Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Maybe, maybe not. From yet another story -- damn, people love writing about the idea of non-monogamy!

Peter Zupcofska, a leading marriage and divorce attorney for same-sex couples, says he's dealt with premarital agreements between gay men in which they've agreed that sex with other people "would not be a reason to penalize each other." Before they ever said "I do," they wrote a contract with "the intention that they'd have an open relationship once they were married."

Zupcofska says he has never drawn up such a clause for a heterosexual couple nor, fascinatingly, for a lesbian couple.

Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage

 

Most, if not all, of that data is from before gay marriage was legal, as far as I can see.

But, yes, if those trends continue now that gays are allowed to formally commit to a marriage, then yes, their view of "marriage" is pretty fucked up.

 

All right. Well, I don't agree, because getting older I've definitely seen that people have their own ways of being happy that are often baffling to outsiders but work for themselves and each other.

However, your stance does seem to detract from the argument that gay marriage is just like any old marriage.

 

I give it 6 months before the wave of "The Supreme Court decision destroyed my relationship" articles.

 

On no planet do I think we have a big enough sample size to truly reflect how gay people actually act in formal, recognized marriages. The first state to legalize it only did so 12 years ago.

And, I'm not saying it's impossible to find happiness with non-monogamy. If it works for you, great. But it's NOT a marriage. Nor should it confer any privilege.

 

At the risk of being accused of being a sexist, I would suspect that, in the main, that's because homosexual men are, you know, men. Men gonna do what men gonna do.

 

This reminds me of the old sabermetrics debates, where people would get upset because others were enjoying baseball differently than them.

"Baseball is about the smell of a hot dog, the glint of a noon sun off the grizzled veteran's sunglasses, a perfectly executed hit-and-run. SO WHY DO YOU LIKE TO MAKE ROBOTS HAVE AN OPS!!!!?????11ELEVENTY!"

 

If its rulings are meaningless, what's the point of having a Supreme Court?

 

To keep the board alive after the NBA and NHL seasons finish and while baseball is in a lull.

 

That's marvelous. They are the exception.

Just like Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau.

There are always exceptions. The three-pack-a-day smoker who lives to 105. The reckless driver who always avoids a crash.

 

No. This would be like suddenly declaring that any ball that gets out of the infield is now a home run, as opposed to one that goes over the outfield fence.

 

I don't disagree.

But do you have a moral objection to their marriage?