On Same-sex and Extended Marriage

We all know about this trendy Anglo-Saxon feminists' idea to promote same-sex marriages wherever and whenever possible. Personally I was always opposed to it just in case: if your are not sure about something invented by feminists - especially Anglo-Saxon feminists - it is better to dismiss it until you have time and desire to study it properly.

Lately I devoted some time to examine this problem and claims of LGBT community and my verdict was that the way they present this idea it is inherently flawed and should not be supported and actually the way it is now it will not be endorsed by majority in most of countries. Here are main issues:

1) Same-sex marriages are targeted only for sexual minorities and it is not clear why greater society should accomodate this whim. There is one case to abolish penalties for making same-sex sex or oral sex or other types of non-normative for given country type of sexual relations - and another to give such right as same sex marriage. This is another story - it is not about prohibition and sexual freedom but about granting certain benefits.

Well, it may work in country where homosexuality is not just acceptable sexual deviation like any other but close to a status of quasireligion because people do not have more important problems to be obsessed with, but it is totally unclear why some marginal group should be given such rights in other countries if it does not yield benefit for the bigger part of society.

2) If we look at this problem from the progressive point of view we will see that this type of marriage as promoted by LGBT-community is still old boring Christian-type marriage. There is nothing about real transition from patriarchal religious society to more modern and free one. It is just some marginal group which trying to get another undeserved benefit.

You can not sell this idea so poorly presented to people who are skeptical of LGBT people specialness, and they are majority in the world.

So how to do this in the correct way, obtain powerful allies and live happily thereafter?

The same-sex marriage should be just particular case of an extended marriage which would allow to form m x f union groups where

m - number of males,
f - number of females,
m + f >= 2,
m or f can be equal to zero.

This way such marriage would benefit much more greater part of the society. It would allow to form polygamic marriages to the benefit of f.e. Muslim and Mormons, polyandric marriage to the benefit of certain African and Tibet traditions as well as other people who would like to try such form of marriage, as well as generally more freer and modern types of unions. This way such idea would be supported by powerful religious communities and by all progressive people unlike one-sided egoistical "same-sex marriage".

Add-ons

On discrimination
On (un)importance of same-sex marriages

So polyandry and polygamy all mixed up together? Is this what you mean?

Is it OK if I keep on living by myself?

Borachio said:

So polyandry and polygamy all mixed up together? Is this what you mean?

Click to expand...

Such extended marriage would allow homosexual traditional and group unions, polygamy, polyandry or, say, 3 male x 2 females (or 3 females x 2 males). In this way there would be reason to support this idea not only for LGBT-community but also for religious and traditional groups, as well as progressive communities.

We should abolish serial marriage. Once you have failed at one, that should be the end of your shot at special privileges.

Snorrius said:

Such extended marriage would allow homosexual traditional and group unions, polygamy, polyandry or, say, 3 male x 2 females (or 3 females x 2 males). In this way there would be reason to support this idea not only for LGBT-community but also for religious and traditional groups, as well as progressive communities.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take this to the next level.

I live in a town of ~30,000. Could we all marry each other?

I rather like this idea. Even for larger towns and cities there is typically a local "small town" community that people spend most of their time in, when they're not working.

...idea to promote same-sex marriages...

Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone trying to "promote" same sex marriage. It's not about promotion. It's about ending discrimination.

Yeah, same sex marriage is just an "anglo saxon" obsession. Doesn't get demanded or discussed or legalised anywhere else.

Who knew Vietnam, Portugal, Argentina, Taiwan, Nepal, France and South Africa were anglo-saxon. For a start.

The OP's proposal doesn't really address anything of merit. There's no elaboration on what would actually be intended or accomplished. As it stands not permitting same-sex marriage is certainly discriminatory and allowing polyamorous marriages would of course be acceptable too, though that would be much more unpopular and unlikely to be implemented as legal reform.

