# Dan Savage



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I know that he is king of liberal sex. I listened to his podcast for the first time today and wow...I was blown away but how casual he views sex in relationships. Anyone listen to him and agree with his view against monogamy?


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

I like him. Most of the things he says makes sense. And some people should not get married because they can't stay faithful.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

katiecrna said:


> I know that he is king of liberal sex. I listened to his podcast for the first time today and wow...I was blown away but how casual he views sex in relationships. Anyone listen to him and agree with his view against monogamy?


Yes. I have listened to every single episode of his podcast ever produced. I've gotten to listen to his position evolve over time as well as to the stories of the people involved that have driven him to this position.

He is not against monogamy. Monogamy is clearly not normal for our species. We struggle with it, we fail at it, and we count those relationships that suffer from it as failures.

Dan Savage is first and foremost a pragmatist. If we are so bad at monogamy, perhaps the failure is not with our ability to be monogamous, but with our expectation that monogamy is the golden standard to which we should all strive. 

He also does not advocate that anyone who truly wishes to be monogamous settle for less in a relationship, but that after 10,20,30+ years in a marriage a ONS shouldn't be a de facto marriage ending event. He also states that when children, finances, and other aspects of marriage are involved in a sexless or nearly sexless marriage, that discreet infidelity might be a better option for some than divorce. 

He is not anti monogamy. He is pro find what works for you in the context of a multi-decade commitment to live with another person. I remember listening to the episode where he said that he would no longer attempt to help people with mismatched sexual desire on the air. He came (rightly in my opinion) to the conclusion that the problem was too widespread and too intractable to fix most of the time.


----------



## Married&Confused (Jan 19, 2011)

listened to him, didn't like him.

i'm going to give it another try. maybe it was just me that day.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

I've been a Dan Savage fan since before the podcast, lol. So, yeah, guess I am old. I don't have a problem with his views on non-monogamy, but I don't agree with him, either.

I have also read all of his books. Skipping Toward Gomorrah was hilarious and The Kid (the story of he and his husband adopting their son) made me cry it was so sweet.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> I've been a Dan Savage fan since before the podcast, lol. So, yeah, guess I am old. I don't have a problem with his views on non-monogamy, but I don't agree with him, either.
> 
> I have also read all of his books. Skipping Toward Gomorrah was hilarious and The Kid (the story of he and his husband adopting their son) made me cry it was so sweet.


Maybe one day he will write a book on multiple sex partners and infidelity called: "Skipping Toward Gonorrhoea?"


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Mostly I think he is sound and provides good perspective. I disagree with the way he advocates for lying. It's one thing to point out that humans can't be monogamous. It's another thing to say that self-interested lying is some kind of a favor to a relationship.

He is not the only relationship expert to push that view -- just one of many. But my take is that trying to argue the lie is for omeone else's beefit is 100% self serving.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Mostly I think he is sound and provides good perspective. I disagree with the way he advocates for lying. It's one thing to point out that humans can't be monogamous. It's another thing to say that self-interested lying is some kind of a favor to a relationship.
> 
> He is not the only relationship expert to push that view -- just one of many. But my take is that trying to argue the lie is for omeone else's beefit is 100% self serving.


Well, my problem here is this: If he is an advocate for lying as a useful relationship tool, how can anyone trust anything he says?:scratchhead:


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Mostly I think he is sound and provides good perspective. I disagree with the way he advocates for lying. It's one thing to point out that humans can't be monogamous. It's another thing to say that self-interested lying is some kind of a favor to a relationship.
> 
> He is not the only relationship expert to push that view -- just one of many. But my take is that trying to argue the lie is for omeone else's beefit is 100% self serving.





MattMatt said:


> Well, my problem here is this: If he is an advocate for lying as a useful relationship tool, how can anyone trust anything he says?:scratchhead:


When we resort to manipulation in relationships, we ultimately cheat ourselves.


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> I've been a Dan Savage fan since before the podcast, lol. So, yeah, guess I am old. I don't have a problem with his views on non-monogamy, but I don't agree with him, either.
> 
> I have also read all of his books. Skipping Toward Gomorrah was hilarious and The Kid (the story of he and his husband adopting their son) made me cry it was so sweet.


