Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.)

 

 

 

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 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.

Like I have said, I dont know you guys nor your relationship, I stated it clearly - as long as you're cool with them sleeping together while excluding you (basically u sharing as well) then ur what I call "neutral" and as I said neutral = a decent guy (and thats a scenario I dont have a problem with) the reality however of most "trio marriages" in our world (excluding an African tribe or two) is a guy having multiple wives and him being the only one who gets to "multi-sex" hence it is as I have said an hypocritical and an abusive concept, and it will remain as such in my eyes... that is untill women start taking more than one husband as well, then it will be equal...

 

Whoever finds my words to be harsh or rude, indulge yourself with some ice cream its hot as hell anyhow...

 

The Evil doer aka The extraordinary one wink.gif

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post
Like I have said, I dont know you guys nor your relationship, I stated it clearly - as long as you're cool with them sleeping together while excluding you (basically u sharing as well) then ur what I call "neutral" and as I said neutral = a decent guy (and thats a scenario I dont have a problem with) the reality however of most "trio marriages" in our world (excluding an African tribe or two) is a guy having multiple wives and him being the only one who gets to "multi-sex" hence it is as I have said an hypocritical and an abusive concept, and it will remain as such in my eyes... that is untill women start taking more than one husband as well, then it will be equal...

 

Whoever finds my words to be harsh or rude, indulge yourself with some ice cream its hot as hell anyhow...

 

The Evil doer aka The extraordinary one ;)

You're an incredibly judgmental person. Not only that, you're extremely ignorant. You've been told multiple times that Greylight and his wives are all married.

 

Greylight is married to Aisha.

 

Aisha is married to Nin.

 

Nin is married to Greylight.

 

Greylight is married to Nin.

 

They are all equal parts in the same equation.

 

They are three parts of the same whole.

 

You cannot speak for anyone else's relationship. You cannot speak for the straight man who has multiple straight wives. They know that their husband has other wives he will spend time with. They can be plenty content in a relationship like that. They can be healthy relationships.

 

The marriages you speak of are by men who take two wives while not informing either wife that the other exists. That is not a healthy relationship.

 

It's not your place to define what a relationship is. You should keep your nose out of other people's relationships and stop assuming that it's unhappy because of X or happy because of Y. Unless you're in the relationship, which you're not, you don't get to decide what it is.

 

 

And your comment about African tribes? Unless you know 100% what you're talking about, don't even go there. It's horribly offensive and extraordinarily stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I have said, I dont know you guys nor your relationship, I stated it clearly - as long as you're cool with them sleeping together while excluding you (basically u sharing as well) then ur what I call "neutral" and as I said neutral = a decent guy (and thats a scenario I dont have a problem with) the reality however of most "trio marriages" in our world (excluding an African tribe or two) is a guy having multiple wives and him being the only one who gets to "multi-sex" hence it is as I have said an hypocritical and an abusive concept, and it will remain as such in my eyes... that is untill women start taking more than one husband as well, then it will be equal...

 

How is it hypocritical and abusive if the male feels insecure and uncomfortable if one of his wives suggests bringing in another male into the relationship? That would just mean they aren't compatible if she has to have that kind of relationship.

 

I can see where an inequality can come in if a man passes on the idea via religion that men can have multiple wives, but women can only have one husband.

 

The Evil doer aka The extraordinary one

 

... George Bush xd.png

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

By all means, I'll happily refer to any person how they want me to refer to them.

 

But generally speaking, I don't know any gay people (meaning ones I talk to regularly/often) who object to gays being used over gay people, since it's essentially saying the same thing just shortening it up--they use the term "gays" too, really. But hey, if people would rather it be "gay people", I'm happy to say that, too.

 

I think the intent behind the word is what people more object to. I'm generally cool with people using Aspie, I use it myself since it's easier to spell. xd.png But, if I do see people using it in a clearly offensive context, then I take offense to it.

 

 

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".

GUH, I know how annoying that is! I mean, I don't see it in the same context, but... I hate the idea of "I don't understand it or how it could possibly work, therefore it must be bad/weird/gross/etc."