The better point, which is not often expressed by same-sex marriage advocates, is that much of the legal institution of marriage ought to be scrapped entirely. Half of the reason it seems to exist is to provide for divorce law and that is clearly unproductive for society on the whole. At least in the United States other laws are often ridiculous and currently discriminatory in countless ways; without removing those other laws allowing same-sex marriage is a start.

So a point for debate might be that a host of things related to marriage in the law should not be. For one thing that intuitively is associated - custody of children - the law is already different from historical or cultural practice. It's quite possible and already the case for the law to have consistent policy on caretaking of biologically related children that doesn't require any certain cultural/religious notions of marriage. Granted, adoption is always a mess but the legal system should strive to protect the best interests of the child in any case and discriminatory adoption practices also are and should be on their way out.

Then, other things, like insurance or tax law and the business such law regulates in the private sector, shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on marital status should any more than on the color of a person's skin. Once more, however, failure to remedy these issues but ending discrimination towards homosexuals is better than ignoring the problem entirely.

Several of these problems, at least in the United States can be dealt with pretty much entirely independent of marriage as a cultural concept, it's only thanks to historical inertia that things work otherwise. For instance, a single-payer universal healthcare system in the United States would go a long way.

Snorrius said:

it is totally unclear why some marginal group should be given such rights in other countries if it does not yield benefit for the bigger part of society.

Click to expand...

I would like to call attention to this sentence, as it seems to express a rather dangerous and repressive way of thinking. If extending some civil right (already enjoyed by the majority) to a given minority of the population cannot be clearly shown to directly benefit the majority, it should by default be denied? Oh my.

I will simply say this: The ideas expressed in the OP disgust me so much that it will take awhile to formulate a reply that wouldn't be against the Chamber rules.

Yeah there are some strange ideas, like same-sex marriage is just a fad that anglo-saxon feminists are interested in, "marginal groups" should not be given civil rights, same-sex marriage is somehow discriminating against people who aren't gay, people are obsessed with sexual preference to the exclusion of other issues. I gave up on even trying to understand the part about polygamy.

Promoters of same-sex marriage often claim that

1) Having no ability to marry homosexual partner is "discrimination"
2) This should be taken care of as soon as possible

Both of this statement can be debated; I will focus on the second one. Let's suppose that having ability to marry homosexual partner is indeed "discrimination".

The sore truth of this world is that there are a lot of different types of discrimination (or what is perceived as such by this or that group) is out there. Even if we only take in account sexuality and marriage issues we can found a lot of such examples:

1) Some religious groups and not necessarily religious people can not enter polygamous and polyandrous marriages.
2) In USA and some other places cousines can not marry.
3) Other types of relatives often discriminated and are not allowed to marry.
4) Even worse - even in many so-called "civilized" Western who pose themselves as fervent fighters with discriminative practices discriminate adult people who would like enjoy sexual relations with each other but prohibited to do this just because they happened to have some degree of kinship. It is quite ironical that in Russia and China often portrayed as authoritarian regimes by some so-called "democratic" countries such as USA people enjoy more sexual freedom than in the latters.

Et cetera.

We see that there are a lot of groups who have this or that right discriminated for different reasons, and homosexuals are only one of them, not necessarily the most important. Certainly not on the top of the priority list.

So if one truly sincere about fighting "discrimination" in sexual and marriage practices s/he should not only be egoistically focused on the needs of vocal but not that important minority. S/he should seek for solutions which would benefit not only one minority but a number of them as well as opposing other obsolete prohibitions rooted in human ignorance and hatred. If one prefers one on one approach with dealing with such issues then certainly problems of "same-sex marriage" is not the first - there more urgent problems.

Your radical ideas about these things have already occurred to others.

And they're wrong too. Polygamy is a separate and worthy debate with different issues. Non-reproductive incest probably a lot more niche, and with some serious consent concerns, but also a different debate with a different set of issues.

Snorrius said:

Promoters of same-sex marriage often claim that

1) Having no ability to marry homosexual partner is "discrimination"
2) This should be taken care of as soon as possible

Both of this statement can be debated; I will focus on the second one. Let's suppose that having ability to marry homosexual partner is indeed "discrimination".

