Blogs and Stories
Threesome Marriages
First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the "triad."
Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”
“I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship,” says Sasha Lessin. “But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”
Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England, to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."
Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker." In a triad, there would be no doubt in Elizabeth Edwards’ mind whether her husband fathered a baby out of wedlock; she likely would have participated in it.
There are no statistics or studies out there, but according to Robyn Trask, the executive director of Loving More, a nonprofit organization in Loveland (yes, really), Colorado, dedicated to poly-education and support, about 25 percent of the estimated 50,000 self-identified polyamorists in the U.S. live together in semi-wedded bliss. A disproportionate number of them are baby boomers. (Paging Timothy Leary: Janet Lessin claims on her Web site that she's able to travel astrally.)
As with a couple, the key to making a triad work is communication. The Lessins' group specifically advocates something called "compersion": taking joy in another person's joy. Thus, they know how to process jealousy. “We don’t have anything take place off-stage,” says Sasha Lessin. “You witness your lover making googly eyes and you share your feelings. It’s not difficult for most people to be compersive once they feel they’re not being abandoned.”
Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously), take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections. "We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous.”
That said, Valerie White, executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal-defense fund for people with alternative sexual expression in Sharon, Massachusetts, says she believes that triads are actually a great way to raise a family. "Years ago, children didn’t get raised in dyads, they got raised with grandparents and aunts and uncles—it was much looser and more village-like," says White. "I think a lot more people are finding that polyamory is a way to recapture that kind of support.” For a year, Loving More's Trask and her then-husband were both involved with another woman, who was a part of the family. Trask's three children knew all about it. “I’m totally out,” says Trask.
Many others aren't. Larry, Rachel and Andie would only talk to me anonymously, due to the fact that Rachel, 47, works at large, traditional financial institution in Manhattan. Larry, 56, met her on a commuter ferry two years ago. At the time, Larry was a member of Poly-NYC, a polyamory group in New York; on their first date, he told her about it. Rachel had just gotten out of a year-and-a-half-long relationship with, unbeknownst to her, a married man. “I was so overwhelmed with Larry’s honesty," she says, "I said to him, ‘I need to look that up and understand it.'"
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Love Trumped Money
Abby Ellin regularly writes the "Vows" column for the New York Times, and previously wrote the "Preludes" column for that newspaper about young people and money. Her work has appeared in a range of publications, including Time, Marie Claire, More, Self and Glamour. She is the author of Teenage Waistland, but her greatest claim to fame is naming “Karamel Sutra” ice cream for Ben and Jerry's.
My Surreal Night With Michael Jackson
Abby Ellin regularly writes the "Vows" column for the New York Times, and previously wrote the "Preludes" column for that newspaper about young people and money. Her work has appeared in a range of publications, including Time, Marie Claire, More, Self and Glamour. She is the author of Teenage Waistland, but her greatest claim to fame is naming “Karamel Sutra” ice cream for Ben and Jerry's.
I don't think it'll ever happen. I read about a woman, that left her husband for a woman friend , and she might have wanted to also wanted to keep her husband, and the lady may have wanted to also keep her husband. They may be bi-sexual. But they would have to settle for a Civil Union.
exactly, if you look at countries like Holland who are a bit further down the road where anyone can basically marry anything including a few people who have married themselves three or more a still not there.
Although it is kind of a hot idea (lol) the thing I don't get it how these 50 or 60 something people being talked about can have such hot feet as in the picture *grinn*
As far a survivor rights, it's called a will!
Nothing wrong with a civil union either.
How about me marrying my mother for the SS and Medicare benefits?
I should be able to marry my daughter based on the same rational.
Where does it end. I'll tell you where it ends, it ends when the nuclear family unit is destroyed!
The supposed heads of the "nuclear family unit," i.e., male husband and female wife are doing a damned good job of supposedly destroying that unit. So don't blame the gays. Given that half of all "traditional" marriages end in divorce, and that a significant percentage of all marriages are rife with adultery, spousal abuse, child abuse and a litany of other sins, I'd say that proponents of the supposed sacred nature of traditional marriage should best focus on ways to stop the rot from within. Stopping gay marriage aint gonna clean up that mess, so stop blaming the gays for your own shortcomings and failings.
Folks,
Once homosexual marriage has been approved, the cat is out of the bag. The next step is a marriage between 2 men, one woman, a donkey, a 1957 chevrolet.