Same here, I'm a pre podcast fan of his. I don't have to agree with all of his views to find him interesting and entertaining.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I enjoyed his podcast and I will listen to them again. I probably won't take a lot of his advice because I do disagree with a lot of it. 
I think it takes a very special person to have an open marriage and I just don't think it works too often.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

wild jade said:


> Mostly I think he is sound and provides good perspective. I disagree with the way he advocates for lying. It's one thing to point out that humans can't be monogamous. It's another thing to say that self-interested lying is some kind of a favor to a relationship.
> 
> He is not the only relationship expert to push that view -- just one of many. But my take is that trying to argue the lie is for omeone else's beefit is 100% self serving.


Exactly.

I've never listened to his podcast, but I read his columns for a few years before I couldn't stand his advocacy of dishonesty in marriage any longer. Most of his ideas are great, and I am a big believer in GGG. I'm not particularly concerned with nonmonogamy either, if both partners agree. But I'm a big believer in honesty in relationships.

I can't understand how he can advocate not only lying to your spouse, but also taking time, attention, effort, money, etc, away from the marriage. And when the lies get discovered, and 99% of the time they are, well, you've gone and done huge psychological harm to your partner.

If you love someone, you also respect them. If you respect them, you wouldn't lie to them. The instant lying is better than honesty, the marriage is over and you may as well divorce. To not divorce in that circumstance is to be only using your partner for selfish purposes, ie, their income, their good cooking, maintaining your community reputation, but it is certainly not loving them.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

jld said:


> When we resort to manipulation in relationships, we ultimately cheat ourselves.


Do we? How so?

For sure we are cheating the other person.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

wild jade said:


> Do we? How so?
> 
> For sure we are cheating the other person.


We cheat ourselves out of what life would have brought along of its own accord. We cheat ourselves out of natural connection. 

When we engineer outcomes, instead of being open and honest and letting our spouse respond to us out of their own openness and honesty, we settle, even if we do not realize it at the time.

Imagine someone trying to convince their spouse against their will to have children, or move far away, or start a business, etc. Imagine the various types of manipulation they might engage in to get what they want. How is that going to feel, ultimately? Sneaky and deceptive and crummy.

Contrast that with recognizing a desire, presenting it to one's spouse, and waiting to hear their honest feedback. And then, either accepting it, discussing it, or, if it is important enough, parting to seek it elsewhere. No control techniques. Respect for one's spouse's path as well as for one's own. Liberating.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

wild jade said:


> Mostly I think he is sound and provides good perspective. I disagree with the way he advocates for lying. It's one thing to point out that humans can't be monogamous. It's another thing to say that self-interested lying is some kind of a favor to a relationship.
> 
> He is not the only relationship expert to push that view -- just one of many. But my take is that trying to argue the lie is for omeone else's beefit is 100% self serving.


I've never listened to him.. but I wouldn't like this either.. not at all.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

Quotes of transcripts where he advocates cheating. He's the first one who calls cheaters a POS in his columns/shows. 

He advocates that people understand that we aren't all built for monogamy. And some people can't provide all of the sexual needs a partner who might otherwise be perfect might desire/need. And that people need to be honest about that. 

Looking around TAM, I'm not sure how you'd disagree. How many people give the advice of "demand an open relationship or dump her" when a wife isn't offering up the frequency or "menu" desired?

Isn't having that conversation at the beginning of or before you start a relationship better than 20 years and 3 kids later?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

katiecrna After reading your post yesterday I decided to subscribe to his podcast, and to date so far I have only listened to parts of two of his podcasts. That said from the little I have listened to thus far I have no problems at all with his perspective on sexual relationships.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

I would never listen to him, or do anything that benefits him. He is a major piece of stool. He once went to signed up to work on a campaiign for someone he didn't like. The reason he signed up was because he had the flu. He was licking the door knobs at the campaign head quarters, and doing other things to to spread his flu among the staff. If you are a public figure and don't agree with his gay agenda, he does everything he can to try to ruin you.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Starstarfish said:


> Quotes of transcripts where he advocates cheating. He's the first one who calls cheaters a POS in his columns/shows.
> 
> He advocates that people understand that we aren't all built for monogamy. And some people can't provide all of the sexual needs a partner who might otherwise be perfect might desire/need. And that people need to be honest about that.
> 
> ...


I've been reading him for years, long before there were podcasts. And yes, he does sometimes call cheaters a POS, especially when they are cheating all the time, and uncaring about their partner, practicing unsafe sex. But he also recommends cheating in other instances. If you need some kink and your wife won't do that. Or if you need more sex than they are willing to give. 

