Mawwidge, that sacwed awangement...

TLD:When I started, I didn't mean for this post to balloon to standard Steven Den Beste length. Most humble apologies.

So there's been some talk because some guy in Washington - I don't care to go hunt down his name, suffice to say he's some Republican wingnut (surprise!) - who said that homosexuality is bad, and then said that incest and bigamy and polygamy and other things that comprise basic plot points of nearly every MTV series or "The Sopranos" are bad, too.

Well, anymore, seems we don't agree on what is wheat and what is chaff. The reality is that people pretty much have to sort that out for themselves, and hope they don't catch anything or do anything that haunts them later in the wee hours when the demons come out to play. (One of the borders you pass over from early adulthood (read "still a kid") to real adulthood is you abandon "I'll try anything once" and embrace "Ok, I don't need to experience EVERYthing ... ick." I think for a lot of kids these days it will be when they either try a "threesome" or "experiment" with same-gender sex only to discover they prefer the opposite gender for that particular activity.)

But, besides the issue of making those choices for yourself in the privacy of your own life (though the current administration would have it otherwise, see below), there are the legal issues concerning what we as a society want to drag into the legal arena and what we don't. And, further, there are two sides to that: civil and religious.

Let's get the religious one out of the way, since it's more or less moot. If the laws of a religion say it's wrong, not accepted, don't do it, don't even ask, then the discussion is more or less over. Yes, the pomo weenies out there will complain that it's not fair and doesn't Jehova/God/Allah love everyone and if He does, how come He doesn't want Floyd to marry Bruce? (Not that you'll catch anyone who's gone down the intestinal tube of postmodernism believing in a deity.) Like it or not, things are a little more cut and dried regarding marriage issues within most religions, and that's just the way it is. Some would say that's harsh; others think there's a good reason behind it. You know how you stand on that issue. So there you have it.

The civil issue is much more complex. Essentially, we can do anything we want in the civil arena when it comes to making laws. We could legalize dying bunnies Easter-egg day-glo colors and renting them out to bestiality buffs. (Which reminds me of a sick, terrible old joke - vegans turn away now: Q: "Why do you wrap your hamster in duct tape?" A: "So it doesn't explode when you fuck it.").

There are no compelling legal or logical reasons why there should not be civil gay marriage. (Imagine stringing together that phrase about fifty years ago with the old meanings of those words; everyone would agree that marriages should be gay and civil, of course!) There's really nothing more to say than that. However, there may be societal reasons against it derived from historical experience (I'll get to that later). The same goes for polygamy (both kinds!: polyandry - a babe with lots of dudes or, polygyny - a dude with lots of babes), or hell, group marriage, inclusive of any number of mix-and-match genders and orientations, thereby extending the original definition of the military term "clusterfuck". Really, if we legalize gay marriage but not polygamy and/or group marriage, how do we justify that? If we are going to revisit what's allowed in a civil marriage, we should throw the doors open and get it all over with; or reject it as a society, stay with what we have now, and move on. You pick which side you're on; I don't care. Just don't require that I explain any of it to my little daughter (and the new one on the way) until she's old enough.

I can imagine divorce lawyers across the land spazzing out and flopping unconscious onto their desk blotters out of sheer glee overload if wide open marriage were to become legal.

Of course incest and cheating should still be illegal because people with tails, three eyes, retardation, or bullet holes in them tend to have extremely troublesome lives - not that Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice wouldn't have enormous friction on household chore assignments, much less deciding on a restaurant.

And I think it goes without saying that children should be protected from the world of adult sexuality, period. If you think sex with children is a debatable topic, I suggest you go fuck a hamster; see instructions above.

Now the fun part! We skate from the available alternatives to how we arrived where we are now, in relation to history.

(Note: for a lot of the rest of this post, I'm in "thinking out loud" mode, for what it's worth.)

For some reason, most societies have abandoned polygamy. Some cultures still practice polygamy, but let's examine the list: some Arabian sub-groups, some African tribes, and some Mormons. If I haven't caused an aneurysm in my pomo audience (assuming I have one) yet, I just might now. Are any of these cultures representative of how you would like to live? If so, grab a passport, get your ticket, get your inoculations, and rock on! However, the rest of us, as a society, have agreed that this tribe of spouses thing just doesn't fit with our current understanding of interpersonal needs, stable family dynamics, and what's best for bringing up well-adjusted children*. Why? Polygamy was about wealth and power and real estate and worker bees, not loving relationships, romance, kinky sex, or loving families where everyone was valued (our current most popular reason for marrying). Which situation do you think is a better formula for happiness? Power and real estate, or a loving family where you are unique and loved and are not just glorified help.

*Yes yes yes, the polygamists say the kids turn out just fine, and we all know children are resilient and can thrive in a lot of whacked environments - just look at all the wingnuts who have children - but isn't our goal as a society to try for the best arrangements for everyone's mutual benefits? Your answer to that question is your answer to the question of polygamy.

The Bible allowed polygamy, but it was primarily to allow the taking in of a widowed relative's wife so she wouldn't starve. And there were strict laws about taking extra wives for the hell of it (I chose my words carefully, there). You had to be wealthy enough to do it, and you had to respect the pecking order and honor of the wives. About the only person who really benefited from the arrangement was wife number one, who got to be the boss of the rest of the wives. However, as our societies and our views of personal rights and needs have progressed, not a single Judeo-Christian society has kept the tradition of polygamy because we've replaced it with a better view of our responsibility to one another and an individual's worth.