 

 

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 person' clearly isn't.used in a quite dehumanising way, wheras the phrase a 'gay

 

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'.

I think a lot of it stems from the fact that it's faster to say "gays" than "gay people".

 

But anything can be quite insulting depending on context. I've seen people use "gay people" as an insult before. I do see gay used as an insult a lot, but it's usually singular not plural.

 

Like, I've seen "Ugh, those gay people are freaks!" Or "You're not one of those sick gay people, are you?" So, gay people is absolutely used in a very insulting context. Just not as much.

Share this post


Link to post

You're an incredibly judgmental person. Not only that, you're extremely ignorant. You've been told multiple times that Greylight and his wives are all married.

 

Greylight is married to Aisha.

 

Aisha is married to Nin.

 

Nin is married to Greylight.

 

Greylight is married to Nin.

 

They are all equal parts in the same equation.

 

They are three parts of the same whole.

 

You cannot speak for anyone else's relationship. You cannot speak for the straight man who has multiple straight wives. They know that their husband has other wives he will spend time with. They can be plenty content in a relationship like that. They can be healthy relationships.

 

The marriages you speak of are by men who take two wives while not informing either wife that the other exists. That is not a healthy relationship.

 

It's not your place to define what a relationship is. You should keep your nose out of other people's relationships and stop assuming that it's unhappy because of X or happy because of Y. Unless you're in the relationship, which you're not, you don't get to decide what it is.

 

 

And your comment about African tribes? Unless you know 100% what you're talking about, don't even go there. It's horribly offensive and extraordinarily stupid.

1. Liz just cant help herself, she keeps gettin John mad (sarcasm) even though she knows he has a temper, its no surprise he smacks the crap out of her, however he does it coz he loves her so much and she knows he loves her its just that he cant help himself, its been going on for 20 years now, hes the only guy shes been with, she loves him and most of the time its good... she is happy... kinda...

 

It's not your place to define what a relationship is. You should keep your nose out of other people's relationships and stop assuming that it's unhappy because of X or happy because of Y. Unless you're in the relationship, which you're not, you don't get to decide what it is.

 

nuff said....

 

2. In a certain African tribe (dont know the name) a woman is allowed to have sex with whoever she wants to whenever she wants to and if Im not wrong to have more than one husband and thats the only place in the world (from what I know for a fact, even though I've heard of a similar custom going on somewhere in Himalayas as well) where the behavior is acceptable as a social norm, In the rest of the world the mere idea of a woman having more than one husband... Yeah right as if we want women to have the same freedoms we enjoy... ludacris idea really (sarcasm)

Feel free to enlighten my horribly offensive and extraordinarily stupid ignorance if you know something I dont....

 

To certain other aspects of your post, it seems u were slightly emotional so its cool, no biggie, however a friendly advice - if you dont know the guy, if you already think he's rude.. well, some doors are better left closed ninja.gif

 

@Alpha

 

How is it hypocritical and abusive if the male feels insecure and uncomfortable if one of his wives suggests bringing in another male into the relationship? That would just mean they aren't compatible if she has to have that kind of relationship.

 

If you want certain freedoms, but dont want your wife to have them on account of her being a woman it is hypocritical...

 

examples -

 

1. guy walks up to a girl and hits on her (coz she's pretty) she says thanks not really my type, he responds "wow, you dont even know me, thats so shallow" = hypocritical coz they were acting in a same manner the only difference being she is a woman

 

2. Guy hits the 20 girls mark by the age of 18, Im a playa, stud, every girl wants me, every guy wants to be me...

Girl hits a 20 boys mark by the age of 18 she's good for one thing and one thing only, her rep is ruined... hypocritical wouldnt u say ?

