Homosexual marriage is not about redefining marriage...

...except for the fidelity part, the numbers involved, whether the people involved can make babies, etc., etc.

Other than that gay marriage is about what marriage has always been about, namely, narcissistic self-definition that has nothing to do with the next generation,i.e., about being gay.

But I'm not saying it. Read this paen to Anderson Cooper's cheating boyfriend that tells you what the agenda is:

Because, aside from the fact that we don't know when these photos of Maisani were taken (or if they're even real), we don't have the faintest clue about the terms of his relationship with Cooper. There's a very good chance that for Maisani, like many gay men in long-term, healthy, committed relationships, a make-out session in the park is not only acceptable but just another typical Saturday-afternoon activity.

It can be hard for some people -- both straight and queer -- to fathom that a non-monogamous relationship could not only function satisfactorily but be an ideal arrangement. But in the queer community, which has fewer hangups and restrictions on sex and less rigid parameters on with whom and how we love and lust, open relationships have long provided the stability of partnership with the excitement of being able to meet and sleep with other people.

So instead of assuming that Maisani was cheating on Cooper, as almost all the media outlets have done, why not assume that Cooper knew exactly where his boyfriend was and had simply said, "Have fun with Bob. I'll see you later tonight. Oh, and can you pick up some more milk? We're almost out"?

Because most of America isn't ready for that. It's barely ready for gay marriage (and, in most states, entirely unprepared for it). Right wingers are quick to argue that if they give their blessing to gay marriages, other unthinkable terrors, like polygamy and polyamory, won't be far behind.

And they're not alone. Even some queer people worry about what the larger consequences of non-monogamy could be. One gay friend of mine, who has been with his partner for nearly a decade but is unable to marry him because they reside in a Midwestern state where gay marriage isn't legal, thought the photos of Maisani could make it even harder for him to wed. He questioned how mainstream America would react to Maisani's public display of affection with a man who wasn't his boyfriend and how it would do anything to "help gay acceptance."

But in my fantasies, we're not gunning for gay acceptance -- especially not if the only way we're granted it is by "behaving ourselves" and struggling to fit into a heteronormative mold (which, as far as I can tell, hasn't really benefited heterosexual people very well, either). Instead, I want us to be pushing for queer liberation, which, to me, has always meant that when it comes to sex and love, we all get to do whatever we want with whomever we want as long as we're not hurting anyone (unless, of course, that person/those people are asking for us to hurt them).

If monogamy works for you, more power to you. If you and your girlfriend want to sleep with other people on occasion (or invite someone home with you at the end of the night), do it. If three men want to live as a throuple, let them live as a throuple. If a husband and wife want to take separate vacations and sleep around while they're apart, who is anyone else to say that that's unsavory?

Who is to say it's unsavory?

Well, anyone who understands what the word marriage actually means.

Next on the list of really stupid idea - Temporary marriages, because while marriages may be temporary...

...the children they produce are not.

"Officials in Mexico City are considering a new way to address the city's high divorce rates: by making marriages temporary."

Couples would be allowed to decide on the length of their marriage (minimum license: two years), and the contracts would contain prenup-like legalese about financial support, how marital assets would be divided, and who gets custody of the kids. At the end of the contract, happy (or semi-happy) couples could opt to renew for another two years, while those who are tired of being together could simply walk away without a legal hassle.

"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," Leonel Luna of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, who co-authored the bill, told Reuters. "You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce."

Mexico has the second-largest Catholic population in the world (after Brazil) and, needless to say, the Catholic Church isn't too keen on the idea of temporary marriages.

"This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. "It's another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral."

The last bit of "electoral theatrics" launched by the liberal ruling Party of the Democratic Revolution was in 2009, when they infuriated conservatives by legalizing gay marriage in Mexico City.

Temporary marriages are legal in Iran, where they can be as short as a few minutes or as long as a lifetime. They're considered a loophole in Islamic law, which decrees that sex outside of marriage is a crime punishable by whipping (or, in cases of adultery, death), though some call it a form of Koran-sanctioned prostitution. No word on whether temporary marriages affect the divorce rate there, but liberal politicians in Mexico City are counting on the proposed change in the civil code to bring their own numbers down.

Though the divorce rate in the rest of Mexico are quite low, they have been going up, and about half of the marriages in Mexico City end in divorce within the first two years, Reuters reported. Other sources say the rate is much higher: Lizbeth Rosas, another member of the Party of the Democratic Revolution and a sponsor of the bill, told the Mexican newspaper El Universal that eight out of 10 couples in Mexico City eventually get divorced.

"I know it's controversial," Rosas told El Universal, "but it seeks to support and strengthen family bonds."

Brilliant.  Let's solve the foreclosure crisis by passing a law that says the bank already owns your house.

But the problem is that just as people got to live somewhere, heterosexual couples pretending they are married tend to make babies and babies need both parents.

Here's hoping that the '70s will end in my lifetime.

Brad Wilcox writes a rebuttal to the New York Times Sunday Supplement's paen to open marriage and homosexual ethicist Dan Savage:

The Open Marriage, by Nena and George O’Neill, was published in 1972, as the sexual revolution gathered steam in America. The best-selling book encouraged spouses to “to strip marriage of its antiquated ideals” and, most famously in one chapter, to explore sexual partnerships outside their marriage, if they so desired.


Fortunately, the book has since come to be seen as an antiquated relic of the Me Decade, when all too many men and women put their own desires—in the sexual arena, as in so many other arenas—ahead of the needs of their spouse, their marriage, and their children. While swinging may have seemed reasonable to some at the height of the sexual revolution, many couples and the vast majority of Americans have since turned away from the idea.

In fact, notwithstanding the recent marital misbehavior of athletes, actors, and politicians, public tolerance for marital infidelity has fallen since the 1970s, with fully 79 percent of American adults now saying that infidelity is “always wrong.” Moreover, recent research from the National Marriage Project indicates that infidelity has also declined in recent years to the point where just 16 percent of married men and 10 percent of married women now report that they have been unfaithful. So, clearly, in contemporary America that vast majority of couples reject infidelity in theory and practice.

Unfortunately, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage and academic apologists for open marriage would like to turn back the clock to this dark chapter in American marital history. Savage, who got a big plug in a recent The New York Times Sunday Magazine cover story, argues for a more “realistic” marital ethic that makes a place for nonmonogamy for some couples (so long as both parties consent), and is more forgiving of the occasional affair. In his view, “we’re not wired for monogamy,” some spouses can actually enrich their marriage by spicing up their sex or emotional lives with an extramarital relationship, and a one-size-fits-all sexual ethic cannot begin to cover the variability of human sexual desire.

Savage-style love has also been getting a pass from some progressive family scholars. Family sociologist Judith Stacey signaled her basic agreement with Savage’s philosophy in the Times profile: “What integrity means for me is we shouldn’t impose a single vow of monogamy as a superior standard for all relationships.” And in a recent New York Press article, family historian Stephanie Coontz said “nonmonogamy” is “one of the ways that some people may handle the pressures of a world where people want partnerships but live long lives and have frequent opportunities.”


So, what is the problem with a little “nonmonogamy” in marriage, so long as everyone is open and honest about it? There are at least five problems with open marriage.

Read the rest.