Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Brite]

I'm sorry, but where did it say that it was impossible for fidelity to happen between multiple partners? In greylight's case, all three of them are enjoying an equal, loving, faithful commitment to each other. There is not one over the other, they are all three sharing a bed and including all three in their loving marriage. Just because you personally couldn't do that, doesn't mean other people are incapable of it.

 

Fidelity means being faithful. In greylight's case, all three of them are being faithful to each other. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

I would never want to "share" my mate. EVER. But if anyone else wants to, well..go ahead?

[NyxLilium]

I personally am gay (lesbian( and have been with my partner for over five years. In Australia it is illegal to marry the same gender and many gay couples protest this. But our country has a deep seated fear of anything different and gay is very different.

100% for gay marriage.

[~Kat~]

Just wondering, do gays have more then one partner like in polygamy or even marriage?

Edited July 31, 2012 by ~Kat~

[NyxLilium]

Just wondering, do gays have more then one partner like in polygamy or even marriage?

Yes and no. I personally have been in a relationship with a man and a woman, which actually was kind of interesting. Polygamy doesn't seem to occur often amongst the gay community, long term at least

[ShinyTomato]

Just wondering, do gays have more then one partner like in polygamy or even marriage?

It depends on the couple, just like straight people. Being poly or not has nothing to do with orientation.

 

My wife and I are in a ten year monogamous relationship with two kids. Neither of us have had or will have sex with anyone else. We were together a year (year and a half?) before we even mentioned or talked about sex.

 

Well, unless you count the rape that resulted in our daughter, but that wasn't consensual, so I never count it as "having sex with someone."

[Zaxian]

Just wondering, do gays have more then one partner like in polygamy or even marriage?

That's a highly individual choice (just as is it for 'straights'*). But no, most gay couples are just that - COUPLES. They happen to have matching equipment, but are otherwise *just the same* as straight couples.

 

(* I must admit, I find the use of the term 'gays' bordeline rude. Most people don't call heterosexual individuals 'straights' (or do they? :S) so I don't see why gay people are referred to a 'gays'. It smacks of generalisation. Do you refer to black people as 'blacks'?)

 

(Edit: Ninja'd by ShinyTomato there)

Edited July 31, 2012 by Zaxian

[ShinyTomato]

(Edit: Ninja'd by ShinyTomato there)

 

I am a highly skilled ninja!

 

To bring the thread back around:

 

WHY TO NOT PUBLICISE YOUR WEDDING BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL PROTEST IT #14

 

Sand. Dress.

 

EDIT: Sorry mods, Shiny fails at code. All better now!

Edited July 31, 2012 by ShinyTomato

[KageSora]

(* I must admit, I find the use of the term 'gays' bordeline rude. Most people don't call heterosexual individuals 'straights' (or do they? :S) so I don't see why gay people are referred to a 'gays'. It smacks of generalisation. Do you refer to black people as 'blacks'?)

Well, what else would you use to refer to the orientation? Homos? Homosexuals? Gay, to me, seems just a shorter way, like how asexuals are aces or pansexuals are pans. Homosexuals get shortened to gays with lesbian used to specify female at times, and heterosexuals are referred to as straight or sometimes hets if people like me are being lazy and want to type as little as possible.

 

How is it a generalization if gay has come to be synonymous with homosexual, and you refer to a person like that as gay?

 

Well, not all blacks are immigrants from Africa, are they? So why do we need to refer to them as African-Americans? Are the African-Britains in the UK? Or African-Germans in Germany? (Serious question here) Or are they for some reason called African-American across the board even when they've never been to Africa OR America? (Again, serious question here). I'm just wondering, I've never really understood that.

[Princess Artemis]

I'm guessing Zaxian is objecting to the "gays" not the "gay people". Sounds like the same argument that many disabled people and autistics have about what they wish others to call them. Want the people first, the people last, or is "Aspies" etc. OK? The answer such people have come up with is not actually one answer.

 

So in this case, if any gay people object to being called 'gays' instead of 'gay people' or something else to pluralize, it's their word, let them tell us what they like. We're likely to hear a whole lot of answers.

[WereJace]

I don't know, tbh, as both 'sides' seem to be decentrialized and any actual groups seem to have their own goals and agendas. So I guess a public condoning/apology type thing would be unrealistic, as there's no real 'leaders' to step forward to do these things.