How does gay marriage lead to marriage between a donkey, a 1957 Chevrolet and 3 humans? Unless the donkey and the Chevy have certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and justice your comments are nothing more than inane ramblings. Gay marriage and marriage between a man and a woman are similar in that they are between two unrelated persons neither of whom is a minor, and neither of whom has been coerced into the union. Both are ostensibly based on love and commitment one person has for another. Gay marriage isn't the destruction of the institution of marriage as some chattering morons might say it is, but the affirmation of the institution . Gays want exactly what straights have - one other adult person to cherish and love until death do us apart. If that isn't a celebration of the attractiveness of marriage, I don't know what is.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
the phrase "the cat is out of the bag" doesn't really apply here, butt-for-brains. Typically this phrase means that a secret has been revealed to everyone. There is no secret here, just an inequity that needs to be ramified. So your comment is ignorant AND stupid. Good job!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
A threesome or foursome marriage, will N-E-V_E-R happen.
Sure it will. One day, marriage will only be a religious ceremony. The word marriage will only refer to a union recognized by your church or synagogue or mosque or whatever. The state will recognize civil unions between consenting adults, regardless of their sex etc. Once we separate marriage and civil unions, anythings possible.
That will never happen because atheists want to be "married," too!
I agree with majormoderate. This is inevitable. Why? Because we no longer live in a Judeo-Christian society, but a secular humanistic society. When you take religion out of the picture, anything is possible.
AMEN...the government should stay the hell out of my marriage and my bedroom...civil union is the way to go and people who are partners should be able to get partner benefits...
This user is no longer registered.
Sure, but isn't every breakup with children inherently ugly on some level? And don't most children from broken relationships end up confused at some point? Not sure it can be uniquely related to the three-way.
Wouldn't a three-way marriage be twice as likely to break up (completely or with one person breaking off), since there's an extra person involved?
yes i'm sure that it would be twice as likely... if you could apply simple statistics to the complex system of human emotion. If your emotions are that simple, then you might want to look in the mirror because I think you're a young golden retriever.
Gay marriage marked the start of the slippery slope. After group marriages comes nuptials between humans and animals. Who dares stand in judgment on the "orientation" of others?
You traditional marriage advocates seem to forget one thing--not a single person advocating for marriages wants to marry a NON human. And while polyamorous marriage does not seem likely in our time, it's no worse than using a woman as a bargaining chip in combining the estates of two households, which is what marriage has meant for thousands of years. Only recently in the past 50 to 100 years has marriage been about love. And now that it's actually about love, suddenly religious and socially conservative people are finding that they care about history--but not enough to actually study the damn subject.
That's right! Those ignorant traditionalists think that 'Romeo and Juliet' was a passionate and tragic love story when in reality it was obviously about
an "estate sharing" arrangement between the Capulets and the Montagues gone awry.
i disagreee just because people that advocate non human relationships haven't yet stepped forward and asked for the same rights doesnt mean they never will whose to say that beastiality isnt still practiced it is not socially accepted so they may not be so open and willing to just come out. thats not to say that they neever will.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
The key word here is "consenting". Marriage between adults and children or adults and animals will never exist because children and animals are not CONSENTING participants! Bestiality is rape!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Neither gay marriage nor group marriage will change the fact that minors, animals, and inanimate objects cannot sign legally binding contracts. Allowing adults to create legal relations with each other will do NOTHING to change the basic requirements of creating a valid contract. Your supposed slippery slope is nothing but an unthinking, hysterical reaction.
As Stephen Colbert would say: after this, what's to stand in the way of a bear that wants to marry a sandwich?
Let it go, Banjo. Do you ever miss an opportunity to talk about how you disapprove of gay marriage?
hey numbn u t s. marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. as soon as i can find a goat who can sign a marriage certificate and i'll send it your way.
As soon as two penis's can have sexual intercourse or two vaginas can have sexual intercourse I'LL send it your way.
Banjo, you're such a reject. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Yes marrying another man is like marrying a dog. In so many ways. Just ask Jesus!.. you freakin human wasteland
The employed, non mentally ill without a criminal record and non ruinous child support/alimony burdens straight male shortage is so grave now we'll have to contend with polygamy.
