Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

Originally posted by Annee

All relationships take work and dedication from all involved.

Originally posted by Stylez
Yeah, I betcha he didn't know that was a given eh?

Why would you make a bet you know you'd lose.
She is simply reiterating what I said earlier, but in a much more compact way.
Or was that your way of going 'duh?!?' lol

I think it is very important to look at how marriage has changed over the last century.

When men and women had roles - - it defined the institution of marriage. Men were the bread winner - woman was the caretaker.

In those days husband and wife practically lived separate lives. The men worked all day - sometimes late - sometimes hung out with their buddies after work. Maybe they met at a local bar to watch sports on the weekend.

Women shared their lives with other women. They shared being mothers - they shared being part of the PTA - they had their days free to do whatever they wanted - as long as they got their "required" work done and food on the table.

Some still choose those defined roles - - but I think for the most part - everyone is independent. The companionship women used to get from other women - - they now expect from their husband.

My advice today is - "You have to be ONE - before you can be TWO - - or Three or Four. The romantic idea of sharing your life with someone - - having them complete you - - just isn't going to work with the changes of society.

"You have to be ONE - before you can be TWO" - - in other words - YOU have to be a complete person - know who you are - before you even attempt to join in a life union.

It just doesn't work the old fashion way.

Originally posted by Stylez
You came out perectly fine? Compared to what?

Why would a comparison be needed in the first place?
Secondly, compared to whom, I am a person, not an object.

Originally posted by Stylez
I guess marriage should be taken a lot more seriously then eh?

Exactly. If someone is willing to take a risk, embrace the bad along with the good and make the best of it, to invest a ton of time and patience, for those they love, then yeah, it very, very serious!

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
I would rather them have a home with two happy and successful families than to be in one dysfunctional one where misery remains constant for all.

Originally posted by Stylez
You think Gays aren't dysfunctional? They are some of the most messed up people in society. Seems I only get called names whenever I post the facts about them so Ill spare you the gruesoms details their lifestyles ultimately end in as a result.

People in general can be dysfunctional. yes, if it makes you happy knowing there are bi and gay people in this world who are dysfunctional, but I hope you also tickled to know that there are dysfunctional str8ies too. You really didn't know that??

So how did you aquire these *facts*? Are you homosexual? Oh, I bet you're Bi aren't you? Do you know the secret handshake? We can spend all day with you listing the negatives of every human being on the planet, and I can return with a positive for each one, but it wouldn't make a damn.
It's life, like it or leave it. While I know it just breaks your tiny little heart that people can be happy, successful, and sane regardless of what makes them tick inside, I also know that people can be seriously #ed up cookies too.

Additionally,
Why would someone call you names, unless you don't know how to approach people and tell them like it is(or tell them to go to hell and make them actually look forward to the trip). I find it hard to believe you are *that* much of a social failure. Are you really that lacking in charisma?

reply to post by Annee


In some cultures of the past, yeah sure.. There were other cultures in the same area of the world around that time that had completely different structures. Consider how the Amazons lived, or for that matter the role of Valkyries with the Norse. Did you know that not only did Norse females also went to war along side with the men, but they also went topless so that as their opponents died, they would die knowing they were killed by a woman.

There were also other cultures that did a test to see who was fit for what job.
The Native Americans would test their youth by setting a teepee on fire, and send in a kid to see what they would come out with. If a boy came out with weapons and tools, he was to be a warrior, likewise if a girl did the same she would also be the same. If a girl or a boy came out with food, cleaning tools, and herbs, they would be a caretaker instead, regardless of gender.

As Americans, being people who are a mix of many cultures, how do we benchmark what would be the great 'pillars' of our society, particularly with it's dynamic nature changing with every decade?

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
reply to post by Annee

 

In some cultures of the past, yeah sure.. There were other cultures in the same area of the world around that time that had completely different structures. Consider how the Amazons lived, or for that matter the role of Valkyries with the Norse. Did you know that not only did Norse females also went to war along side with the men, but they also went topless so that as their opponents died, they would die knowing they were killed by a woman.

There were also other cultures that did a test to see who was fit for what job.
The Native Americans would test their youth by setting a teepee on fire, and send in a kid to see what they would come out with. If a boy came out with weapons and tools, he was to be a warrior, likewise if a girl did the same she would also be the same. If a girl or a boy came out with food, cleaning tools, and herbs, they would be a caretaker instead, regardless of gender.

