[speechlesstx]

But that's not the point of this thread. This is:

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.”

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.

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?

[excon]

Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships....

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?

Hello Steve:

One whacked out group does NOT a movement make. It DOES show how far you've got to reach to make your old "men will want to marry their dog", argument.

excon

[Synnen]

I'm willing to support ANY kind of marriage that includes the following:

ADULTS (people over the age of consent) who are CONSENTING (and this should have to be proven through some kind of counseling--for ALL kinds of marriage, even the traditional versions) and WILLING to make it work.

I'd also like to outlaw divorce. If your'e willing to marry someone, it should be for LIFE, unless you can prove abuse.

[NeedKarma]

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?

We can leave it at consenting adults that are not in the same lineage.

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

One whacked out group does NOT a movement make. It DOES show how far you've got to reach to make your old "men will want to marry their dog", argument.

And a couple of years ago it was just a few gays pushing for "civil unions." I'm sure you know I don't make that old "men will want to marry their dog" argument so you can hand that one to someone else. Face it ex, the question is legitimate. You know as well as I do that legal precedents matter and there will be battles over all manner of marital configurations. Care to answer the question or not?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

What Syn and NK said.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

What Syn and NK said.

excon

Thanks, that wasn't so hard was it?

[ETWolverine]

We can leave it at consenting adults that are not in the same lineage.

Wait a minute. Why should the government engage in age descrimination? Isn't that against current descrimination laws? What do you have against kids? Why not allow men and young boys to marry each other as per NAMBLA?

What about animals? According to the sexuality experts at Masters and Johnson (specifically Masters, Miletski, Beetz, and Weinberg), bestiality is just misunderstood by the general public, and can be a rewarding, reciprocal relationship, not just a substitute means of expression. Beetz even believes that (like homosexuality) bestiality is not a "choice". Why should we engage in descrimination against animals? Or against people who love animals?

How about necrophelia? Why should we keep two lovers away from each other just because one of them happens to be dead? And while the dead person might not be able to give concent, he or she likely won't say "no" either.

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on? We can find justification for anything if we try hard enough. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?

[Synnen]

Wait a minute. Why should the government engage in age descrimination? Isn't that against current descrimination laws? What do you have against kids? Why not allow men and young boys to marry each other as per NAMBLA?

What about animals? According to the sexuality experts at Masters and Johnson (specifically Masters, Miletski, Beetz, and Weinberg), beastiality is just misunderstood by the general public, and can be a rewarding, reciprocal relationship, not just a substitute means of expression. Beetz even believes that (like homosexuality) beastiality is not a "choice". Why should we engage in descrimination against animals? Or against people who love animals?

How about necrophelia? Why should we keep two lovers away from each other just because one of them happens to be dead? And while the dead person might not be able to give concent, he or she likely won't say "no" either.

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on? We can find justification for anything if we try hard enough. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?

Oh for God's sake.

Start advocating for the repealing of divorces, too. Divorce is against God, and makes ALL marriages worthless because a FEW people can't make it work, or get married for the wrong reasons.

CONSENT is the key word here. And a minor cannot give consent to sex now until a SPECIFIC age in every state.

If you cannot give LEGAL CONSENT, you cannot get married. Period.

But of course, there's that slippery slope! Let's stop ALL marriages! They're ALL going to lead to EVERYONE wanting to get married! I mean, if straights can get married like now, that's going to lead to GAYS wanting to get married, which is going to lead to the whole world practicing bestiality and necrophilia! Stop the insanity before it starts and make it so that NO ONE can get married! Otherwise we're ALL going to slide down the slopes to hell!

[NeedKarma]

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on?

No.
You're making irrational arguments.

[speechlesstx]

No.
You're making irrational arguments.

Why is it irrational?

[NeedKarma]

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

[speechlesstx]

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

I didn't ask if having sex with 5 year olds and dogs was rational, I asked why Elliot's arguments (plural) were irrational. Perhaps you can answer the question without the diversions?

[Synnen]

Because in order for the slippery slope theory to work, then ANY use of something could cause the slope to slide out from under you.

Therefore, if you declare that allowing something is a slippery slope to adding something worse, then you can't have ANY version of that something.