A sign of just how disinterested men are in polygamy is seen in the recent end of the 10th century Rabbi Gershom's 1000 year ban on polygamy for Ashkanazi males. Jewish guys aren't demanding a polygamy section on JDate.com. Lack of interest in women is so deep JDate sends daily alerts to male subscribers of supposedly hot ladies. Problem is a hot Columbia U chick advertising on Craig's List goes for a $100/pop versus $300-500 for a serious with an uncertain sexual outcome.
I'm sorry drmarkklein, but I've tried repeatedly to decipher what you've written & have been woefully unable to do so. If you could perhaps reword your statement to be clearer, that would be great.
HAHA wtf?!? This comment doesn't even hint at making any sense! wow!
Has anyone else read any Robert Heinlein? My favorite author...
In his 'universe', this kind of marriage is common. The whole 'Lazarus Long' story line is kind of based around it. Mike from 'Stranger in a Strange Land' preaches it. The thought of multiple people pooling their resources so as to make everything more comfortable for everyone... it's a great thought, but this country would NEVER view anything even approaching that as normal.
Heinlein was ahead of his time.
This user is no longer registered.
The web news zine Jezebel posted an article referencing this article which is how I found thebeast.com
I am in a non-triad multiperson marriage and, even though I liked the article I had trouble with the limited definition that Jezebel quoted.
"While polyamory as a concept can encompass any number of partners, WPA is seeking legalization, at this point, only for triads. As distinct from the fraught Jules et Jim-style menage a trois of popular imagination, triads are about stability:
Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads-"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon-demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other."
Your article gets better by page two. It talks more about relationships and commitment and practical ways to run a multiperson marriage although it still devoted most of the article to triads...
As a person who is in a long term, committed marriage of five people (soon to be six) I find this to be a slightly limited point of view. We have what could be called a variation on the Heinlein line marriage. My partner and legal spouse T and I have been together for 25 years and married for almost 22 years. Our third, S, joined us in 1996 and he and T consider themselves heterosexual life partners (much like Jay and Silent Bob. The three of us married C in 2001 and M in 2003.
(T has known M since he was an undergrad and I met S and C in alt.callahans.)
A week from tomorrow, K is coming to join our crazy group...she and T were high school sweethearts.
Being poly isn't about numbers and it isn't about sex. It's about love and commitment.
Also, people who don't know much about poyamory need to remember one important thing. There are as many flavors of polyamory as there are people who practice it.
Line marriages were introduce in "Friday" if I remember correctly. The concept of a single multi-generational marriage was well represented in that book.
Right on all counts about Heinlein; the line (and clan) marriages helped villageize the raising of kids in an unbelievably harsh environment. And "triad" ain't a new coinage; Grace Slick and the Airplane sang about polyamory among "water brothers" in a song called... "triad"
kittent, I admire your courage. Speaking of Heinlein, has anybody read "Courtship Rite," by Donald Kingsbury? Out of print now, I think, but is about a society where people marry up to groups of six -- three wives, three husbands -- a sex-tete, I suppose you could say. This society is scandalized when this fivesome wants to bring not one, but two, new partners into the family.
". . .not a single person advocating for marriages wants to marry a NON human." Really? Do you think that woman who shared her bed with a chimp, the one who tore her friend's face off, wouldn't have wanted their "relationship" solemnized? There are a lot of sick people out there that the gay agenda would like you not to think about.
'Gay Agenda'... ROFL!!
It's all 'us vs. them', ain't it Banjo?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Gay does not equal sick. When people stop being so damned nosey and get out of everyone's business, they'll realize there is no "gay" agenda, just homosexual people who want to have the benefits of marriage.
Besides, just because the law recognizes a union between two people of the same sex, doesn't mean it has to impact your religious beliefs. If it does, your faith might not be as strong as you think, nor your moral constitution as firm.
You know, I used to think you were just conservative; now I can tell you're stupid. The line is blurry lately but it's definitely there.
Banjo1; you just dipped the glue rag and took a deep bountiful whiff before writing that didn't ya. As I write this I'm sure my Cackle can be heard down the block. Were you hiding in the closet while she was having her semian trist, or can you add psychic to the many talents you've gleaned in your short but productive life.
Banjo1, do you pull your arguments out of your ass, or do angels whisper them in your ears? Because either way, you make some of the most delicious, meaty strawman arguments I have ever seen.
Beastly Bathhouse Banjo,
You've moved from the bathhouse to the barn yard. Hmmmmm. Found what you're looking for yet?
Banjo, you have taken a factual event, then twisted and omitted enough facts to suit your dumb argument.