As Americans, being people who are a mix of many cultures, how do we benchmark what would be the great 'pillars' of our society, particularly with it's dynamic nature changing with every decade?

Cultural/social anthropology is my hobby. Link TV is my favorite channel.

I'm trying to stay within the general American society.

However - one of the best documentaries I've ever watched was about the wagon trains moving west. In preparation - the wagon master made the men and women switch roles. Each had to learn everything from driving - repairs - shooting - cooking - taking care of the children etc. Not something you see in westerns.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur

There were also other cultures that did a test to see who was fit for what job.
The Native Americans would test their youth by setting a teepee on fire, and send in a kid to see what they would come out with. If a boy came out with weapons and tools, he was to be a warrior, likewise if a girl did the same she would also be the same. If a girl or a boy came out with food, cleaning tools, and herbs, they would be a caretaker instead, regardless of gender.

Now Now - - don't lump all Native Americans together.

They were quite different.

reply to post by Crysstaafur


Yes, I agree. But with all the foresight and planning...cohabitation can still produce unforeseen results. It is hard enough sometimes for two people to live under one roof, tack on kids and that is a huge burden, add a dog, more burden, cats and cat boxes--this can be insanity to the non-cat lover... what is cute at the beginning of a relationship is a burden in the middle and total exasperating ten years in.

With half of all marriages ending in divorce, putting four, five, six, seven people and say, three different marriages in the same mix is just asking for trouble. And you mentioned "sane"...no one can or should submit to a test for that, or you are doing that separate but equal thing again.

Also, jealousy... some husbands get jealous of how much time the kids get, I wonder how jealous that same husband would be to see his wife getting some lovin' on top of a washing machine with someone younger and better looking.

We're only human, after all.

And what of the kids? The child I spoke of is miserable. She thinks her parents are crazy, she hates her mother and her mother's new husband, feels like her father is spineless and wants to live with her aunt.

Yes, I agree heterosexual and gay monogamous marriages can be filled with dysfunction, but you are multiplying that dysfunction when you inject more people into the mix with various, human agendas. We're people. According to Maslow, we're inherently selfish and seek to have our own needs fulfilled first. That's why marriages can turn toxic awfully quick.

Children don't ask to be here, they don't ask for drama, they don't ask to have to take sides and referee and yet in our society that placates the desires of adults *cough octomom cought* of adults kids are often left out in the wash. So that is my worry--will it benefit society, or will we be stuck with an even more disenfranchised generation of youth?

When it does work, and I am sure it does, there are lots of eyes on the kids and that's a good thing. I am glad that your relationship is working out for you, and I hope it continues to. These are such complex issues and the best I can do is try to understand where this all takes the next generation and am I leaving it better or worse than I found it.

Take care.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I wholeheartly agree. It's not for anyone. Never will. The comment on sanity, is through the eyes of the beholder.. it's just common sense.. you don't hook up with someone you can't trust.

Some people can control their jealousy and others can't.
What I proposed does not limit people. If someone is only comfortable with one person outside of themself, more power to them.. likewise it they want to be a loner instead..

There are trade offs.. and yes.. I felt that implication of 'it takes a village'..
I sincerely hope that one of the adults in the scenario will wise up quick and do the right thing for the kids.. someone has to.

A healthy marriage is a healthy marriage - Period!

I don't think I've disputed that. I've said that given man's general tendencies towards selfishness and inflation of ego that it is easier with fewer egos in the mix.

Most of the multiple marriages are done on the sly and the participants are not mentally healthy to begin with.

Maybe that's true, but I'd say our society as a whole is dealing with increased mental illness if you look at some of the mental health publications.

Bucking society trends does cause dissension. I don't see any difference between those fighting to legalize drugs from those trying to legalize multiple partners.

I do. I'm for the legalization of drugs because I can see a societal benefit. There won't be an increase in addiction because drugs are readily available to those that want them now, and it will add an economic boost to have new, taxable income. If you choose to destroy your own life, so be it. It's your life.

Multiple marriage partners would have no effect on the economy or add to society in a manner that is equal or better than monogamy. Whats more, unlike drugs, the nature of the "venture" is not always one of equal yoke or footing. Sometimes, the man makes the decision and the first wife goes with it as she sees no other choice.