THEREFORE, if allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to pedophilia and bestiality and god knows what else, then NO marriage should be allowed, since allowing straight marriage was only setting up the slippery slope for gay marriage to begin with.

So--if there's a slippery slope here, it's because there is ANY marriage at all!

[ETWolverine]

Oh for God's sake.

Start advocating for the repealing of divorces, too. Divorce is against God, and makes ALL marriages worthless because a FEW people can't make it work, or get married for the wrong reasons.

Synnen,

Before I comment any further, please note that YOU are the one who brought up religion in this thread, not me. I think that it's going to come up later at some point.

In the past, when Conservatives like myself have used the "slippery slope" argument, we have been accused of using a strawman argument... creating a false agument so that it can be shot down to prove our point.

Based on this article, it seems that the slippery slope argument wasn't a strawman after all. It is, in fact, exactly what is occurring. Now that gay marriage has been permitted, other alternative lifestyles are coming out and demanding the same equal rights as gay couples. Which is exactly what we said was going to happen.

And yet, despite the fact that it is happening RIGHT NOW, you refuse to see the validity of the slippery slope argument.

CONSENT is the key word here. And a minor cannot give consent to sex now until a SPECIFIC age in every state.

Why not? Isn't that age descrimination? Why is a 17-year-eleven-month-old any less capable of consenting than an 18-year-old? (The same argument as why a minor who commits a multiple rape-murder is worthy of a lower punishment than an adult. It makes no sense.)

If you cannot give LEGAL CONSENT, you cannot get married. Period.

Not quite true. In several states, there are laws still on the books that allow parents to give consent for their minor children to get married. What if Daddy is a NAMBLA supporter and agrees to let little Billy get married to his neighbor, Big John? And Billy loves Big John. LEGALLY consent is in place, there is a reciprocal relationship, all the legalities and emotional components are in place. By your argument, we should allow it.

But of course, there's that slippery slope! Let's stop ALL marriages! They're ALL going to lead to EVERYONE wanting to get married! I mean, if straights can get married like now, that's going to lead to GAYS wanting to get married, which is going to lead to the whole world practicing bestiality and necrophilia! Stop the insanity before it starts and make it so that NO ONE can get married! Otherwise we're ALL going to slide down the slopes to hell!

Or... we could keep to the historical definition of marriage which has worked for the entire history of the human race.

What is the purpose of marriage?

From a sociological perspective, marriage is there to create a relatively save environement for children to be conceived, raised and nurtured. From a sociological perspective there is no other purpose for marriage. There may be other EMOTIONAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC or RELIGIOUS reasons for marriage, but there are no other sociological reasons for it.

Ergo, anything that does not promote that purpose... the conception, birth, raising and nurturing of children... is counterproductive from a sociological perspective.

Gay marriage is counterproductive from a sociological perspective. So is beatiality.

It MIGHT be argued that polygamy is actually a better environment for the raising of children, because it creates redundancies... if one mommy or daddy dies, there are substitute mommies or daddies to care for the child. I'm not actually against polygamy per se... there is an historical basis for polygamy. And being Jewish, I have a religious-historical basis for it as well. But if we are to look at the Bible as a source of knowledge on the practice of polygamy, what we see is generation after generation of fraternal infighting. Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Essau, Joseph and his brothers... not exactly good examples of children growing up emotionally healthy and loving of each other. I don't know if polygamy is the contributing factor to this unhealthy fraternal hatred, but the circumstantial evidence is somewhat strong.

I won't even get into bestiality as being socialogically unviable. I assume you understand the basic biology of reproduction.

But the single most important need of the human race is survival, at the individual level, the family level and the Human race level. The only form of family arrangement that has consistently worked, and has produced 6.77 billion people (despite us being constantly at war with each other for all our history, despite famine, disease, and natural and man-made disaster) is heterosexual, manogamous marriage.

And THAT is the reason we need marriage in its historical form to continue, and why any other form of family grouping is detrimental to human survival.

Survival is the key.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Thanks Synnen, but I was really interested in whether NK could justify his charge.

Because in order for the slippery slope theory to work, then ANY use of something could cause the slope to slide out from under you.

