marriages have ended in divorce because one (or both!) parties had sex with somebody else? The truth of the matter is that humans want to have sex. And lots of it. With many different people. The same penis or vagina for 30+ years is not very appealing to most people.

[Sharon den Adel]

There is no reason I can think of for not allowing homosexual couples to marry. I would not go so far as to make the Church marry gay couples, if they are willing, then good for them. Religion, IMO, has nothing to do with marriage, anyway.

[Oswy]

I was just wondering maybe to stir up some discussion about our position on Gay marriage , why not call just for Civil unions will the full benefits of marriage but not marriage itself?

I say this because the church disagrees with it and its their religion should we enforce them to marry homosexual couples? are the state or the governing body in a position to do so ?

Thoughts ?

Marriage is a social institution not a religious one, it just happens to have been historically appropriated by various religions so that it seems like it is a religious matter. There is, certainly in the UK, such a thing as a secular (registry) marriage whereby a man and woman can be lawfully married without any religious consent. On this basis there's no religious grounds for blocking same-sex marriage itself, though whether or not same-sex marriages should be taking place within a given faith is a different issue.

Personally I think that religions can't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it is contrary to their orthodoxy, but this has no bearing on whether same-sex marriages should be performed by the state (as per the registry office example given). What people can do is condemn prejudice in religious practice and seek change to their orthodoxy (and orthodoxy does change over time).

[trivas7]

While I believe any Church should not be forced to perform or endorse marriage between homosexuals IMO barring gay marriage civilly is discriminatory. Perhaps marriage has evolved into a social institution but I see no reason it should remain so. What is the state's vested interest in the commitment individuals make to each other?