Polygamist handle problem in their community? You're stereotyping you know. Do you really believe there is only Polygamy in certain religious orders?

How again am I doing that? I'm not talking about just Mormons. I've referenced a family of "witches" (their personal label), this group on this board as poly-amorous, and having lived abroad in cultures where it was legal, I can say that Jains, Hindus, Muslims, and more have polygamous marriage.

My point was due to the illegality the burden of marriage dissolution and all it entails falls upon their community to sort it out. In the event that there is no community I would imagine they sort it out amongst themselves. There is no "law" or legal precedence to fall upon in settling the dispute.

All relationships take work and dedication from all involved.

Did I say they didn't?

You paint a very pristine controlled society.

How so?

I voted for gay marriage in my state. Not exactly pristine or controlled by most standards. I've worked for drug policy reform, again not exactly pristine or controlled. I still take psychedelics when given the opportunity. I'm very open and accepting about people practicing whatever religion or anti-religion or no religion that they choose.

Like most people I am a mix of viewpoints. Some of my views would be considered "lefty" (health care, anti-war, anti-death penalty). Some of my views would be considered "righty" (tax reform, marriage = monogamy).

I'm actually a little offended that you have decided to "paint" me and what I supposedly think on the basis of my belief that polygamy doesn't benefit society enough that it should be granted legal protections. In fact, I even said that in spite of my beliefs they have a religious loophole they could use if they really wanted to play rough about it.

What is so pristine and controlled about my societal views? I'm a civil libertarian and I voted for gay marriage because of it. Polygamy is, in my opinion, apples to oranges. I do not think it is like to like. I just don't.

Speaking of pristine...I have known several different types of polygamous marriages here and abroad and the nice rosy picture you painted of a "woman's" world and a "man's" world is all very well and good in Little House on the Prairie, not so nice when you are in Egypt and your husband just put you aside in favor of a sixteen year old and your children have been moved to the household of the younger wife. It isn't so nice when you are sent back to live with your husband's mother and your kids stay with the father. It's also not so rosy for the kids that grew up in that raided compound. None of them had a clue about who they ought to call mom and dad, the younger boys were cast aside so they couldn't compete for the girls their own age.

I'm all for acceptance, within reason. Where there is the potential for children to be hurt, or where there is the potential for coercion I am not so accepting. If that makes me a bad person...okay then. I'm bad.

Now, Mr Chrstoffer, had a very "small" cluster relationship and it has been maintainable for him and that is GREAT. I wouldn't rejoice in seeing them fail, and I will applaud them when they are all still together twenty years down the road. I honestly would like to see good things come to them all.




[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

I wholeheartly agree. It's not for anyone. Never will. The comment on sanity, is through the eyes of the beholder.. it's just common sense.. you don't hook up with someone you can't trust.

Some people can control their jealousy and others can't.
What I proposed does not limit people. If someone is only comfortable with one person outside of themself, more power to them.. likewise it they want to be a loner instead..

There are trade offs.. and yes.. I felt that implication of 'it takes a village'..

I sincerely hope that one of the adults in the scenario will wise up quick and do the right thing for the kids.. someone has to.

And I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I do. I'm glad you're all on the same page.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur


Why would you make a bet you know you'd lose.

She is simply reiterating what I said earlier, but in a much more compact way.
Or was that your way of going 'duh?!?' lol

Something like that, but yeah, I was being facetious regarding that habit of always "enlightening" us with concepts and Ideas that are basically academic. She either underestimates us as if we're really that ignorant, or, she really IS, that, condescending thinking she must "dumb it down" to such a level .

EXAMPLE:

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Crysstaafur

There were also other cultures that did a test to see who was fit for what job.
The Native Americans would test their youth by setting a teepee on fire, and send in a kid to see what they would come out with. If a boy came out with weapons and tools, he was to be a warrior, likewise if a girl did the same she would also be the same. If a girl or a boy came out with food, cleaning tools, and herbs, they would be a caretaker instead, regardless of gender.

"Now Now - - don't lump all Native Americans together. " - Anne

See what I mean. I read that and knew you weren't talking about ALL native Americans and were simply using the illustration as an analogy.

Ok, I guess you COULD have said "some" Native Americans if you didn't mean ALL. Or you could have said ALL if you meant ALL Native Americans. You could have used the specific tribe name etc,. But you didn't assuming the point you were making was more important than splitting hairs. I did that yesterday in another thread using some of her posts as an example and was accused of being off topic while the point I was making was totally missed.