Truth: a married couple had this chimp as a pet. They let the chimp sleep in bed with them, like I let my dog sleep on my bed. The couple had no kids, and doted on this chimp. Ever know anyone who doted on their cat or dog or parrot-or whatever-pet? Same thing.
So the chimp grows up, becomes too large and adult and wild to contain, and one day snaps and attacks the husband (not "her friend") and did horrible damage. And is carted away. The end.
So, again, Banjo.......how exactly is this a part of that "gay agenda"?
Banjo - I THOUGHT you were just a McGreevey American in closet!
Now I know - you're a full contact Dr Doolittle!
Animals cannot consent to sexual relationships. Therefore, a human having a sexual relationship with an animal is abuse. Period.
well you got what you wanted, attention.
I have to agree with Banjo, though. The woman who had a pet chimpanzee is strikingly similar to two men who want to sleep together. First of all, a chimpanzee is covered in hair. Second of all, all gay men don't wear clothes and swing from trees. Third of all, Banjo has latent homosexual feelings that cause him to "hate" gays. Fourth of all, your name pisses me off because I love banjo music and you are stupider than Ann Coulter. Fifth of all, gay people are evil.
So there you have it, irrefutable proof that gays are just like monkeys.
I used to think I would like 2 husbands. Ha! Now I dream of being single. Now THAT would be bliss.
This user is no longer registered.
If marriage is something other than between one man and
one woman, then why not three?
How about, If marriage is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between persons who share responsibilities and rewards, is it really anyone's place to tell all others that the limit is two?
I mean, not to dreg up that repugnant "pursuit of happiness" thing we've got in this country, but if several people want to work together to enrich all of their lives in a way that doesn't harm others, why stop them?
The problem with bigamy/polygamy is getting everyone to consent.
Take those disgusting middle-aged Mormon men who marry teenagers. Did she give her consent? Probably not. (How many normal teenage girls date 50-year old men?) Then when hubby married a second time, did either of the girls consent? Doubtful. Girl's date put a gun to her head.
To me, polygamy means men marrying as many women as they want/can afford with the women having no say.
I don't want my spouse free to marry someone else while I'm still married. You want to marry that other person -- fine. But divorce me first.
I wish a journalist would explore the consent issue. Yes, some wives consent to hubby adding another wife to the mix. But I'll bet many more don't want the competition. Just as few hubbies want their wives sleeping with other men.
Yeah, a handful of these polygamous relationships between late middle-aged, even elderly, folks will manage to work out.
But for the rest of us? I seriously doubt wife #1 will consent to hubby taking wife #2. And if wife #2 is too young to drink, I doubt she wants to get married int he first place.
Polygamy is just other wrinkle in the subjugation of women.
Personally, I think an extra wife around here would be awesome...
Maybe there could be an age limit, like the drinking age, where you can't be involved in polygamy until everyone is over say, 25?
Three people legally joined is no skin off my nose, they get to live their life, I get to live mine.
If that's what you want, might as well be single.
Cashmoney,
One the things that this article didn't do is make a distinction between polyamory(which the article is about) and polygamy. While the meaning of polyamory is a rough hybrid of the Greek term Poly (many) and the Latin term Amory or some variant (loves) hence many loves, the broad generally accepted definition is "consensual non-monogamy".
Polygamy, as practiced today, is normally a religious patriarchy that usually involves a single male and multiple females, some of who may be below the age of majority. Some marriages may be voluntary, others arranged. Either way, if it's not consensual due either to involuntary arrangement or lack of majority, then it isn't polyamory.
Your statement that implies"handful of these polygamous relationships between late middle-aged, even elderly, folks will manage to work out. " is nice opinion, but not based in fact. I've been involved in poly social groups where the majority of the members were 20 and 30 somethings. And as in monogamous relationships some work some don't. The one thing I can say, having participated in both, is that there is better communication and fewer assumptions in polyamory.
thank you for pointing that out so i didn't have to, the DEFINITION of the word polygamy is having multiple wives, so your statement makes sense other than the fact that you don't know what the word means...
"(How many normal teenage girls date 50-year old men?)"
I like to think I'm at least vaguely normal & I have to tell you that, back when I was in my late teens, I was not the only girl I knew who was seeing significantly older men. Not only did they treat us like queens, but they weren't bumbling idiots between the sheets!
"I don't want my spouse free to marry someone else while I'm still married. You want to marry that other person -- fine. But divorce me first."