If people are not monogamous, then we sbouldn't pretend we are. And I think it's just hypocrisy for Dan Savage to make this big deal about how difficult it is for people not to cheat, but then suggest lying about it to make sure our partner won't leave us for our inability to be monogamous.

He advocates for deceit in other areas too, not just infidelity. 

I do like him in other ways,and think he gives lots of good advice. But I really disagree with him that not only is it okay to have our cake and eat it too, we're actually doing our partners a favor by pretending to be something we are not so they won't leave or turn around and cheat as well. Both people should have equal say in whether they want to stay together and on what terms.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Thound said:


> I would never listen to him, or do anything that benefits him. He is a major piece of stool. He once went to signed up to work on a campaiign for someone he didn't like. The reason he signed up was because he had the flu. He was licking the door knobs at the campaign head quarters, and doing other things to to spread his flu among the staff. If you are a public figure and don't agree with his gay agenda, he does everything he can to try to ruin you.


A doorknob lickerl? 

I have heard it all, now.

Nutjob didn't realise or care his victims could have sued hIm.

If he actually did it. He is, after all, a known advocate of lying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

From the little bit I read of the man, I wikepediaed him last night.... I don't think I would care for him in real life as a Person.. he's far too liberal for my tastes.. I'm on the conservative side of the fence.. I am 100% for free speech however... so let him rip...

What @Thound said was pretty disgusting indeed, if there is truth to it.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

notmyrealname4 said:


> *I think that he can't be monogamous; so he wants to normalize non-monogamy---so that he's not on the wrong side of the fence.*


 I'd say MANY MANY Are jumping on this bandwagon today...it's the new NORM... they aim to change the social structure and every value that some of us still hold dear..


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

notmyrealname4 said:


> I think that_ he_ can't be monogamous; so he wants to normalize non-monogamy---so that he's not on the wrong side of the fence.
> 
> 
> If I was single and around him in real life, I'd be bummed that he is gay. I've always found him very physically attractive.


:rofl:

Sorry for laughing! But that expression buried in the middle of your post will probably make some TAM members from Britain, Ireland and some Commonwealth countries either smile, giggle or LOL!


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Every married gay couple I've known has had an open marriage, so I'm not surprised at his viewpoint.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Thound said:


> I would never listen to him, or do anything that benefits him. He is a major piece of stool. He once went to signed up to work on a campaiign for someone he didn't like. The reason he signed up was because he had the flu. He was licking the door knobs at the campaign head quarters, and doing other things to to spread his flu among the staff. If you are a public figure and don't agree with his *gay agenda*, he does everything he can to try to ruin you.




Seriously? You think there is a gay agenda? :rofl:

So how many toaster ovens do you think he has earned converting previously straight people into being sinister gay people? My own hetero to **** ratio stands at 2. >

Thound, I do not believe what you say is true. Given his wit, I'd say it was more likely something he joked about doing, not something he actually did. The man is a public figure why would he jeopardize himself by actually doing that?

Come on man, use some common sense when believing clap trap like that.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

soccermom2three said:


> Every married gay couple I've known has had an open marriage, so I'm not surprised at his viewpoint.



I don't know any gay couple with an open marriage and I know many gay couples...because I attend the gay agenda meetings. Maybe lesbian couples approach marriage very differently? Hmm. 

IDK, it does kind of make sense what you say about gay couples. My DIL told me that lesbians tend to hang around almost exclusively with other lesbians and so the boundaries of a lesbian marriage had to be defined differently. At the time I assumed she was specifically referring to keeping friendship once married because that was what we were talking about. But maybe her comment was also true on another level?

Hmmmm, I'm going to have to ask my daughter and DIL about this.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Thound said:


> I would never listen to him, or do anything that benefits him. He is a major piece of stool. He once went to signed up to work on a campaiign for someone he didn't like. The reason he signed up was because he had the flu. He was licking the door knobs at the campaign head quarters, and doing other things to to spread his flu among the staff. If you are a public figure and don't agree with his gay agenda, he does everything he can to try to ruin you.


I don't know anything about Savage, but just read the wiki piece about him. Apparently, the flu story was mostly fiction. 

IMO, his activism is admirable and necessary (despite a few excessive comments of the kind that you also hear from his opponents - he had the decency to apologize for them and/or retract them, unlike the vast majority of those he opposes).