The sore truth of this world is that there are a lot of different types of discrimination (or what is perceived as such by this or that group) is out there. Even if we only take in account sexuality and marriage issues we can found a lot of such examples:

1) Some religious groups and not necessarily religious people can not enter polygamous and polyandrous marriages.
2) In USA and some other places cousines can not marry.
3) Other types of relatives often discriminated and are not allowed to marry.
4) Even worse - even in many so-called "civilized" Western who pose themselves as fervent fighters with discriminative practices discriminate adult people who would like enjoy sexual relations with each other but prohibited to do this just because they happened to have some degree of kinship. It is quite ironical that in Russia and China often portrayed as authoritarian regimes by some so-called "democratic" countries such as USA people enjoy more sexual freedom than in the latters.

Et cetera.

We see that there are a lot of groups who have this or that right discriminated for different reasons, and homosexuals are only one of them, not necessarily the most important. Certainly not on the top of the priority list.

So if one truly sincere about fighting "discrimination" in sexual and marriage practices s/he should not only be egoistically focused on the needs of vocal but not that important minority. S/he should seek for solutions which would benefit not only one minority but a number of them as well as opposing other obsolete prohibitions rooted in human ignorance and hatred. If one prefers one on one approach with dealing with such issues then certainly problems of "same-sex marriage" is not the first - there more urgent problems.

Click to expand...

Slippery slope much?

I love when people try to disguide their hatred and bigotry behind the illusion of false logic. Just say, "I hate fags!" and get it over with!

How do people enjoy more sexual freedom in Russia and China? Is it just the cousin marriage thing?

It's not such a good argument anyway, people who are exclusively homosexual have only a sexual attraction to people of the same gender so they are prohibited from getting married to anyone they would be sexually attracted to. People in love with their cousin could marry someone else they are attracted to. That being said, I'm not really against cousin marriage, I mean it seems a bit strange to me but if people are happy with it I don't care and I think it is legal in some US states.

My personal opinion:

marriage is an outdated religion-based institution. It should be left open as a possibility to Christians (and other people with similarly delusional beliefs) as an alternative form of civil union with more stringent rules concerning divorce and stuff like that. (If they want it like that, let them - it would be an exception from the rule, but there unfortunately is a long tradition of that). "Gay marriage" to me sounds like oxymoron.

Civil union should be the 'default' option for couples (hetero or homo) who want to have their relationship formalized. (If I were to write the law, I'd set the minimum age to enter in a civil union to 25 years of age.) Adoption of children by homosexual couples should be weighed carefully and the psychological well-being of the child should always be the priority.

As for the other things mentioned here:

Polygamy - should be an option for civil unions. Polygamous marriages made in religiously conservative countries should not be recognized. I don't think many people would want to enter in polygamous civil unions anyway.
Incestual relationships - there is no valid reason to ban them. In case an incestual couple wants to have children, genetic testing should be required to ensure their offspring won't suffer because of their stupidity.

Was there any reason to mention "feminism" in relation to this topic other than to rail against it too?

With regards to the whole debate: I kind of agree with the idea that striving for literal "marriage" for same-sex couples shouldn't be the goal for any progressive movement, but the end of the whole institution (in the context of what the state recognizes). In the end striving to get "their own" form of marriage just conforms to the ideological framework behind it while trying to secure the benefits that come with it (both legal and social recognition). But realistically, marriage won't go away the next decades so it's their only option to not be discriminated, which is why I still support it (how Anglo-Saxon of me!).

I don't understand why marriage is subsidized by the state anyway. The usual argument is that married couples are best to bring up children and the state should support that. But many married couples don't have children, and many children are born to unmarried parents. So if supporting parents is the imperative, let us support parents, not marriages! I think couples that can work two fulltime jobs because they don't have to take care of their children are already advantaged enough.