 

Perhaps what would be better is doing acts of a positive nature to counter the negative. Religious groups go around helping the homeless, rebuilding communities and whatnot: why not gays organize and do similiar things? Show folks that homosexuals are human too and not the 'weird, sexual deviants' they tend to be stereotyped as.

 

Remember, when going for a goal like equal rights, image is important. Getting the media in general to cover such positive events, however, would be difficult (as it's the bad stuff that tends to get the ratings) I admit....

I am well aware that image is important, but as you've acknowledged, gay people don't get a lot of say in how they will be portrayed in the media. Some sources are willing to show positive portrayals of the normal, usual people the vast majority of gay people are, while some sources choose to show only the most bizarre and out there of us. Just look at all of the different pictures that come out of the bigger pride parades. No matter how many fully clothed, shiny, happy people there are marching, standing on floats, throwing candy to the crowd, it's guaranteed that the pictures that will hit most papers will be of the people who opted to wear strange clothing or not a lot of it. Heck, a canny editor could have done the same thing with our parade-the one guy in leather gear or the guys on the front of one of the floats in their underwear would probably be just shocking enough.

 

Those people are still gay, though, they're still part of our community and no matter how freaky or weird they may look, they're still people who deserve rights. Plenty of them show up for charity events or do good work in the community. They are good, honest citizens who just want to live their lives, as the rest of us do. Gay people shouldn't have to be perfect, straight-acting saints in order to 'earn' their equality.

[prairiecrow]

Well, what else would you use to refer to the orientation? Homos? Homosexuals? Gay, to me, seems just a shorter way, like how asexuals are aces or pansexuals are pans. Homosexuals get shortened to gays with lesbian used to specify female at times, and heterosexuals are referred to as straight or sometimes hets if people like me are being lazy and want to type as little as possible.

Around my neck of the woods I hear a lot of gay people of my acquaintance refer to themselves as "gay", and I personally refer to myself as "bi", so from my POV those are not offensive terms. Nor are the terms "straight", "ace", or "pan".

 

I find the term "homo" MUCH more offensive, personally.

[ShinyTomato]

Well, not all blacks are immigrants from Africa, are they? So why do we need to refer to them as African-Americans? Are the African-Britains in the UK? Or African-Germans in Germany? (Serious question here) Or are they for some reason called African-American across the board even when they've never been to Africa OR America? (Again, serious question here). I'm just wondering, I've never really understood that.

 

Black British in the UK, if I remember from census forms.

[hazeh]

 

Well, not all blacks are immigrants from Africa, are they? So why do we need to refer to them as African-Americans? Are the African-Britains in the UK? Or African-Germans in Germany? (Serious question here) Or are they for some reason called African-American across the board even when they've never been to Africa OR America? (Again, serious question here). I'm just wondering, I've never really understood that.

One of my moms works with a black woman and they had a discussion like this once. Her friend said that she could be referred to as a person of color or as a black woman, it didn't matter. But that she wasn't African-American, so it was stupid to call her that. She wasn't from Africa, so calling herself that was ridiculous. Just because someone is of a certain heritage doesn't make them from that country.

 

I don't call myself an Irish-American or Italian-American.

[Zaxian]

Well, what else would you use to refer to the orientation?  Homos?  Homosexuals?  Gay, to me, seems just a shorter way, like how asexuals are aces or pansexuals are pans.  Homosexuals get shortened to gays with lesbian used to specify female at times, and heterosexuals are referred to as straight or sometimes hets if people like me are being lazy and want to type as little as possible. 

 

How is it a generalization if gay has come to be synonymous with homosexual, and you refer to a person like that as gay?

 

Well, not all blacks are immigrants from Africa, are they?  So why do we need to refer to them as African-Americans?  Are the African-Britains in the UK?  Or African-Germans in Germany?  (Serious question here)  Or are they for some reason called African-American across the board even when they've never been to Africa OR America?  (Again, serious question here).  I'm just wondering, I've never really understood that.

Hmm, sorry, looking back at my post, 'rude' wasn't quite what the right word. It's more that it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable? Or I find it vaguely offensive? That's not quite right either... :S

 

I agree that 'gays' is the logical plural of 'gay'. But I suppose that, in my past experiences, people have used the term 'gays' as a derogative term or one with negative connotations - wheras 'gay people' doesn't have the same bite (neither does 'homosexuals' maybe because it's a more scientific term). I don't think I'd ever describe a person as 'a gay' nor would I call someone 'a straight', rather 'a gay person' or 'a straight person'. Personally, a group of 'gay people' is exactly that and not a group of 'gays'. Similarly, I'd call 'black people' just that and not 'blacks'. So maybe I'm wary of the term because I know that some people do find it offensive (and looking at a quick google search on the topic, I'm clearly not the only person to feel that way).