As for trying to ruin bigoted public figures who have an anti-LGBT agenda and demonize them as well as actively discriminate against them, I'd say they're fair game and deserve to be ruined and called out on their agenda of hate.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Dan is the best thing since peanut butter for those whose sexuality expresses itself outside of the norm. For a hetero-normative cis-gendered adult male (all terms I would have never applied to myself before listening to his podcast), it can sometimes be a bit of a slog to listen to advice doled out to an endless parade of kinksters, misfits, fetishists, and closeted gays. 

Nonetheless, he always roots his show in the reality of human sexuality, not someone's fantasy of how It Should Be. He knows his audience, supports them mercilessly, and makes no apologies. If I were a gay sex advice columnist, I would be Dan Savage. I have often referred to the Dan Savage rule of pornography in a relationship if one of the members is not comfortable with it - that is (usually targeted at the male) pretend not to use it while your spouse pretends to believe you. Some may call that advocating for dishonesty. I call it advocating for mutually respectful reality.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Argue sensibly that consensual sex between gay men hasn't the slightest resemblance to having sex with dogs. Win with reason and logic.


And Santorum was begging for it. Don't forget, they were roommates in college.

As for the argument, why would I waste time on an argument that amounts to "the sky is blue"? It's worth neither my time nor energy if you don't understand the fundamental difference between bestiality and homosexuality.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Do we? How so?


It depends on your personal principals. 

If lying, hiding the truth, sneaking around hiding behind your partner's back, and having an unwillingness to commit to sexual fidelity with your partner are normal principals for you, just make sure your partner knows this going in so he can take the proper measures to protect himself. If he is willing to accept your version of morality and principals...you're golden! :grin2:


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

notmyrealname4 said:


> "*Bummers* are deaf, Geoff" _League of Gentlemen_
> 
> 
> I know what a "bum" is, naughty, :moon:


And what one of those are!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Nah, his way of going about it is alienating people that might be more sympathetic.
> 
> "Santorum" as a noun for the mixture of semen, feces and lube that results from anal sex? It's just stupid and juvenile.
> 
> ...


Sure it's juvenile, but it's catchy! It's no worse than the things that these pubic figures say about LGBT people. Once the politicians start using ONLY reason and logic, rather than bias, fear, and loathing to get their way, then I'll agree. In the meantime, it is sometimes necessary to fight fire with fire.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never listened to him.. but I wouldn't like this either.. not at all.


I've never heard any of his podcasts but from what I'm hearing here, I don't think I would agree with him either. Just because we can't contain our desires doesn't necessary mean that we have to give into them and consider that normal behavior. While I think that there is plenty wrong with the way we currently go about marriage and divorce, I don't think that we need to ditch them in favor of a society where monogamy has no place and lying is condoned.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

notmyrealname4 said:


> I prefer "poof" myself. Is that now politically incorrect in the U.K.?


Probably, yes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Yes, turning the other cheek seems terribly ineffective. I agree with you, actually. So, we have to keep fighting back; nastier and less respectful, with each successive round.
> 
> And then, eventually, our political discourse ends up at the level of a verbal food fight.
> 
> I have no idea what the solution is; but I don't believe it's Dan Savage's. No matter how cute I think he is.


Yet somehow along the way, the LGBT community actually did manage to win the fight - in a turn of public opinion the likes of which I have never seen in my life. 

I don't know how important Savage's role was in that transformation, but I think being confrontational by some of the movement was important.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

We listen to his podcasts on long drives...his shows can spark good discussions about sex, relationships and our individual views, so he's a catalyst for communication (and, often, laughter).

We don't always agree with him, but had been reading his columns for years before podcasts became a thing, and appreciate the openness with which he talks about sex and human behavior.


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

Starstarfish said:


> Looking around TAM, I'm not sure how you'd disagree. How many people give the advice of "demand an open relationship or dump her" when a wife isn't offering up the frequency or "menu" desired?


I dont care about Dan Savage.

But this part of your post is horsesh!t. What site do you read? Nearly every thread Ive ever read here advocates being honest communicating and then DIVORCING if need be. Demanding open relationships? No.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> Dan is the best thing since peanut butter for those whose sexuality expresses itself outside of the norm. For a hetero-normative cis-gendered adult male (all terms I would have never applied to myself before listening to his podcast), it can sometimes be a bit of a slog to listen to advice doled out to an endless parade of kinksters, misfits, fetishists, and closeted gays.
> 
> Nonetheless, he always roots his show in the reality of human sexuality, not someone's fantasy of how It Should Be. He knows his audience, supports them mercilessly, and makes no apologies. If I were a gay sex advice columnist, I would be Dan Savage. I have often referred to the Dan Savage rule of pornography in a relationship if one of the members is not comfortable with it - that is (usually targeted at the male) pretend not to use it while your spouse pretends to believe you. Some may call that advocating for dishonesty. I call it advocating for mutually respectful reality.