Fine, them make that a clause in your marital union agreement, but don't force the rest of us to follow that same rule. Just because that's how you think, doesn't mean it's how we ALL think.
While fascinating, this seems to be making a story out of nothing. 50,000 is a TINY fringe community and from the examples cited, these are mostly (if not all) people who already are on the fringe, hippies who never gave up the dream and still spend their days smoking good weed and making free love. (Ever noticed that such people always end up working as psychologists BTW?). Even the hardcore seperatist polygymist communities out number this group. So I there is hardly any evidence to support that this is some growing trend or is becoming mainstream.
i completely agree. its really not a big deal and there are way more homosexuals than polygamists, so the likelyhood of this group getting the right to marry is slim
I am neither hippy nor psychologist. I don't necessarily think that polyamory is "some growing trend or is becoming mainstream" & I understand that people & the government will likely continue to discriminate against us until polyamory DOES become more mainstream, because, until then, we won't have enough numbers to make ourselves heard.
I don't dare to expect that it will become reality during my own lifetime, but I hold out hope that my & my partners' children will see it happen...
Hi,
I contradict your generalization. I am not a hippie nor were my parents. I'm 26 and in a polyamorous f-m-f open V. None of us are psychologists. And there are more of us than you think. Many of us aren't out to our families and our communities or even our friends due to fear of judgement at minimum and at worst, in some cases the very real fear of losing jobs or having children taken away due to bigotry. But on the internet, where anonymity is in great supply, there are growing poly communties where people talk and share information, experience, and advice.
And in this case, poly does not stand for polygamy, it stands for polyamory- which means many loves. And if you are just referring to polyfidelitous triads, quads, etc, then yes there are less of those, but the poly community in general is about relationships, not a particular format. Though currently my relationship form is a V, it has the potential to grow into a web. So there are many more out there than the structured triads and quads.
So maybe not mainstream now if ever, but definitely a growing trend.
Can we at least get a third political party, before we have three-way marriage? First things first.
Yes!
Civil unions for any consenting adult, any number, any gender.
Religious marriage as defined by religion.
Done.
Simple, no?
NO, not simple. Atheists want to be "married" too!!!
You totally failed to get what finderj was saying. Civil unions are for legal recognition. Religious marriage would be for anyone wanting their god or gods to recognize it. Somehow, religion got itself involved in the marriage process, and that's screwed the pooch ever since.
No, I didn't fail to understand. Marriage equality means marriage equality. If gay and lesbian couples are not content with the second-class "civil unions" (and rightly so), why would atheists be okay with it? Why set up a societal distinction between religious and non-religious people that is stapled to their foreheads? Essentially the non-religious will have a downgraded relationship with a pinch of stigma thrown in.
Paul: "Sarah and I had our civil ceremony last year."
Diane: "Oh, well, Roger and I were *married* in our *church* this past spring."
Paul: "Well, I guess different strokes for different folks."
Diane: "Indeed."
Paul: "You know God is dead, right?"
If you have "civil unions" for some and "marriage" for others, you are still setting up an inequality of between the two groups, even if they have the same rights! Marriage IS the current legitimate legal system. The pastor/rabbi/priest/whatever is really acting as a witness to the license.
No, but you did. finderj is saying that civil unions would be the only thing that's legally recognized. You can have a marriage, but that's only a designation that your church would make. Anyone getting hitched, religious or not, would have a civil union.
Again, no I didn't misunderstand. Nor do I think finderj's suggestion is a equitable solution. The primary definition of the word marriage is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Our country is currently in a period of redefining the word marriage (as was done in the distant past when wives stopped being property and the less-distant past when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed) to include same-sex couples. There is no logical deduction from there that marriage has become or should become solely a religious institution. The only motivation for making that argument is to create a division and a "difference" between heterosexuals/homosexuals and religious/non-religious people. Sounds familiar.... kind of like "separate but equal," right?
My point is that the words and names we use affect our perceptions immensely. I stand by my argument that by calling some relationships "marriages" and others "civil unions", even if they have the same legal rights, the term "marriage" is given an elevated and validated status simply from the history and weight of the word. Marriage has not historically been a religious institution. Marriage has historically been a legal arrangement. Religion does not own the word "marriage."
I will not relinquish my inclusion in the historical institution of marriage because I'm non-religious and choose to have a non-religious ceremony.
I can believe in marriage even if I don't believe in god.