THEREFORE, if allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to pedophilia and bestiality and god knows what else, then NO marriage should be allowed, since allowing straight marriage was only setting up the slippery slope for gay marriage to begin with. So--if there's a slippery slope here, it's because there is ANY marriage at all!

So we're to assume there should never be a starting point for anything? Or should there just be no rules?

There is a centuries old commonly accepted tradition/definition of marriage so we have a starting point.

This commonly accepted definition is between one man and one woman with commonly accepted purposes/fulfillments; love, companionship, etc. and procreation - which of course has only one natural method of fulfillment.

This commonly accepted definition has been codified into law.

That law has been challenged by advocates and changed to include marriage between homosexuals in some states, setting a precedent on which to make other challenges.

There are advocates for other forms of marriage such as in my OP, and 3 of you have advocated basically anything between consenting adults.

Other groups advocating even more forms of marriage/legal relationships have been identified such as NAMBLA, which has existed formally for over 30 years and advocates for "the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males," which not only targets the form of the relationship but the age of consent.

Since we have a starting point, legal precedents and active advocates we have a logical chain making Elliot's a rational and logically valid slippery slope argument.

[ETWolverine]

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

Do rational people want to stick parts of their bodies into places they were never designed to go in your world?

Rational people, like the scientists at Masters & Johnson have rationalized bestiality. Do I think it's rational? No. That's one of the reasons that I'm against the practice.

Rational people have been able to justify NAMBLA and it's activities. Do I think it's rational? No.

RATIONAL people have justified tieing each other up and beating and mock "raping" (with prior consent) each other as part of "sexual diversity". There is a whole BDSM sub-culture based on this. Do I think it's rational? No.

But other people do.

People can justify anything if they try hard enough. And they will also try to justify it to others. And when that fails, they often tend to try to force it onto others... legislatively, if they can get enough political backing to do it.

We've seen that happen with Gay marriage. Many people (perhaps most --- a lot of people voted against Prop 8) were not in favor of it, but proponents of Gay marriage have managed to legislate it into existence anyway by having courts rule bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, have local legislators vote down popular votes against gay marriage, etc. It was forced on people who didn't want it and voted against it repeatedly.

Why should we believe that the same thing wouldn't happen with polygamy? Or beatiality? Or homosexual pedophelia? Given enough political clout, ANYTHING can be made legal, and we are seeing that play out right now. Why is this argument so hard to visualize as a possibility?

Elliot

[Synnen]

Too many things to quote here.

So we're to assume there should never be a starting point for anything? Or should there just be no rules?

Why SHOULDN'T the starting point be gay marriage? Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed? There is precedent, at least for polygamy. Why does the "traditional" method of marriage have to stand?

This commonly accepted definition is between one man and one woman with commonly accepted purposes/fulfillments; love, companionship, etc. and procreation - which of course has only one natural method of fulfillment.

So because I'm infertile, my husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to marry, either? We can't procreate, not without a LOT of medical help! And if adoption is not a "natural" method of fulfillment, why allow it at all? If two parents, regardless of gender, aren't better than being raised by the state, then let's outlaw adoption, too!

The thing is this: Just because we already have a starting point doesn't mean that it can't be modified. And just because you have a starting point doesn't mean that it's a GOOD thing. Slavery, after all, was justified by tradition and the Bible for YEARS. Inter-racial marriage was thought to be unnatural until very recently. Being a single mother out of wedlock was a source of shame until the last couple of decades.

Are you saying we should go back to what it was in 1950?

[Synnen]

Talking about the LEGAL sanction of marriage of minors--why is Billy marrying John Bob any worse then Susan marrying Joe, assuming that both Susan and Billy are 16 year old minors that got parental permission? Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?

[ETWolverine]

Talking about the LEGAL sanction of marriage of minors--why is Billy marrying John Bob any worse then Susan marrying Joe, assuming that both Susan and Billy are 16 year old minors that got parental permission? Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?

I'm not saying it is. In fact, I think that Suzie and Billy ought to both wait till their of age.

But that is just one more step in the slippery slope I'm talking about. Just one more argument of it just being another "lifestyle choice".

Thanks for making my point for me, though. Allowing one deviation from the historical norm opens the exact argument you just made. "Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?" You just used the slippery slope argument. Congratulations.

Elliot