Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

I don't really see them together very often. Usually just him. But he's told us for years that they don't have sex any more. One member of the group keeps urging him to get a divorce. Our other friend kept muttering, "That's not a marriage. That's not a marriage," when sexless marriage guy was out of ear shot.

 

Yes, it is.

People wanted to argue all day, every day that allowing gays to marry would somehow "change the definition" of marriage. Even though it does nothing of the sort.

Non-monogamy DOES change the definition.

Regardless of who is legally married to who, the commitment and promise is the same. That's what same-sex marriage advocates have always argued.

A promise that doesn't involve exclusive commitment isn't a "promise." It's a casual relationship of convenience.

 

I found this fascinating. Despite two huge victories last week, Obama still has a pretty shitty record at the Court.

Despite This Week’s Victories, Obama Has Struggled At The Supreme Court | FiveThirtyEight

 

Who are you to define marriage? What my wife and I choose to do or not do in the comfort of our home or elsewhere is between us and is no more or less validated by what people like you think.
(Not an attack, just a statement of fact.)
This is the problem with the whole marriage debate. People who think their opinion of what a marriage is think their opinion is the only one that matters/is correct. That's not how this country works. Your opinion is great. Continue to have it. But you don't get to lay out the rules for everyone else. You're not that special.

 

Oh, and for the record, my wife and I have the vanilla marriage most conservatives would largely say is the ideal.

 

This is not an opinion: If there's no commitment or promise of exclusivity in your "marriage," gay or straight, you are essentially asking for recognition and certain privileges based on NOTHING.

Without VOWS, you're not getting married - you're two dinguses standing in front of a crowd making small talk.

It's like me saying I need/deserve a promotion without committing to any changes whatsoever in job duties.

 

So here are a couple of articles, then.

This one is from Hanna Rosin, we all love her: Most gay couples aren't monogamous: Will straight couples go monogamish?

And this one is from Dan Savage, leading gay voice: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html

Both of them -- and Savage in very much a first-person way -- are very clear that gay couples are not such big fans of the one-to-one-for-a-lifetime concept. That article on Savage further explored how that's something the straights could take from the gays to enjoy life more.

Regarding your previously stated opinion then ... you'd have to loosen your definition of what works and "commitment," or you'd have to agree that, after all this, gay marriage is fundamentally different.

I go with Option A. I'm with Whitman. It isn't for me, but I've seen it work for people. Probably not long term, it's likely an arrangement of convenience until the kids are grown and the people can go their separate ways, but they do seem to be OK in the moment.

 

So you're saying the only thing that defines a marriage is who you do or don't fuck?
Because, as a married man, I take offense to that.
If my wife and I promise to commit to a lifetime of caring and supporting each other, of paying bills together, or raising a family together, or buying and paying for a house together, of becoming a vibrant part of a school and/or community together, what we do or don't do in the bedroom is none of your god damn concern.
Not to mention, there's an ENTIRE community of people in open relationships that, gasp, enjoy being in open relationships and use the sex they have with other people as a way of reconnecting with each other.
So, please, spare me the bullshit about what you think a marriage is. Because unless you're secretly Obama, and you're working on creating an actual definition of marriage through executive order, your opinion means nothing more than mine does.

 

Ah, ok ...

My brother-in-law (wife's brother) is in this boat. Years ago while we were all together on vacation he started complaining to me about his sexless marriage. Since their lone child has moved on, it's pretty clear that she's content with the housemates model and he isn't at all. He's tried to get her to go for couples counseling and she will have none of it. So, he's going on his own.

Part of me thinks that she wants a divorce but she wants him to be the formal instigator.

 

Sorry. If you can't commit to one person, you may technically be allowed to "get married," but you're not in a "marriage."

And, this, "but people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted,” is such a warped, twisted view of monogamy and commitment that it borders on insanity.

Pretty much. You're not in a "marriage" if you fuck people other than your wife.

Of course you're "allowed" to do whatever you want. But if you fuck other people, you haven't made a promise or commitment to anyone.

 

All right.

So it's your opinion that the majority of gay marriages are bordering on insanity? Because, at least from these and other quite learned and in-the-know voices, the side sampling is a fairly standard part of gay marriage.

(Side note: It looks like most of the anecdotes and even the data are about gay men. Don't know if this is a standard feature of lesbian marriages.)

 

Will certainly be a huge part of gay divorce.