Mr. and Mrs. Tom and C. Paine
Oct 23 at 11:11pm by wilkins
Polyamorously Perverse is a blog we’ve recently discovered. Here are links to some excellent pieces; what’s more, the comments are quite thoughtful, and in some cases, make the posts complete.
How to set up an MFM threesome;
Sexual Diplomacy and the Battle of the Sexes
The proprietors/authors of this blog are “Tom” and “C” - and they’ve got some really thoughtful things to say about marriage, monogamy, love, sex, and other compelling issues.
They also got a great review from JanesGuide, always a sign of excellence.
Greta Christina: of course same-sex marriage will have effects on opposite-sex marriage
Oct 21 at 10:10pm by wilkins
Greta Christina’s Blog - has a brilliant essay about same-sex marriage and its implications. Greta Christina - is exceptonally smart, and the woman can write. The latest piece, “Hometown Girl Makes Good,” ((The title, I think, is a reference to the piece being published in the Chicago Sun Times, which published it on paper with ink but not on its website, and that Ms. C. is originallly from Chicago)) is an essay which calls certain supporters of same-sex marriage to task for taking the rhetorical position that it “won’t change same-sex marriage.”
It may not even be true that same-sex marriage won’t threaten some heterosexual marriages. If we were to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states tomorrow (if you can imagine a different Supreme Court, you can manage this; it’s worth the effort) - the marginal added social approval is likely to lead some of the weakest opposite-sex marriages with a closeted partner to end. Not all, not many, most, and probably not a significant number. Legalizing same-sex marriage will change things - and we shouldn’t pretend othewise - in rhetorical terms, we’re placing mines that we will trip over later. But let Greta Christina make the argument (the illustrations are from her blog:
There’s a trope that I hear a lot among people who support same-sex marriage. It goes like this:
“What are these people so afraid of? How does same-sex marriage destroy marriage? How on earth could my marriage in any way affect anybody else’s?”
Or, when spoken by heterosexual supporters of same-sex marriage: “How on earth could somebody else’s marriage in any way affect mine?”
Of course I see what they’re getting at. And I certainly appreciate the sentiment and support behind the statement. But I actually think it’s somewhat simplistic, maybe even a bit naive. I think same-sex marriage does, and will, have an effect on opposite-sex marriage.
Not in an immediate cause-and-effect way, of course. When Adam and Stephen get married in Massachusetts, it doesn’t send out magical death-rays across the country to destroy the marriage of Alan and Evelyn in Kansas.
But I think it has an effect. Not a trivial one, either. And I think the movement to legalize same-sex marriage does itself a disservice by acting like it doesn’t.
Here’s why.
In order for our society to accept or even tolerate same-sex marriage, a lot of fairly basic, deep-rooted ideas have to change. The way we define family. The way we think of what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. The importance of sex and sexual fulfillment. What we consider natural and normal. Etc., etc., etc.
All of these things shape our practice of marriage, our understanding of what it is and what it’s for. And in order for us to accept or even tolerate same-sex marriage, all of them will need to change.
Thus changing the shape of marriage.
All marriage.
Including the opposite-sex ones.
If for no other reason, the standard default answers to these questions will quit being standard and default. If these changes happen, people will still be free to define family, maleness, femaleness, etc., in the old traditional ways. But they’ll be forced to think about it, to see the traditional way as just one choice among many, to live that way because it works for them… instead of unthinkingly falling into it as the one right choice that works for everybody. What’s more, they’ll be forced to see all these different questions and choices as, well, different questions and choices, instead of a package deal.
And that’s a big-ass change.
Of course, while the fight for same-sex marriage is a catalyst for some of these changes, it’s hardly the only one. Lots of these changes were already happening, even before same-sex marriage got put on the table. In fact, same-sex marriage couldn’t have gotten on the table in the first place if these changes hadn’t already been happening. But it is a catalyst for change, and I don’t want to ignore that or pretend it isn’t true.
What I don’t understand is why that’s a bad thing.
Opponents of same-sex marriage talk about marriage as if it’s been an unchanging institution for thousands of years, one that can’t be altered even a little without risking its destruction. But this is clearly absurd. Marriage has been many different things in human history — radically different things. A property transfer from father to husband. A political and military alliance between nations. A means of producing and caring for children. A means of preserving a religion or race (think of the intense resistance throughout history to both interracial and interfaith marriage). A practical arrangement for keeping a family farm or business. A romantic love match that’s meant to last until death. A spiritual bond that’s meant to last for eternity. And more. And any combination of any of these.
And marriage has taken many forms in its checkered history. From the hundreds of wives of Solomon and others, to the passing down of a wife from brother to brother (also described in the Bible), to a permanent inescapable contract with mistresses and lovers on the side, to the serial monogamy-in-theory that seems to be the contemporary model… the literal, practical shape of marriage has taken wildly different forms over the centuries, and will no doubt continue to take more.
So the fact that the institution of marriage is changing… that’s hardly devastating news. People resisted the legalization of interracial marriage with every bit as much fervor as they resist same-sex marriage now, and for many of the same reasons… and yet the institution of marriage has absorbed that change quite handily, and has soldiered on. The institution is changing, it has always been changing, and it will almost certainly continue to change.
And again I ask: Why is this a bad thing?
And why are these particular changes, the ones that same-sex marriage is both the cause and result of… why are they so much to be feared?
Our definition of family should be broadened. The way we think of maleness and femaleness should be more flexible. Sex should be acknowledged as a central part of human life, and as a basic human right. What we consider to be natural should be more in keeping with the actual reality of nature. And we should be questioning, not only what is and isn’t normal, but whether normality is even a quality we should be prizing.
Not just so we can get to a place where we can accept same-sex marriage… but so we can help make opposite-sex marriage, and all relationships, and life in general for everybody, happier and more fulfilling.
Here’s the piece in Greta Christina’s blog.
This is the first we’ve come across Greta Christina, which happened because we followed a link on Ms. Breslin’s blog.
This seems a good opportunity to plug the Alternatives to Marriage Project (ATMP), whose website can be found at unmarried.org - ATMP fights the good fight not only for same-sex marriage, but against discrimination against people who, by dint of circumstance or choice, are not married. Same sex, opposite sex, rich, and poor. Things like zoning bans on people living in sin living in entire neighorhoods, or ever adopting a child. Or making end-of-life decisions. And there’s a host of reasons: sometimes a divorce in a prior relationship will deprive - as part of a settlement - terminate health insurance; in some cases - particularly with ultra-Orthodox Jews - men, to be spiteful or as a bargaining tactic - decline to provide a get - the religious document which makes a divorce “kosher” and allows remarriage.
As with so many things American, bad things roll down the social ladder - there’s a positive correlation between lack of money and suffering - and that’s certainly true with marriage/non-marriage issues. The United States’ brief flirtation in the 1970’s with free legal services (other than criminal defense) for the poor ended badly. So access to the courts is one the permutations of this problem.
If you’d like a bit of data that fleshes out some of the problems families have in an authoritative way, check out the work of Elizabeth Warren, the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. In particular, check out The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. If you’d like to read more of Professor Warren’s work, we’ve put a selected bibliography here.
Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby: ((Page citation missing; we ask our readers to indulge us for the moment.))
They came to see that family need not be defined merely as those with whom they share blood but for those for whom they would give their blood.
When Robert Frost wrote, “Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to ta
RECENT COMMENTS