 

This is maybe a bit of a stretch, but I think some of the connotation of 'gays' (rather than 'gay people') stems from the fact that people seem to find it easier to to make sweeping (negative) generalisations about a group when they can give them a convenient label - 'those gays' 'those foreigners' 'those blacks'. When it's a traditionally picked-on minority group, the mutation of a descriptive term from a verb to a noun can be used in a quite dehumanising way, wheras the phrase a 'gay person' clearly isn't.

 

ETA: Yeah, Princess Artemis nailed it - it's not the word 'gay' (as a verb) that I'm bothered by, it's the term 'gays'.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Zaxian

[Princess Artemis]

Zaxian, for myself, I'd not use "gays" as a plural for those very reasons. Same reason the British tendency to call their young people "youths" makes me uncomfortable. So much easier to distance oneself from one's fellow humans.

 

But if a gay person prefers that, hey, their word, not mine : )

[The Evil Doer]

Let me put it this way -- marriage math

 

In a monogamous marriage, the point is 1 + 1 = 1, yes?

 

Likewise in my marriage the point is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

 

None of us would be complete without the other two. Aisha wouldn't be complete without Nin and I, Nin wouldn't be complete without Aisha and I, and I wouldn't be complete without Aisha and Nin.

If u wanna talk math, the only way Im behind you on this one is if all math applies to you, if you are perfectly cool with the math being

 

You + Nin + John (your best friend) = 1

 

In that case I support what ur doin, I dont agree with it but if you are "neutral" on the subject - meaning wouldnt mind sharing Nin with John or marrying the trio involving another man, then you're a decent guy...

 

However if there is that - "wait, thats not the same thing as me being married to two girls" then buddy you are a hypocritical guy and an abusive one as well in my book, and even though your wives are "happy" (as u claim) the definition of being happy is a shady one, IMO people can be happy with what they have simply coz of ignorance of not knowing any better....

 

I have never once in my life encountered a woman or a man who is self confident, loves him/herself and who would accept "sharing" their loved ones (except for open relationships where everything goes for all involved), accepting such non-equal situation can derive only from ignorance or low self esteem, and even though I dont know a damn thing about you nor your wives Im 99% certain that neither of them is a successful, strong independent career woman (lawyer/doctor/something of a higher status) and if I have to make another huge assumption Im gonna go with a bad support system while growing up and maybe a traumatic exp or two... just my 58 cents, if its too harsh, I apologize but it is how I see things....

 

I dont get it, I will never get it and the only way Im cool with it is if it goes both ways, if not, one side is abusing the other and the abused side is too ignorant to even realize it...

Edited July 31, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[hazeh]

If u wanna talk math, the only way Im behind you on this one is if all math applies to you, if you are perfectly cool with the math being

 

You + Nin + John (your best friend) = 1

 

In that case I support what ur doin, I dont agree with it but if you are "neutral" on the subject - meaning wouldnt mind sharing Nin with John or marrying the trio involving another man, then you're a decent guy...

 

However if there is that - "wait, thats not the same thing as me being married to two girls" then buddy you are a hypocritical guy and an abusive one as well in my book, and even though your wives are "happy" (as u claim) the definition of being happy is a shady one, IMO people can be happy with what they have simply coz of ignorance of not knowing any better....

 

I have never once in my life encountered a woman or a man who is self confident, loves him/herself and who would accept "sharing" their loved ones (except for open relationships where everything goes for all involved), accepting such non-equal situation can derive only from ignorance or low self esteem, and even though I dont know a damn thing about you nor your wives Im 99% certain that neither of them is a successful, strong independent career woman (lawyer/doctor/something of a higher status) and if I have to make another huge assumption Im gonna go with a bad support system while growing up and maybe a traumatic exp or two... just my 58 cents, if its too harsh, I apologize but it is how I see things....

 

I dont get it, I will never get it and the only way Im cool with it is if it goes both ways, if not, one side is abusing the other and the abused side is too ignorant to even realize it...

Uh. Excuse me...?

 

First of all, yes, it is incredibly rude of you to make assumptions about Greylight when you have absolutely nothing to support your claims. From the interactions I've seen/had with him, Greylight is a VERY respectful fellow, and every time he's described his marriage with his two wives (who, if you didn't know, were also married to each other) it's been very pleasant and loving. There is absolutely no way you could accuse Greylight of being abusive or hypocritical.