 

3. guys can marry more than one girl, girls cant marry more than one guy, us as guys feel that we are entitled to more freedoms than women on account of us being the guys, when a guy does it its ok, when a girl does its a taboo that Alpha is simply put hypocritical as hell

 

I myself, unlike many many guys out there (who will make excuses to justify anything really) admit that I am hypocritical sometimes, if a girl has had relations with 30+ guys that will indeed have an impact on whether I wanna date her or not, I am flawed too, I understand that I have no right to judge her for something I have done myself yet I still do so, and I can say its coz of the way society has raised me but lets face it, its my choice and I dont need to make excuses for my choices, thats just selflying and pretty damn lame, so I acknowledge the fact that sometimes I am hypocritical just like anyone else, sometimes I fight it other times I dont, it is what it is... you wanna say you're insecure so you dont want your girl to be with someone else, cool, but if thats the reason apply the same rules on yourself - don't do to others what you don't want done to you, its as simple as that...

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

Mm, Evildoer, somewhere in that, I got your point. You think that if polygamy (one man with multiple wives) is okay, then polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) should be okay too. I agree with that. In fact, I've seen some pretty disturbing episodes of a 'reality show' called Sister Wives that make me think that that guy on there is the kind of controlling and hypocritical jerk that you seem to be talking about... But there was no reason to think that Greylight is one as well. He says his wives are married to each other, so they do have more than one spouse, just as Greylight does. Each wife has two partners, the same amount of partners that he has. Nothing unfair there, and no reason to discount the same-sex parts of that marriage. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

If you want certain freedoms, but dont want your wife to have them on account of her being a woman it is hypocritical...

 

Okay, but I got the impression you were arguing that the male has to somehow get rid of his insecurities or else he is a hypocrite. When I mentioned that they weren't compatible, the woman either accepts his insecurity and stays, or if it's a deal breaker, they part ways. If they do part, the man could be happy for her if she does get into a relationship where there are multiple men in it.

Share this post


Link to post
.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.

 

You are married to Aisha and Nin

 

Now if the law passes in Texas, Aisha and Nin will get married!!!

 

Isn't that called BIGAMY, is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another

 

Bigamy is accepted in

 

Egypt: Legal if first wife consents

 

India: Legal only for Muslims

 

Maldives: Permitted for anyone.

 

South Africa: Legalized for indigenous, black traditionalists by the Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

You are married to Aisha and Nin

 

Now if the law passes in Texas, Aisha and Nin will get married!!!

 

Isn't that called BIGAMY, is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another

Probably technically. But from the sounds of it, they all married each other at the same time. Sure, perhaps it was not legal, but it was a marriage to them. Legally I guess you could consider it bigamy, ETA: but that's only if none of them were legally married in the first place. It wouldn't be bigamy if the law allowed them to all legally marry at once.

 

Curious, Greylight, are you legally married to one of them?

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post

 

Curious, Greylight, are you legally married to one of them?

I'm guessing only one has the state's force.

Share this post


Link to post

Polygamy and bigamy laws in the US

 

Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person and it is illegal in the United States. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[4]

 

According to the Model Penal Code (section 230.1) bigamy is a misdemeanor, but having more than one spouse at the same time is a felony if it is done "in purported exercise of a plural marriage..." According to Joel Feinberg in Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, "Righteously flaunting one's illicit relationships, according to the Code, is apparently a morally aggravating circumstance, more punishable than its clandestine and deceptive counterpart."[5]

 

The Model Penal Code allows people to use an honest belief that they are only married to one person as a defense against a charge of bigamy. However, many US courts (e.g., Turner v. S., 212 Miss. 590, 55 So.2d 228) treat bigamy as a strict liability crime: in some jurisdictions a person can be convicted of a felony even if reasonably certain there was only one legal spouse. For example, if a person has the mistaken belief that their previous spouse is dead or that their divorce is final, they can still be convicted of bigamy if they marry a new person.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

Share this post


Link to post
Polygamy and bigamy laws in the US

 

Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person and it is illegal in the United States. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[4]

 

According to the Model Penal Code (section 230.1) bigamy is a misdemeanor, but having more than one spouse at the same time is a felony if it is done "in purported exercise of a plural marriage..." According to Joel Feinberg in Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, "Righteously flaunting one's illicit relationships, according to the Code, is apparently a morally aggravating circumstance, more punishable than its clandestine and deceptive counterpart."[5]