I agree that he has done a great service to kinksters and normalizing sexual fantasies and identities. I just don't swallow wholesale everything he says.

Also, he finds vaginas quite disgusting, which since he is a gay male I totally understand, LOL, but this disgust often shows in his advice to women, which it really shouldn't if he is pretending to be a sexpert that can help both women and men.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> Yet somehow along the way, the LGBT community actually did manage to win the fight - in a turn of public opinion the likes of which I have never seen in my life.
> 
> I don't know how important Savage's role was in that transformation, but I think being confrontational by some of the movement was important.


Dan Savage is a bit player in that, IMHO. With or without him, LGBT would've made great strides considering the efforts of so many for zo long.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Okay, I'm sorry, but the whole santorum thing was pretty hilarious. Definitely one of the more entertaining things he has done.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> But this part of your post is horsesh!t. What site do you read? Nearly every thread Ive ever read here advocates being honest communicating and then DIVORCING if need be. Demanding open relationships? No.


Before the great password purge, there were a few key posters who made that suggestion on a regular basis.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Thound said:


> I would never listen to him, or do anything that benefits him. He is a major piece of stool. He once went to signed up to work on a campaiign for someone he didn't like. The reason he signed up was because he had the flu. He was licking the door knobs at the campaign head quarters, and doing other things to to spread his flu among the staff. If you are a public figure and don't agree with his gay agenda, he does everything he can to try to ruin you.


It was a stupid thing to do, but hardly "do everything he can to try and ruin you". 

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/dan-savage-takes-a-licking/Content?oid=901420

This at the campaign of a person who claims

"Our society will be destroyed if we say it's OK for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman,"

So 
..."and in his "Sudafed-induced delirium"

He did something dumb. But if someone classified my way of life, which is no harm to anyone, as destroying society, I might get mad and do something dumb to.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> He did something dumb. But if someone classified my way of life, which is no harm to anyone, as destroying society, I might get mad and do something dumb to.


Which is why I think the Santorum episode was actually a pretty measured response to the kinds of things that Rick was saying about gays. If you pull out a microphone in public and attack a group of people, you're fair game for the inevitable backlash. 

"Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

notmyrealname4 said:


> It's not dishonesty, folks; it's "mutually respectful reality".


Here is the key

"while your spouse pretends to believe you"

Better yet, clearly is for both of the to understand and accept the other point of view. But that cannot always happen.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Which is why I think the Santorum episode was actually a pretty measured response to the kinds of things that Rick was saying about gays. If you pull out a microphone in public and attack a group of people, you're fair game for the inevitable backlash.
> 
> "Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)


I will never get the leap from consensual sex between adults leading to sex with dogs or pedophilia. A child cannot consent. A dog cannot consent. Duh.

Not sure what is wrong with polyAMORY, though I agree polygamy (not as practiced by Mormons even) is a bad idea. I would love to just get rid of civil marriage altogether as a failed experiment.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

soccermom2three said:


> Every married gay couple I've known has had an open marriage, so I'm not surprised at his viewpoint.


My experience has been completely opposite.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Cletus said:


> "Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ...


Anyone who disagrees with this first part is hypocritical. Not in the context Santorum means though.

Every item enumerated in the quote harms no one if practiced between consenting adults. If you're gay and opposed to polygamy, you're a hypocrit. You don't want to be judged by those that find your lifestyle offensive, yet you wish to impose your sexual views on others?



> That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)


Now this part goes too far. The dog can't consent.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MattMatt said:


> Well, my problem here is this: If he is an advocate for lying as a useful relationship tool, how can anyone trust anything he says?:scratchhead:


"I didn't say half the things I said" -- Yogi Berra.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

MattMatt said:


> Well, my problem here is this: If he is an advocate for lying as a useful relationship tool, how can anyone trust anything he says?:scratchhead:


lol yep


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Cletus said:


> "Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)





larry.gray said:


> Anyone who disagrees with this first part is hypocritical. Not in the context Santorum means though.