Unfortunately it is often not acknowledged by defenders of "traditional marriage" that they don't only defend tradition (whether this is worth it in itself or not), but also very tangible benefits, while denying them to others that would actually need them.

Leifmk said:

I would like to call attention to this sentence, as it seems to express a rather dangerous and repressive way of thinking. If extending some civil right (already enjoyed by the majority) to a given minority of the population cannot be clearly shown to directly benefit the majority, it should by default be denied? Oh my.

Click to expand...

This jumped out to me too.

Arwon said:

Yeah, same sex marriage is just an "anglo saxon" obsession. Doesn't get demanded or discussed or legalised anywhere else.

Who knew Vietnam, Portugal, Argentina, Taiwan, Nepal, France and South Africa were anglo-saxon. For a start.

Click to expand...

First, "consider" does not mean to put in practice. Second, in the case of underdeveploped and weak countries there two main reasons to follow an example of the big brothers.

1) "Cargo cults". Sometimes some countries want to become "civilized" but having no smart leaders they try to imitate "civilization" by adopted some of trendy moral thingies. For example, Japan (which is historically much less obsessed over controlling sexual urges of its citizens then Anglo-Saxon countries) introduced anti-pornografic laws to imitate Anglo-Saxons. Blessfully as Japanese are quite smart people their dropped this absurdity after several decades and now Japan is one the best examples how erotical production should be dealt with.

2) Easy way to win some sympathy and maybe some benefits. After all, why not allow some harmless sillyness if our international partners are so obsessed with? If Vietnam introduce same-sex marriage it will magickally become more democratic without really sacrificing anything important.

Arwon said:

Your radical ideas about these things have already occurred to others.

Click to expand...

Well, should I then dismiss any idea I do not like on the premises that it had certainly already occured to somebody else?

Arwon said:

And they're wrong too. Polygamy is a separate and worthy debate with different issues. Non-reproductive incest probably a lot more niche, and with some serious consent concerns, but also a different debate with a different set of issues.

Click to expand...

Everything is separate and worthy debate with different issues. But the point is that the "debate" of same-sex marriages is not the most important, and if its proponents want to promote it in countries which are skeptical of LGBT specialness and chosenonnes they should join their forces with others who could be interested in amending of "marriage" or introducing more flexible "civil unions". Taken alone the cause of homosexuals wanting marry much less important then issue with cousine/sibling or polygamous/polyandrous marriages.

NovaKart said:

How do people enjoy more sexual freedom in Russia and China? Is it just the cousin marriage thing?

Click to expand...

One is not prohibited by the law to make consentual sex with any relative (cousins, siblings etc) and do not risk jail for doing this. Same-sex sex is also allowed.

NovaKart said:

That being said, I'm not really against cousin marriage, I mean it seems a bit strange to me but if people are happy with it I don't care and I think it is legal in some US states.

Click to expand...

First cousin marriages are actually legal in most of the world. US is shameful exception in the civilized world. They should have dealt with it first before advancing to same sex marriages.

Snorrius said:

First, "consider" does not mean to put in practice. Second, in the case of underdeveploped and weak countries there two main reasons to follow an example of the big brothers.

1) "Cargo cults". Sometimes some countries want to become "civilized" but having no smart leaders they try to imitate "civilization" by adopted some of trendy moral thingies. For example, Japan (which is historically much less obsessed over controlling sexual urges of its citizens then Anglo-Saxon countries) introduced anti-pornografic laws to imitate Anglo-Saxons. Blessfully as Japanese are quite smart people their dropped this absurdity after several decades and now Japan is one the best examples how erotical production should be dealt with.

2) Easy way to win some sympathy and maybe some benefits. After all, why not allow some harmless sillyness if our international partners are so obsessed with? If Vietnam introduce same-sex marriage it will magickally become more democratic without really sacrificing anything important.

Click to expand...

This is a truly bizarre post. Just so very weird. Where do you even get the idea that marriage equality is just some anglo fad?

I also love the fatuous pronouncements about what is and is not "important".