 

 

Secondly. I could not make sense of what your first comment was at all. A "best friend" is not Greylight's romantic interest. The "1+1+1=1" means they all add up to 100% of the relationship. All three of them are equal and apart of the relationship with each other. Greylight isn't the guy who's controlling the marriage. He has two wives, while they each have a wife and a husband. It's a triad, where everyone is equal and faithful to each other.

 

And leave other guys out of this! It is NOT hypocritical. I don't know what Greylight's sexual orientation is. Maybe he's a straight guy that fell in love with two women, and his wives are both bisexual. IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that all three of them are equally apart of the relationship, and from everything Greylight has ever described, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

 

You have no place trying to assume whether his wives are successful via careers or not.

 

What you do not understand is that this IS an equal situation. They are all EQUAL parts of ONE relationship.

[TikindiDragon]

Black British in the UK, if I remember from census forms.

Along with several other types of 'black', yes. We've got a lot of people here who are first generation immigrants form the Carribean (sp?) and Africa.

[The Evil Doer]

Uh. Excuse me...?

 

First of all, yes, it is incredibly rude of you to make assumptions about Greylight when you have absolutely nothing to support your claims. From the interactions I've seen/had with him, Greylight is a VERY respectful fellow, and every time he's described his marriage with his two wives (who, if you didn't know, were also married to each other) it's been very pleasant and loving. There is absolutely no way you could accuse Greylight of being abusive or hypocritical.

 

 

Secondly. I could not make sense of what your first comment was at all. A "best friend" is not Greylight's romantic interest. The "1+1+1=1" means they all add up to 100% of the relationship. All three of them are equal and apart of the relationship with each other. Greylight isn't the guy who's controlling the marriage. He has two wives, while they each have a wife and a husband. It's a triad, where everyone is equal and faithful to each other.

 

And leave other guys out of this! It is NOT hypocritical. I don't know what Greylight's sexual orientation is. Maybe he's a straight guy that fell in love with two women, and his wives are both bisexual. IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that all three of them are equally apart of the relationship, and from everything Greylight has ever described, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

 

You have no place trying to assume whether his wives are successful via careers or not.

 

What you do not understand is that this IS an equal situation. They are all EQUAL parts of ONE relationship.

Like I said, the concept is a simple one, If Im sleeping with my girlfriend and another woman, and expecting my girlfriend to be cool with sharing, then the arrangement is an equal one only if Im cool with sharing myself, meaning my girlfriend also sleeping with some other guy. If it goes only one way - I get to sleep with multiple partners while she's stuck with only me its abusive and hypocritical, my opinion as I have stated....

 

On the rest of your points, we can agree to disagree...

[hazeh]

Like I said, the concept is a simple one, If Im sleeping with my girlfriend and another woman, and expecting my girlfriend to be cool with sharing, then the arrangement is an equal one only if Im cool with sharing myself, meaning my girlfriend also sleeping with some other guy. If it goes only one way - I get to sleep with multiple partners while she's stuck with only me its abusive and hypocritical, my opinion as I have stated....

 

On the rest of your points, we can agree to disagree...

But that doesn't even apply to Greylight's situation. You seem to be ignoring the fact that all three of them are equally married and are apart of the relationship just as much as everyone else. It is not the same as having a girlfriend on the side. Greylight has specified many times before that his wives sleep together too and have their bonding time while he's at work, and vice versa, and how they all participate in their relationship with each person with equal faith and love.

[Princess Artemis]

just my 58 cents, if its too harsh, I apologize but it is how I see things....

I bet you expect this tacked on non-apology to be an effective defense, the way people who say, "No offense, but you suck" expect that to magically protect them from accusations of being rude.

 

Which you are being. Rude, that is. Telling the world you know with 99% certainty that two women are X, Y, and/or Z knowing not a blessed thing about them is really extraordinary.

[greylight]

Okay, let me see if I can explain this in a way that makes sense.

 

If u wanna talk math, the only way Im behind you on this one is if all math applies to you, if you are perfectly cool with the math being

 

You + Nin + John (your best friend) = 1

 

If we were talking about a situation where we all fell in love at the same time? Then yes, I would be fine with it.

 

Would I be fine with it if Aisha or Nin brought home someone else (regardless of gender) and announced that they wanted to add them into the relationship?