I get the spirit of the argument, but can't agree on the details, even if I too am an advocate for "whatever relationship a group of consenting adults agree to".

Polyamory requires more than two persons to enter into the contract. Ok by me, but we don't have any framework in this country for managing such a system and all of the Friday the 13th legal issues it raises.

Incest can be argued as biologically destructive, even if I wouldn't necessarily outlaw it. 

The right to adultery? That's BREAKING the marriage contract. It has nothing to do with who may and may not get married. 

"You have the right to anything..." is just fear mongering hyperbole that we can probably agree is over the top. 

Man on child also doesn't follow as one of the participants is not of age. It's understandably irritating to have gay marriage equated to pedophilia and bestiality.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> I would love to just get rid of civil marriage altogether as a failed experiment.


Not mine. I have a great marriage and have ZERO desire for a poly relationship. I certainly don't see it as a failure.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

TX-SC said:


> Not mine. I have a great marriage and have ZERO desire for a poly relationship. I certainly don't see it as a failure.


I have no problem with monogamy. I suggest getting rid of CIVIL marriage licenses. Licenses. Contract. People are free to commit however they see fit and continue to have their unions blessed by their church or whatever as they see fit.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have no problem with monogamy. I suggest getting rid of CIVIL marriage licenses. Licenses. Contract. People are free to commit however they see fit and continue to have their unions blessed by their church or whatever as they see fit.


I would have to simply disagree with you on this one.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have no problem with monogamy. I suggest getting rid of CIVIL marriage licenses. Licenses. Contract. People are free to commit however they see fit and continue to have their unions blessed by their church or whatever as they see fit.


Or make marriage licenses renewable like a drivers license lol If you don't wish to renew it, then you are no longer legally married. If you wish to divorce halfway through the renewal period before the expiration date, then you have to show cause. Divorce is a big business these days, and it's causing a lot of people to shy away from marriage entirely. If the license was renewable after every couple of years like any other license, it might diminish the divorce rate and also it might make people work a bit harder in their marriages instead of becoming complacent over time. Knowing that your partner has the option to not want to renew the license might cause people to not take the other for granted like 'they'll always be there.' I think it could work. LOL


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

What is the point of civil marriage? Tax breaks?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

No one is forcing anyone to get married, so why take the option away for those who do? I don't see what the purpose is of doing away with legal marriage since no one is obligated to sign up. If you don't want to be bound by the law during a marriage or divorce, don't get married.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have no problem with monogamy. I suggest getting rid of CIVIL marriage licenses. Licenses. Contract. People are free to commit however they see fit and continue to have their unions blessed by their church or whatever as they see fit.


We already have this. No matter where you were married, you remain in control of how you define the parameters of your marriage. Even if you got married in a zealous cult, you still have the legal freedom to define for yourself what marriage means.

With one exception. You may not be legally wed to two people at the same time. And frankly, I'm okay with that intrusive law because it protects enormously more than it prohibits.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> What is the point of civil marriage? Tax breaks?


There are plenty of reasons, but lets just look at one. Let's say two people decide to be informally married. No ceremony no paperwork, no state license, just an informal agreement. Let's then say that the wife decides to mostly be a SAHM. The husband works, the wife takes care of kids, etc. 

Now, Mr. Not Really Married decides he wants someone else. I could see how the issue of child support could be taken care of. But what about her? Perhaps he says "screw you, go get a job". If she has been out of the job market for years, and might be untrained, she can't hope for much. So, he would have no LEGAL requirement to support her in any way. 

By being legally married, there are certain protections that are generally provided through the divorce. 

That's just one example. I do agree that people still get screwed by the system and by their spouses, but at least there are some guidelines. Without marriage there are no such guidelines.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

TX-SC said:


> By being legally married, there are certain protections that are generally provided through the divorce.


Not just the protection side, either, as many gay partners learned when their SO landed in the hospital. Marriage affords you the rights to be with and make legal decisions for your spouse in their time of need or incapacitance. Rights of inheritance and survivorship, and all of those other good things.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Not just the protection side, either, as many gay partners learned when their SO landed in the hospital. Marriage affords you the rights to be with and make legal decisions for your spouse in their time of need or incapacitance. Rights of inheritance and survivorship, and all of those other good things.


