Dan Savage: Marriage and monogamy don't have to go together (how to, woman)

[stan4]

Originally Posted by Knight2009

Past historical precedents can be either inherently good or benevolent (i.e., marriage), or downright evil and despicable (i.e., slavery, s*xual oppression, etc.). It all depends on what you're looking at..

Only a man would automatically assume marriage is good and benevolent.

I am sure it is for some people. But for many others, it was a form of slavery and even in recent times, it was a matter of survival and economic support.

[Knight2009]

Originally Posted by SifuPhil

Since Bible literalists themselves cannot seem to agree on how long the institution of marriage has lasted, I don't think your argument holds.

The Old Testament included polygamy and concubinage in their marriage definition - why then are we not still following those traditions?

And while we're on the subject - why don't we preserve the OTHER traditions given to us from the Bible, like stoning?

I agree that marriage probably predates recorded history, but mere longevity doesn't prove effectiveness.

Lol...I do not read the Bible literally, though I read it as allegorical, and certainly not infallible based on the words alone. Too much barbarism, to read it literally...the stoning you had cited is merely one of many examples. Other examples include killing in the name of God, and outright genocide, on religious grounds.

I wholeheartedly reject the spiritual doctrine of "sola scriptura"...and I am a Protestant Christian

[BoomBoxing]

Originally Posted by Knight2009

Past historical precedents can be either inherently good or benevolent (i.e., marriage), or downright evil and despicable (i.e., slavery, s*xual oppression, etc.). It all depends on what you're looking at.

Say what? I have never heard a historian discuss any past precendent as either good or bad. That's a poor way to study history. Nothing is black and white. I would agree that marriage is largely a good thing and that slavery is definitely a horrible thing...but their impacts on civilization are not so clear-cut.

Agree with your comments on health care, by the way

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Knight2009

Lol...I do not read the Bible literally, though I read it as allegorical, and certainly not infallible based on the words alone. Too much barbarism, to read it literally...the stoning you had cited is merely one of many examples. Other examples include killing in the name of God, and outright genocide, on religious grounds.

I wholeheartedly reject the spiritual doctrine of "sola scriptura"...and I am a Protestant Christian

Well, at least you're not a Literalist.

I'm not really against what you're saying - just trying to round out the edges.

[Theophane]

So is Dan Savage saying gays are inherently promiscuous? If nothing else, monogamy is good for keeping those STD's from circulating! Thank you Dan for reminding us all what "santorum" is.

[Cindy_Jole]

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

I think part of the problem is this notion that a man should only marry one women and be happy with that the rest of his life. I think men should be able to marry as many women as he wants to. Thats why the divorce rate is so high. Some times people grow apart, and now your stuck in this unhappy marriage. You have cultures around the world were men have multiply wifes, in africa, islam, mormans. It seems to work for those people. Hell even in the bible you had men like Abrahm and King David who had mutiply wifes and concubines. Only in the west do we have this notion that you marry for love, and that love is going to last forever.

Yeah, I'm sure all those multiple wives are really living it up and loving the fact that they don't live in a monogamous society.

[LuckyGem]

Originally Posted by Theophane

So is Dan Savage saying gays are inherently promiscuous? If nothing else, monogamy is good for keeping those STD's from circulating! Thank you Dan for reminding us all what "santorum" is.

Thanks for the reminder...

Spoiler

He said on May 29 that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several for readers to choose from, announcing the winner on June 12 as "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com, to spread the definition, featuring the term over a brown splattered stain on an otherwise-white page. Savage also set up a website on the santorum.com domain that displays the content of spreadingsantorum.com in a whole-page frameset.

Campaign for "santorum" neologism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[recuerdeme]

I don't think we need a gay columnist to [re]define what is normal or "right" or acceptable in a marriage.

[Tinawina]

Originally Posted by Theophane

So is Dan Savage saying gays are inherently promiscuous?

No. He said there tends to be more open convos about sex among gay couples. Which makes sense when you think about it, since that community would be against sexual stigmas. But he also said there are plenty of gay monogamous couples.

He is not against monogamy. He is saying people who want exclusivity should have that. And people who don't want that should be honest about it. Also, people who have sexual needs that are out of the norm like fetishes, etc should be honest about that too. That way those people could get into relationships with others like them, or with people who are willing to go along with whatever arrangements will keep their partners sexually satisfied. That would be better than deceiving and lying to people and making them into unwitting partners.

One of the reasons people don't tell the truth is that they are afraid of being harshly judged. So he advocated people become less judgmental about other people's sex lives.

Originally Posted by recuerdeme

I don't think we need a gay columnist to [re]define what is normal or "right" or acceptable in a marriage.

Straight sex therapists/researcher types have been saying this for years.

[14Bricks]

Originally Posted by Cindy_Jole

Yeah, I'm sure all those multiple wives are really living it up and loving the fact that they don't live in a monogamous society.

Yeah and I bet that those marriges also last longer than the ones in this country.