It's curious to me how even if the point you make, is valid and corroborates the basis of your argument, rather than just say Oh yeah I see or that is right etc. they must insist on finding at least SOMETHING wrong with it and point it out while not even addressing the central message and the point you were making.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Crysstaafur

 

Yes, I agree. But with all the foresight and planning...cohabitation can still produce unforeseen results. It is hard enough sometimes for two people to live under one roof, tack on kids and that is a huge burden, add a dog, more burden, cats and cat boxes--this can be insanity to the non-cat lover... what is cute at the beginning of a relationship is a burden in the middle and total exasperating ten years in.

With half of all marriages ending in divorce, putting four, five, six, seven people and say, three different marriages in the same mix is just asking for trouble. And you mentioned "sane"...no one can or should submit to a test for that, or you are doing that separate but equal thing again.

Also, jealousy... some husbands get jealous of how much time the kids get, I wonder how jealous that same husband would be to see his wife getting some lovin' on top of a washing machine with someone younger and better looking.

We're only human, after all.

And what of the kids? The child I spoke of is miserable. She thinks her parents are crazy, she hates her mother and her mother's new husband, feels like her father is spineless and wants to live with her aunt.

Yes, I agree heterosexual and gay monogamous marriages can be filled with dysfunction, but you are multiplying that dysfunction when you inject more people into the mix with various, human agendas. We're people. According to Maslow, we're inherently selfish and seek to have our own needs fulfilled first. That's why marriages can turn toxic awfully quick.

Children don't ask to be here, they don't ask for drama, they don't ask to have to take sides and referee and yet in our society that placates the desires of adults *cough octomom cought* of adults kids are often left out in the wash. So that is my worry--will it benefit society, or will we be stuck with an even more disenfranchised generation of youth?

When it does work, and I am sure it does, there are lots of eyes on the kids and that's a good thing. I am glad that your relationship is working out for you, and I hope it continues to. These are such complex issues and the best I can do is try to understand where this all takes the next generation and am I leaving it better or worse than I found it.

Take care.

EXCELLENT POST. Maslow is one of my favorite reads since college I think Ive read all books by maslow and think it was an appropriate use of a quote in explaining why Annes opinion you paint a very controlled view of the world, when the one she espouses doesn't only suggest more control, it would REQUIRE it.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Stylez]

people anywhere in the world should be free to love and marry whoever they want, with all the problems in the world ...i dont see how this is a problem

Originally posted by Annee
"You have to be ONE - before you can be TWO" - - in other words - YOU have to be a complete person - know who you are - before you even attempt to join in a life union.

It just doesn't work the old fashion way.

Total BS.....I'm messed up in so many ways that if my wife wasn't there to make me a whole person life would be very different for me and not in a good way...


How old are you? you sound very young...

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee
"You have to be ONE - before you can be TWO" - - in other words - YOU have to be a complete person - know who you are - before you even attempt to join in a life union.

It just doesn't work the old fashion way.

Total BS.....I'm messed up in so many ways that if my wife wasn't there to make me a whole person life would be very different for me and not in a good way...

How old are you? you sound very young...

I'm a 62 year old grandmother of 3 - who is just short of her 20th wedding anniversary. Married to a guy who is 43. We own our own computer business.

Was married 14 years first time. But he wanted all my time and was jealous of his own children - so he got the boot.

Nothing is absolute by-the-way.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Polygamist handle problem in their community? You're stereotyping you know. Do you really believe there is only Polygamy in certain religious orders?

How again am I doing that? I'm not talking about just Mormons. I've referenced a family of "witches" (their personal label), this group on this board as poly-amorous, and having lived abroad in cultures where it was legal, I can say that Jains, Hindus, Muslims, and more have polygamous marriage.

Did I mention Mormons?

Do you not think there are just independent regular people not affiliated with any group or religion who practice polygamy?

Don't take offense - its just how I see it. To me - you keep putting things in society programmed "neat little boxes".

Like when you said - what if a man saw his wife with some hot young guy. Why not just another guy? Why not an older guy? Why does it have to be a hot young guy?