Atheists can't be married becasue marrige is not a legal term it is a religious one. If atheists want to be "married" then pick up a religion. atheists also claim to want to celebrate christmas which is the most religious holiday for christianity. this claim of wanting to be married is ridiculous and atheists need to realize that marrige is religious and so is christmas
As an atheist, let me clarify something for you. I have ZERO desire to be "married" in the eyes of any imaginary man in the sky. I do, however want the rights awarded to those who are. The second we get around to ACTUALLY separating church and state, things will become a whole lot clearer.
Invent another word, who cares, so long as it's the EXACT same rights awarded to those who get married in a church/synagogue/temple/whatever & there'll be way less gays wanting to get married.
I still think this a workable solution. With the government everyone straight, gay, poly whatever goes to get the civil union contract to get a particular set of rights. Then, if they want to have a marriage ceremony in front of whoever they consider their community then they can go and do so. If athiests get out there and have officials who perform a marriage ceremony then they can define it was with or without god, gods, flying purple chickens, sacred purple toasters or whatever. Civil union= govenment contract. Marriage = whatever the heck kind of ceremony, meaning you give it. Simple in theory, simpler than what we'd have to do to keep marriage as a contract and as a ceremony of spiritual and/or communal bond. Not easy though, in practice.
And, for people that marriage as a term has bad connotations, they can get their contract without "marriage".
My point is the WORD being used matters. To most people, which includes religious, non-religious, gay, straight, whatever.
Otherwise why would gay people be fight to have "marriage" when it would be so much EASIER to settle for "civil union"? Marriage is a LEGAL arrangement, an umbrella term that encompasses BOTH religious ceremonies and getting hitched at city hall. Do NOT try to twist the truth and make it seems like all of a sudden marriage is only religious, you are full of crap if you say that.
There is a history to the word marriage, and MOST people are not going to be willing to trade being called MARRIED to their partner for being "civilly united." To suggest non-religious people wouldn't or shouldn't care about this is dehumanizing and ridiculous.
Mark my words: those of you against marriage equality will be eating your shorts (and trying to excuse away why you were so wrong) in 25 years.
You obviously don't understand, straight people have corrupted the sanctity of marriage with all their divorces and Hollywood 5-minute marriages, that's why all the homosexuals want marriage too.
Or something like that.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
You know, you are right, marriage does have a license and everything. The Government should really get in on this; have you noticed how a marriage license is the only type of license that has to be renewed? I think that the Government should put a five year expiration date on them. After five years, if the couple wishes to remain married, then they have to pay for a new license. It would be a "cash cow" for the Government...lol. And if they no longer wanted to be married, then they could just go their separate ways. I would save all parties a lot of money, too. Have a great day all!
Civil unions for all and "marriage" if you feel the need to have your civil union blessed.
In the end Pastors, Priests and Rabbis have no business acting as agents of the state.
Will someone please explain what ROFL and BTW mean?
I think I know what that blogger meant by NON, but I spend half my reading time trying to figure this stuff out. A friend finally explained that LOL means Laugh Out Loud, and WTF means something like We're The Friends (just kidding on that one).
BTW = "by the way"
ROFL = "rolling on floor laughing"
Marriage is an over rated institution. which until only 200 yrs. ago wasn't even considered for love. people at its mention then would look at each other and laugh. before then it was blood and money, and the guarantee of sustaining an old tired dynasty; as it now often is without the distinction of class.
why don't people just do what they do in private, without trying to force this camel through the eye of a needle to coin a phrase
Yawn.
This is not a legitimate artile, it's just an attempt to stir the pot.
That's absurd.
Marriage is a contract and consenting informed adults should have the freedom to contract between each other as they please.
It's a civil act and no church is required to bless it. So let it be, and lets move this country toward the light.
This article is interesting in the fact that once again we hear and see that human sexuality is far more diverse than what the religious right would have you think. When we all realize that humans are not all born under the same color of the rainbow, then polyamourous will become more socially acceptable.
Biblical / societal rules on what constitutes a socially acceptable family had it's place in it's own time. It kept the social order and was the most productive unit (yes, this is very over simplified for this discussion) but we are seeing changes and challenges to this model. Time will tell if we as a society can move beyond and change or stagnate.
What I also find interesting is that the couples mentioned in this article are older and for the most part were already in long committed relationships. Is it because as older adults they had more capacity to adjust to the complexities of a multiple relationship? After all MTV has made a fortune exploiting the immaturity of youth as they learn the "Road Rules" (pun intended) of relationships?
