Don't Redefine Marriage To What It Never Was

So there is an article on a gay "news" sight, I use the term loosely as it seems like most gay "news" sites it is much more tabloid over all then news. (which is another story all together) The article blew up my Google Plus news feed along with my Facebook news feed with people commenting on it. It is an article that is quite conversational, especially in the light to what was the fight for marriage equality, and the idea of trying to redefine the legal definition of marriage, and thus what it means entirely. The article happens to feature gay men, however what they would like to see is a new special right that dose not exist for any one right now.  Which has created a division as there is the contingent that says it should be the next big push for the movement, and they are clashing derectly with those that feel it should not in any way be a part of the movement, and I find myself in the latter camp. So right after the jump will be the article.



The article is about a couple that divorced to add a third into their relationship, and drew up papers for what they called a marriage.  with the rhythm hope that the law will change to reflect it.  http://www.thegailygrind.com/2015/10/19/married-gay-couple-divorces-so-they-can-legally-add-another-man-to-relationship/  Now this is where I start to have problems with the whole thing.  For one thing I think marriage is a very serious problem and that the promise to stay together and love just the two of you is not something that is to be taken lightly. But that one I know is broken by almost as may people as keep it.  The two things that I really have a problem with is redefining was marriage is, it has always been a joining two people into something that is bigger then themselves and promising to love no one but each other and to be faithful to each other through the good times and the hard times, and to change it is to in effect soil what it stands for.  Not only that but I don't believe that a relationship that is based on bringing someone in for what was supposed to be casual sex, something I think has no part in any marriage, in no small part because all the multi partner relationships I have witnessed ended and one of the partners got the boot as soon as the one that held the power, and convinced the others to go along with what they wanted, gets bored with one of them.  It is not at all a stable relationship, and as such dose not even stand up to the test of what a marriage is supposed to be. Then the other thing that I object to is by allowing such things you say that innately it is a wholesome environment to raise children in.  I think that is far from the truth as it is a relationship built on jealousy and coercion by the partner that has the most power over the other two, and ultimately they fall apart which is not good for the children.  ultimately since all the laws governing relationships are written to deal with the joining of two people not a gaggle of people.  Not only is there the problem of rewriting pretty much every law under the book, then you have to answer the question where do you cut it off, at which point is it to many people.

Marriage is important because it bonds two people together as that is the best environment to raise kids in, and is thus the best arraignment for all of society.  Not only that but it has a very strong historical meaning behind it as it has been the stander-ed for thousands of years.  I have no problem if people want to enter into such unstable and unwholesome relationships, but I don't think that they can be or should be called marriages.  I think if they want any form of recognition that it should be its own special thing, and I think that due to the complexity of changing the laws to reflect it, it will have to be inherently small in scope, and even have it's own laws governing it.

I am also of the firm belief that it is not an LGBT issue and that as such the movement should spend no time working on it and should distance itself from it, as it is toxic to what we want to get done.  The battle cry against removing discriminatory laws and insuring full equality to gay people and trans people is that it will lead to such things and that such things are the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement.  And honestly we still have so much to fight for as over 30 states it is still totally legal to deny gay people housing and all sorts of services and fire them from their jobs for being gay among other things.  And the situation for the Trans community is even worse as they are decades behind the gay community when it comes to rights and protections that the rest of society already enjoys.

I think that if those that want to be able to marry multiple people want to achieve that goal they need to form their own movement.  To build their own support and networks of organizations to fight on the political and even legal front, although I don't think the latter is going to work well as they are not asking for an existing right they are asking to have the laws rewritten so that they can have a special one that dose not exist. However I think it is incumbent on them to build their own support, not try to hijack another movement, and in the process risk blowing that one to bits. I don't welcome them in and a great number of the gay movement and those that have fought for the right to marry don't ether, and I think they have to respect that  That is my two cents on the whole thing.