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Speaking of pristine...I have known several different types of polygamous marriages here and abroad and the nice rosy picture you painted of a "woman's" world and a "man's" world is all very well and good in Little House on the Prairie, not so nice when you are in Egypt and your husband just put you aside in favor of a sixteen year old and your children have been moved to the household of the younger wife. It isn't so nice when you are sent back to live with your husband's mother and your kids stay with the father. It's also not so rosy for the kids that grew up in that raided compound. None of them had a clue about who they ought to call mom and dad, the younger boys were cast aside so they couldn't compete for the girls their own age.

Exactly why I was specific.

I think Polygamy is a more natural situation for humans - especially women. ONLY if the women are in control.

That is a personal opinion of mine.

Originally posted by realcasa
people anywhere in the world should be free to love and marry whoever they want, with all the problems in the world ...i dont see how this is a problem

Maybe that is why such a thing can happen because their are so many more important things people should be arguing for than to be able to usurp the sanctity and tradition of an American institution icon and merge everything it stands for and protects ensuring the Family as the backbone of society, with the self centered sexual self indulgeance, and depravity of homosexuals. We should break the basic foundation for marriage keeping it one that is about family and diminish what this union is about on the premise of sexual behavior.

This would then make a strong legal argument for one to marry themselves if their sexual orientation os a-sexual or they only masturbate. Then their are those that require numerous partners to express their "special love" .

Marriage will become a pathetic joke like it did in the netherlands where now the yare desperate for solutions to get people to want to have families and get married again.

No one is taking anything away from gays many other people can't have for reasons that don't qualify for it. No we aren't taking a thing from them, They are taking it from us and when they do, straights won't want to be associated with it anymore like what happened in Mass and Holland. Marriage will become a joke. with all the dignity of a crossdressed female impersonator dancing around in a gay parade yelling " I may not go down in history, but Ill go down on your Daddy!"

If they think Straights hate them now, I'd say, by and large that is untrue, but if this goes all the way, I think their wil be resentment for it at first, then, it will become unworthy of the very legitimacy gays are trying to attache and associate themselvs to that it won't mean that much to them anymore either because without the culural history it had by what is known as normal sexual partners of straight heterosexual husbands and wives, it will become the kind of thing Gays wil make it.

Now ask yourself, is there any niche in society that gays have a role in that hasn't been turned into some kind of lisp languaged limp wristed display of individuals so obsessed with sex and as much sex as they can find time for, that it invariably becomes the stereotypical gay meme they hate being brought up in this way, but work harder and harder every year to expand on ther Gay image, to make it even more an exhibition in over sexed and sexually obsessed men and woman whose motto is " If beauty is only skin deep, than I want beautiful skin damn it."

When that happens, most straight people will say, "Marriage is gay".
I can hear it already.

The Homosexualization of America is one of the worst directions this country could have ever agreed to go in and I believe we will pay a heavy price for it

reply to post by A Fortiori


I'm sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intent.

This is one of the best conversations I've had on ATS.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
So how did you aquire these *facts*?

Which facts?

Are you homosexual?

No but I play one on TV

Oh, I bet you're Bi aren't you?

How much?

Do you know the secret handshake?

I even have the "decoder ring"

We can spend all day with you listing the negatives of every human being on the planet, and I can return with a positive for each one, but it wouldn't make a damn.

I agree their are much more compelling methods of proving one point over another without playing tit for tat.

It's life, like it or leave it.

Naaah Ill take the third option and change it

While I know it just breaks your tiny little heart that people can be happy, successful, and sane regardless of what makes them tick inside, I also know that people can be seriously #ed up cookies too.

You assume a lot dont you, wanna try being serious rather than such a presumptuous court jester.

Why would someone call you names,

I guess they want to tell me what they think of me ?
You'll have to ask them

unless you don't know how to approach people and tell them like it is

So ya think I been too soft on em eh?

or tell them to go to hell and make them actually look forward to the trip

Well I see how desperate it looks when ever they talk to ME like that and I have no reason to act that way, besides many Christians have accosted them with very thick old leather bound books called the Bible where they held them down attempting to "shove their "version" of "faux" Christianity, down their throats.

No charges were filed by the way.

I find it hard to believe you are *that* much of a social failure.

Well that's only because I am in a dialogue with YOU now where it is so much easier to look like a social success in contrast to your status as a legend in your own mind. Yeah, I can be a smart ass too.

Are you really that lacking in charisma?

That lacking? what kind of deficit are we talking about ?

Tell ya what homicide, when you want to get serious lemme know