 

The Model Penal Code allows people to use an honest belief that they are only married to one person as a defense against a charge of bigamy. However, many US courts (e.g., Turner v. S., 212 Miss. 590, 55 So.2d 228) treat bigamy as a strict liability crime: in some jurisdictions a person can be convicted of a felony even if reasonably certain there was only one legal spouse. For example, if a person has the mistaken belief that their previous spouse is dead or that their divorce is final, they can still be convicted of bigamy if they marry a new person.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

Well then, guess we'll just have to change that.

 

Though it may be a while until we see it on the ballot. Nevertheless, I'd vote for that law to be changed!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fairly sure that most people in the US with multiple spouses only legally marry one of them and use 'wife' or 'husband' as a courtesy title for the other(s), or for that matter, don't marry any of them legally. Kinda like how gay people can have committed long term relationships even if actual legal marriage is forbidden for them where they are. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that called BIGAMY, is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another

 

The keyword here is legally. No, we are not legally married. None of us could get married legally, because in many states it is illegal for a single person to cohabitate with a married couple if they are unrelated, even if there is nothing polyamorous about it.

 

Almost fifty countries legally recognise polygamy, the US is not one of them. We've considered moving to Saskatchewan because they do have some legal protections, but their is the matter of jobs.

 

As someone who repeatedly cites the Bible, I would think you'd recognise the difference between a legal certificate of marriage, and being spiritually married.

Edited by greylight

Share this post


Link to post

The keyword here is legally. No, we are not legally married. None of us could get married legally, because in many states it is illegal for a single person to cohabitate with a married couple if they are unrelated, even if there is nothing polyamorous about it.

 

Almost fifty countries legally recognise polygamy, the US is not one of them. We've considered moving to Saskatchewan because they do, but their is the matter of jobs.

 

As someone who repeatedly cites the Bible, I would think you'd recognise the difference between a legal certificate of marriage, and being spiritually married.

There is a difference in being leggally married and spiritually married.

 

Your marriage spiritually is not legal.

 

I am leggally married and have a spiritually relationship with my legal husband

 

I do not mean for this to sound like I am putting you down, because I am not in the sense you think I might be.

 

I go on facts more or less depending on what one says.

 

Yes, I can understand you when you say you are spiritually married. It can be just as deep as a legal marriage but without the papers.

 

I try and respond what is actually posted by someone. Sometimes I stray a bit I know. Like I said before, if you are happy, I am happy for you.

Share this post


Link to post
There is a difference in being leggally married and spiritually married.

 

Your marriage spiritually is not legal.

 

I am leggally married and have a spiritually relationship with my legal husband

 

I do not mean for this to sound like I am putting you down, because I am not in the sense you think I might be.

 

I go on facts more or less depending on what one says.

 

Yes, I can understand you when you say you are spiritually married. It can be just as deep as a legal marriage but without the papers.

 

I try and respond what is actually posted by someone. Sometimes I stray a bit I know. Like I said before, if you are happy, I am happy for you.

Just checking. smile.gif

 

Yes, unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to be legally married. Sad, but true.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference in being leggally married and spiritually married.

 

Unless you're Jewish. Well, in half the cases anyway -- which makes things really rough for observant gay Jews, because in order to be issued a ketubah, and thus be religiously married, it has to be legal for you to marry in your state.

 

A Jew, can, obviously, get married secularly, without the religious bits, though.

 

One of the most frustrating parts about the whole gay marriage debate, was, for me, how gay marriage being illegal adversely affected my ability to practise my religion.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering, but, what good is this topic? It's not helping your cause too much is it. I would say "it's not helping your cause in any way" but you guys would prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Easy--it's a way to discuss things, and maybe cause some people to change their minds. Then they can support the movement, and maybe help change the minds of others. It's a ripple effect, you start small and it expands as more people join your cause.