 

No. Because we have a group marriage. I would not suddenly be okay with being married to someone else I don't know, especially as a demisexual. Also, we said forsaking all others in our wedding vows, that it would be the three of us, forever. They expect fidelity of me, and I expect fidelity of them.

 

Does that mean I have to be present? Hell no, the girls' have date night every week, where they throw a book at my head and tell me not to cook dinner. I shrug and stay at home with the baby.

 

I have never once in my life encountered a woman or a man who is self confident, loves him/herself and who would accept "sharing" their loved ones (except for open relationships where everything goes for all involved),accepting such non-equal situation can derive only from ignorance or low self esteem

 

Everyone is involved. It's not unequal in any way. I have two wives, Nin and Aisha both have a wife and a husband.

 

nd even though I dont know a damn thing about you nor your wives Im 99% certain that neither of them is a successful, strong independent career woman (lawyer/doctor/something of a higher status)

 

Wrong. Aisha makes FAR more money than I do at any given time, and she happens to be a neuropsychologist, which, granted, is more of a scientist than a doctor, but still very successful.

 

While I do make more money than Nin, she runs her own business. Both the girls have their own finances -- and Aisha is kind enough to do mine, because I am not good with those kinds of numbers.

 

(She got sick of seeing me be "okay" with bank errors.)

 

and if I have to make another huge assumption Im gonna go with a bad support system while growing up and maybe a traumatic exp or two...

 

Nin did, yes. Aisha did not. Her relationship with her family is strained now, but that has to do with religion, and she had no issues growing up.

 

I dont get it, I will never get it and the only way Im cool with it is if it goes both ways, if not, one side is abusing the other and the abused side is too ignorant to even realize it...

 

I could never hurt either of them. At least not intentionally. I think all blokes hurt their girl's feelings once and a while without meaning too -- but not like what you're suggesting.

 

[prairiecrow]

Okay, let me see if I can explain this in a way that makes sense.

Greylight, you win about a million Internets for responding politely, rationally and reasonably to someone who basically spat at you and who pretty clearly has no real interest in being educated. *gives greylight all the cookies, with plenty for him AND for his wives to share*

 

One of the biggest problems in the gay marriage debate, I think, is the attitude of "It couldn't possibly work for ME, therefore it can't possibly work for ANYBODY". Any single person's experiences, feelings and tastes can't completely embrace the wide range of behaviours that human beings are capable of. Myself, I couldn't possibly live with two husbands, or with a wife and a husband -- I'm just not made that way. But do I accept that it can work for other people? Yes, I do, because I can't presume that my way of looking at things is the way that ALL people look at things.

[greylight]

Greylight, you win about a million Internets for responding politely, rationally and reasonably to someone who basically spat at you and who pretty clearly has no real interest in being educated. *gives greylight all the cookies, with plenty for him AND for his wives to share*

 

One of the biggest problems in the gay marriage debate, I think, is the attitude of "It couldn't possibly work for ME, therefore it can't possibly work for ANYBODY". Any single person's experiences, feelings and tastes can't completely embrace the wide range of behaviours that human beings are capable of. Myself, I couldn't possibly live with two husbands, or with a wife and a husband -- I'm just not made that way. But do I accept that it can work for other people? Yes, I do, because I can't presume that my way of looking at things is the way that ALL people look at things.

Thank you! I was hoping it made sense!

 

Yeah, I think the idea is that so many people don't understand how something that they don't feel or understand can possibly work. I hate hanging out with the guys from work because whenever they start on attractive women -- I just don't get it. I can't look at a complete stranger and find them attractive. I'm just not wired that way.

 

Also, sex is one of those things that if I think about it too much, grosses me out.

 

Still, I am fully in support of gay marriage, for anyone who wants it -- and the rights that come with it. I know Nin and Aisha have discussed that if gay marriage passes in Texas, they might do it so that Aisha can legally do things like pick the baby up from school when he's older, or be an emergency contact.

 

I think the rights are the most important thing -- how many people are put in situations where one of their partner can't be involved because they can't legally be next of kin?

[Princess Artemis]

I think the rights are the most important thing -- how many people are put in situations where one of their partner can't be involved because they can't legally be next of kin?

It's this part that I support for whomever desires it--and not just for "married" people.

 

I don't ever see foresee myself getting married, but I may, at some point, find a best friend that I would like to designate such authority to and I would like to have it able to be done in a way that cannot be questioned.

 

Anyway, what you said made sense to me. Certainly isn't going to be what works for everyone, but it seems to work for you, so, hey.