TLD: An almost but not quite related issue is the concept of romantic love. I remember somewhere in one of my literature classes a prof said that the conception of romantic love was a relatively recent occurrence, beginning about the time of the troubadours. At the time, like most students, I just put that in my notes and let it pass, but now that I've got some experience on me, I realize that is utter horseshit. (There is a difference between horseshit and bullshit, but I've already taken enough of your time, here). The Song of Solomon in the Bible speaks, quite eloquently, of romantic love, and it predates the troubadours by centuries. Regardless of how authentic you feel the stories of the Bible are, there is no arguing about its age. Besides, the troubadours existed only in European society, and nearly every society on earth has myths and stories about romantic love. The Odyssey anyone? Further, one of the common things all human societies share is marriage. It exists or existed in every single society we know about. I think that implies a lot.

There has never been an example of gay marriage in all of the historical record of the world. Gay relationships and trysts abound, but a formalized, legal relationship have never existed as far as we know. Why? Well, (pause - deep breath - gotta break eggs to make omelets) homosexuality was primarily viewed as a sexual activity and not a civil rights issue or even a relationship classification. Romulus boffed Remus because, well, he thought he had a cute little hairy ass, not because he wanted to pick out a china pattern. With male homosexuality, there weren't power or wealth issues. Children don't result from gay sex, so that wasn't an issue, either. The issues were roughly the same with female homosexuality, though the power element was different, of course. It was thought to be about sex (even if love and attachment were involved) and not about the reasons people married in those societies, as marriage wasn't viewed as a required component of a romatic or sexual relationship.

I'm not saying that homosexuality being morphed into a civil rights issue in our age is a good thing or a bad thing; that just comes down to personal opinion, and I'm not really concerned with what yours is, nor should you be concerned with what mine is. In our age, with our different views on what marriage is, we are told by gay activists that "it's not just about sex". So, anymore, apparently it isn't.

Up to now in this windy oration, since two consenting adults are involved, the issue of gay marriage isn't really thorny, because we aren't dealing with the complexity that polygamy/group marriage can bring, and it's, in theory, about love. If it stayed that simple - two shiny happy people holding hands and skipping along humming "Just the Two of Us" - then I think the debate would be over. However, a larger issue is that marriage typically implies children. Since other people are involved, particularly non-consenting non-adults, it gets complex. This is, again, when we face questions on what kind of society do we want to have and/or create?

Do single parents make good parents? Typically, yes. Do gay parents make good parents? Typically, yes. Do ________ make good parents? As long as you're not filling in that blank with something that doesn't fit, like "pedophile" or "serial killer" or "a family of gorillas", then the answer is the same: typically, yes. However, what has proven to be the best situation within which to raise children? A mommy and a daddy. It's just a fact. That doesn't mean we should prevent single parenthood, gay parenthood, or what have you, but should we put things in place that will purposely cause less-than-optimum situations? That's not a question I can answer for you, and I'm not sure I've completely answered it for myself.

There is the issue that most gay people don't have children because of the obvious. If they have them, they either have the children from a previous heterosexual marriage, or they adopt (if it's allowed where they live). Of course lesbians can do the turkey-baster thing if they've got a pliant Birkenstock-wearing male who's willing to have a go with Rosie and, uh, hand over the result. Or, heck, they can just go fill out some paperwork at a sperm donor clinic and hit the stirrups. Either way, we are not talking about a huge demographic here, so the whole "impact on society" is moot, perhaps.

I think the final question, then, that we need to answer, is how will opening up marriage to be something other than, or in addition to, the contract and commitment between two heterosexual people, a man and a woman, affect society? The biggest question to be answered is how will it affect children's lives? Do we want those affects? Do we put the individual ahead of society or society ahead of the individual? Typically, those decisions have been made considering the two, with the individual's rights being the dominant factor. But here, we have an individual who can choose and one who can't. Yet we don't want to go down the road of involving the law in who can conceive kids and who can't.

Having talked out loud about it here (at length - sorry), it seems that, if we're going to be American about it, we are going to have to open marriage up to whoever wants to take the tax hit.

So, perhaps the thing we should agree upon beforehand is how we behave towards others who might be in a marriage arrangement (or not) that we personally don't agree with (presuming we disagree, that is). If I don't want to explain the situation with Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice next door to may child, allow me that parenting choice without any red-faced, spittle-flecked ranting about my being a close-minded bigot, and I'll grant you the same courtesy. If you don't want to present a heterosexual male/female couple as the norm for families to your kids, that's just fine with me. You even have enough children's books and a swath of PBS shows that will bolster your case to your kids. If my religion (or yours) says that gay people can't be married in the eyes of God, then accept that and don't mock my religion or expect me to disown it on that one basis alone (hint: it's about bigger issues than that). If you are going to have a group marriage orgy on your deck, at least put up some screens or something. See the theme here? In other words, let's be respectful and civil about each other's choices, even if we disagree, and agree to live and let live. Whattaya say? By the way, I know a great photographer if you need one.

The Poor Man weighed in on this topic, which got me to thinking about it, and he's much smarter than I, so go read his post and make sure you check out the comments. I'm not sure where some of the commenters were pointing their little red wagons, but maybe you will.