My 2-cents.
Dr Geo Jeff, very good assessment, I am one of the guys mentioned in the article and we have been together as a triad for almost 29 years. We have a very stable and loving relationship built on trust, commitment and understanding. We have been out to our families and all of our friends for many many years and if a person chooses to not accept us, well then that is something they will need to deal with alone. Peace, Doug
Never say never. Once you redefine the definition of "Marriage" or, expand its definition, the possibilities are there for all new forms and convolutions.
A slippery slope indeed.
Starts with gay marriage. Then polygamy.
Before you know it-
*gasp*
we'll all be loving each other!
Oh noes!!!1!
oh dear god, please grant me this one prayer.
thank you.
Promiscuity is a hallmark of homosexual life. It is only natural they would want group unions, but don't think that would stop them from getting plenty on the side.
What are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that "promiscuity is a hallmark of homosexual life." It's pretty common among heterosexuals too. Where's your credible basis for saying it's any more so in the gay community? And what does this have to do with this story which involves couples of both sexes anyway?
Dear Readers,
When Bathhouse-Barnyard-Banjo comments on homosexuality, please note:
they = I
them = me
Jes' keepin' it real BBB
*eye rolls*
I do hope you don't intend on reproducing as it'd totally suck to have someone as utterly moronic as you are as a parent.
I'm willing to try a threesome marriage.
The two women who would like to attempt this can reach me at.
Never mind. I would need a house with two master closets.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
It's disgusting, though let people live how they want to live - but A) it's not marriage so don't try to force it (what a marriage is has been well defined by 5000 years of history), and B) don't allow it when children are in the mix. Every child has the biological right to a mother and a father - granted, things don't always work out that way, and of course it's possible for non-traditional couples/triads to raise decent kids - that's not the point. Every kid deserves the at least the opportunity. Triads and gay couples having children represents the most selfish act one can possibly imagine - they do it to satisfy their 'needs' to be parents, and the cost of the child's right to have a mother and a father. If there were too many kids up for adoption, fine, let the gay couples adopt children - no problem - but 'traditional couples' - as defined by mother nature (not 'god' for you all you narrow minded anti-religious types), should get the kids first.
oh-oh
"...a child's right to a mother and a father..." How about a child's right to be loved, cared for, and provided for?
Clearly, you have a narrow definition of what it means to be a man or a woman.
In your world, does daddy "bring home the bacon" and mommy "makes house"? Is mommy a bad mommy if she "wears the pants in the family" and, god forbid, brings home the bacon herself?
People are people, and we are who we are, regardless of testosterone and estrogen levels. I am myself first, and a woman second. There is a spectrum of masculinity and femininity, and men and women, gay, bisexual, and straight, and in ALL kinds of combinations, fall all along that spectrum. The idea that men teach boys how to play with trucks and moms teach girls how to play with dolls is an illusory social construct. There are tom boys who are not lesbians and there are straight men who design women's shoes.
I'll grant you this: it IS hard being a single parent. But a responsible, generous, caring, single parent would still be light years better than a crappy and abusive mom and dad.
But then, why are two parents theoretically better than one? Because they are a team. They have more combined resources to give to the child. They have different personalities (regardless of gender) and different experiences that help raise the child to become a more well-rounded person through well-rounded parenting. Can a single parent have well-rounded parenting? Absolutely, it's just harder for one person to do by themselves.
Can you then infer that hetero parents are theoretically better than same-sex parents? Absolutely not. If you argue that the child misses out on having a "mother" and "father," you must either have a narrow definition of those words or limited experience with the immense variation that exists along the spectrum of one gender.
When it comes to having children, selfish is as selfish does, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. There are plenty of straight couples who have children for selfish reasons.
Go Alice! Go Alice! Go Alice!
Props and thanks!
"(what a marriage is has been well defined by 5000 years of history)"
Actually, you're wrong on this point (& several others as well, but I'll leave those for others to pick apart). Marriage has had many different incarnations throughout history & as it is currently defined in the USofA (since it means different things, in different countries), has only really existed for the past century or so. Before that, among other things, it was EXTREMELY rare for marital unions to have much of anything to do with love.
jomama, you don't have a clue of what the real world is, or actual history. Marriage as the small minded define today is recent. Like, two centuries recent.
You had a dreadful childhood and worse marriage, huh?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.