 

 

It's also a good topic for education, people can learn that gays aren't the scary demons they may have been raised think they are (there ARE people who are taught that), and who can learn that gays are just normal people, and they can get past unfounded biases by meeting gay people and talking with them and seeing their PoV and how it can hurt them to not have these rights.

 

 

Just because it may not have a super massive, visible effect doesn't mean it's useless.

 

It can also be a topic where gay members of the forum can find others who might be able to give them some support or information if they need it. It's always heartening to see people you don't know supporting you, after all.

Edited by KageSora

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering, but, what good is this topic? It's not helping your cause too much is it. I would say "it's not helping your cause in any way" but you guys would prove me wrong.

 

Along with what's been said, I will point out that a lot of people don't realise that there are physical, biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Offering out information like that can do a lot of good.

 

As for "helping" a cause -- you never know what affect a thread might have, what might stick in someone's head and make them a little more tolerant.

Share this post


Link to post
Might I suggest if it doesn't already exist that there be a polygamy thread made? Because it seems that while this is a very interesting debate, it's not about gay marriage/rights. xd.png

I think getting off the subject of polyamorous relationships would be a good idea. Polyamory and homosexuality are not the same thing and thus do not belong in the same thread. Furthermore, I do believe there was a polyamory thread at one point but that was closed due to it (the conversation within) being considered not-pg13. I may be wrong about the polyamory thread, and if I am I will fix this post.

Share this post


Link to post

I think getting off the subject of polyamorous relationships would be a good idea. Polyamory and homosexuality are not the same thing and thus do not belong in the same thread. Furthermore, I do believe there was a polyamory thread at one point but that was closed due to it (the conversation within) being considered not-pg13. I may be wrong about the polyamory thread, and if I am I will fix this post.

The polygamy thread is still open: http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showtopic=102788 (ninja'ed by Paine)

 

On topic. There was another incident of a gay couple being turned away by a private business (a bakery this time: they wanted a wedding cake, which the bakery said they would sell them anything 'but' that as they were against gay marriage) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/j..._n_1721093.html

 

Now though, I am starting to doubt my brother's 'version' of this story. He claimed the gay couple went to the ACLU and that now the city is thinking about forcing the place to shut down. He also claimed this place was on a list of 'do not do business with' one of the gay sites had, which implied this couple was 'baiting' the business. I've read a few different articules on this story and seen no mention of any of that.

 

Maybe that stuff is true and I just didn't look deep enough, but as it stands, I'm starting to have a hard time believing his claims now (I could not find anything on that 'gay firebombs church' story he told me either). Think for now on I'll research this stuff myself (which I should have done in the first place).

Edited by Slaskia

Share this post


Link to post

I make up time at work, as I have to go to the Dr's for my hand.

 

I have 15 minutes in which to get lunch and bring it back to work. Well, Chick-Fil-A was so full and there was no where to park hardly, I could not believe it.

 

Here I am, I have a job, a schedule to meet and my life is busy and now I am in a bind as I am hungry, and going to be late getting back to work, all over this stupid difference of opinions. (Some of you know I believe in a marriage to be one man and one woman). This is not something I would participate in, or even if I was a gay person, sheesh. These people were out to let the gay people know they loved Chick-Fil-A. So what, I could care less. Even if the gay people had of been there protesting, I would have wanted to have told both sides to get a life, get a job or something instead of holding up others like myself, good greef.

 

Ya know, for every action there is a reaction. This interferred with my life this time. It was so frustrating to me. People who are aginst gays need to get on with their life and gay people need to get on with theirs is all I can say.

 

I talked to some of my gay friends and their partners about this today and they laughed. Some of them work for dr's and have high paying jobs as well. Like they said, they ignore this kind of stuff, and just do their thing. They stay away from people who look down upon them, and they have many straight friends, let me tell you. Of course this shows how secure they are within theirselves and their own personal lives with each other.

 

I think the biggest thing is gay people need to be more secure with in themselves and find the friends that accept them for who they are. I accept my gay friends and their partners for who they are, and love each one of them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.