Ok I guess that is fair. Having a package of legal rights that make sense in partnership is certainly easier than having each couple seek their own legal contract. The thing I don't like, despite being pro equal rights, is the quagmire of legal negotiations should polyamorous people also seek marriage. Not because I think that they should not. But I think defining what those survivorship, custody, financial splits... would look like would be a nightmare.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok I guess that is fair. Having a package of legal rights that make sense in partnership is certainly easier than having each couple seek their own legal contract. The thing I don't like, despite being pro equal rights, is the quagmire of legal negotiations should polyamorous people also seek marriage. Not because I think that they should not. But I think defining what those survivorship, custody, financial splits... would look like would be a nightmare.


In a poly relationship, doesn't the spouse become the primary and any additional relationships are secondary? A will can identify who gets what at death, but the spouse would have legal responsibility and rights.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

TX-SC said:


> In a poly relationship, doesn't the spouse become the primary and any additional relationships are secondary?


Configurations vary significantly across different relationships. Some value this primary/secondary thing. Some prefer an egalitarian approach. Some have too many branches and wings to have a hierarchy.

See how inheritance laws might be tough with that?




> A will can identify who gets what at death, but the spouse would have legal responsibility and rights.


Whatever. I am good with that. Just not thinking plural marriage is a great idea. I don't want my legislators spending time on it when there are bigger fish to fry. Two gay people getting the same thing that two hetero people get? Sure. Rock it.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I get that some people don't want to be monogamous because it's a big struggle for them. But this is not that common. I'm so sick of this biology talk that men are meant to spread their seed crap therefore monogamous is unrealistic. First of all... Animals are biologically meant to spread their seed, we have evolved from these basic animalistic instincts. Let's look at animals.... Some spread there seed whenever they can, some mate for life (ducks), some rape for fun (Dolphins), some live solitary lives by themselves (porcupines). Why are we looking at animals to define what is normal for humans when we have evolved so much and are higher thinking beings that actually have prefrontal cortexes. We are above instinctual behavior and can think at a higher level then kill, eat, sex, poop, sleep. 
The reality is most of us would like to sleep with other people. However we also have a higher level need for a life partner, a person that is mine only, a steady familiar structure that we call home and family. So yea I can make a scientific argument that we are not meant to be monogamous, but there is something in my body that thinks... This is MY husband and I get territorial. And I don't think that is often talked about.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

I listened to this caller say that she wants to have a open relationship because in her head she knows that's what makes makes most sense. When her boyfriend and her went to a sex club to see if they wanted to sleep with someone else, a girl came up to her boyfriend and they talked or whatever and she knew in her head that it was ok for him to kiss her but when the girl reached out and touched her boyfriend, in her head she was screaming get your hands off on my boyfriend!!!! And that's my point, rationally and scientifically speaking you can make an argument for open relationships, but there is something else we have... Something that is territorial, emotional, and in my opinion very instinctual to humans to say he is mine!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

katiecrna said:


> And that's my point, rationally and scientifically speaking you can make an argument for open relationships, but there is something else we have... Something that is territorial, emotional, and in my opinion very instinctual to humans to say he is mine!




You use the context of the tremendous variation in animal sexual behavior as a jumping off point for why humans are all the same in our relationship needs.

That felt very non sequitur to me. There is more variety in human sexuality and its expression than is in your ken. There is ample room for those who do not have the instinctual need for jealous monogamy. 

I am not one of those people, but I don't claim to speak for everyone. Let them speak for themselves - they may be a small minority, but they've been around as long as the species has been pairing off.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

Cletus said:


> You use the context of the tremendous variation in animal sexual behavior as a jumping off point for why humans are all the same in our relationship needs.
> 
> That felt very non sequitur to me. There is more variety in human sexuality and its expression than is in your ken. There is ample room for those who do not have the instinctual need for jealous monogamy.
> 
> I am not one of those people, but I don't claim to speak for everyone. Let them speak for themselves - they may be a small minority, but they've been around as long as the species has been pairing off.




I agree with you 100% which is why I have a problem when Dan savage speaks so in favor against monogamy. He is the one that is standing on a plate form trying to convince people monogamy is not natural.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

katiecrna said:


> I agree with you 100% which is why I have a problem when Dan savage speaks so in favor against monogamy. He is the one that is standing on a plate form trying to convince people monogamy is not natural.


No, I'm not so sure we agree. For something that supposedly comes so natural for us as a species, we seem to be doing a really bad job at monogamy. 

I don't think it is very natural nor a very good fit for most of us.


----------

