tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post5109991424485960494..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Is Same-Sex Marriage "Newer than Cell Phones"?Eric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-42331236447892778182013-03-28T16:31:11.247-05:002013-03-28T16:31:11.247-05:00My post on this topic is now up.My <a href="http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2013/03/on-slippery-slopes-and-polyamory.html" rel="nofollow">post on this topic</a> is now up.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-80431601475105720452013-03-28T11:16:58.573-05:002013-03-28T11:16:58.573-05:00blannphinella,
These are good question, and I hav...blannphinella,<br /><br />These are good question, and I have thoughts about them. The first is a minor point: It was a simple oversight not to specify two-ness as a feature of the marital kind of relationship. It is a feature of that kind of relationship as currently conceived.<br /><br />But that raises a further question: is the number of parties involved in a relationship definitive of the kind of relationship at issue? In other words, is a relationship among three individuals necessarily different in kind from one between two? I think the answer is yes--but my reasons for thinking so (as well as the broader slippery-slope question alluded to in you comment) warrant a post of their own rather than being relegated to the comments. Stay tuned.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-62361201757850802632013-03-28T07:12:05.895-05:002013-03-28T07:12:05.895-05:00*same-sex marriage debate*same-sex marriage debateblannphinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407777722151988701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26582125894386757392013-03-28T07:09:26.401-05:002013-03-28T07:09:26.401-05:00A total supporter of LGBT people and gay marriage ...A total supporter of LGBT people and gay marriage here: <br /><br />You described the essence of marriage in the following terms: "the parties to a marriage are related in terms of mutual love, support, long-term partnership in life, and sexual fidelity (or at least promises to that effect), combined with social and legal recognition." And later: "if you can be related in this “marital way” (if you can pursue this ideal with another person) then you can be married."<br /><br />With that said (and this is a genuine question), doesn't this understanding of marriage support polyamory as well? Why not three or four consenting adults in one marriage? Of course, maybe polyamory is tomorrow's safe-sex marriage debate (if you will). <br /><br />Is two-ness important for marriage (at least in most circumstances)? I can imagine a marriage of three individuals (say one man and two women) working in an "ideal" situation, but I am suspicious of its basic structure. Perhaps this is unfounded, but I think it is important to emphasize that gay marriage is also about two-ness and whatever ideals go with that. <br /><br />And following up on the question of polyamory: it is easier to dismiss polyamory when the parties involved are more or less "purely" homosexual or heterosexual. (Obviously, sexual identity is much more complex, but you get the point.) But the two-ness of marriage is not as accommodating for bisexual individuals. To be married to one individual is to suppress one part of their sexual identity in some way (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but its an interesting structural feature of such a relationship). As society wrestles with the essence of marriage, I think it must ask some of the questions that may be asked down the road on "the next issue." <br /><br />Thanks for your posts.blannphinellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407777722151988701noreply@blogger.com