Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   Press and media coverage (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Transcript of "Love Triangle" on Fox News Channel (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=253)

ferrishmatt 05-12-2009 11:26 AM

Transcript of "Love Triangle" on Fox News Channel
 
Transcript - Love Triangle
Marriage no longer between two people
Fox News Channel, May 12, 2009

GRETCHEN: Now for a very interesting debate. While gay activists continue to fight for same sex marriage rights, a new group demanding legal recognition, they call themselves polyamorists, and they want the right to marry into a triad, otherwise known as a threesome. Is this crossing the line, and how far will we take this?

Jenny Block is happily married to her husband and her girlfriend doesn't mind at all. She's the author of "Open" Love, Sex, and Life in the Open Marriage. Also with us Glen Stanton, director of Global Family Formation Studies and Focus on the Family. Good morning to both of you.

BLOCK: Good morning.

STANTON: Good morning.

GRETCHEN: Alright Jenny, so a lot of people are trying to wrap their heads around this concept. That the triad concept I guess in your mind and explanation is this the new marriage or is it not?

BLOCK: Well I think it's one way to do marriage. I mean, I think this converstation is really about honesty, and about choice. Marriage as we know it now doesn't have the best success rate as you know so this is just another way of doing this. There are all different kinds of families and I think that's a good thing.

GRETCHEN: Alright, so help me understand how this works. You're married to your husband, you have a girlfriend on the side, and you all want to legally be recognized together as a triad?

BLOCK: Well to be honest in my situation, I can only speak to mine, I'm very happy with being married to my husband and having a girlfriend as well, but a lot of people want to have the legal protection of having all three people married, and in my mind marriage is a civil institution and so if people want that choice I feel like they should be allowed that.

GRETCHEN: Glen, I know you disagree with this --

STANTON: Yeah.

GRETCHEN: -- Speak from the side of traditional values with regards to marriage and where you think this may be heading as far as a "slippery slope."

STANTON: Well it is a slippery slope. And the idea is that if you think about the arguement that these people make for the radical kinds of marriages that they want, they're exactly the same kinds of arguements, Justice, Equality, things like that, the same sex marriage people have made. And we have said for a long time that same sex marriage would open a pandora's box that would lead us to who know's where and it's not just about triads, its about four, five, six people, I mean go on the websites and look at some of these organizations, and you see pictures of five people, six people so its not -- where does this stop? And its an amazing things. And the point is that mogonomy is an very important social value. We have to understand that cultures that fail to recognize and support the idea of mogonomy end up to be cultures where women are things merely to be collected and used and thrown away at the end. Not seen as full citizens. Now that's why mogonomy is an important idea and these people don't like it.

GRETCHEN: And I wish that I had another three hours to discuss this because it needs it. But, I'll give Jenny the final word.

BLOCK: Well again I just don't see any slippery slope. The fact that I could love more than one person does not mean that my neighbor is going to want to marry his dog. I mean, in the end, this is about love and choice and this isn't going anywhere but equality for everyone and as far as I'm concerned equality is a wonderful thing.

GRETCHEN: Alright, no doubt as I said earlier, people have a variety of opinions on this issue, and its something we will continue to revisit. Jenny Block and Glen Stanton, thank you for your thoughts this morning.

STANTON: Thank you.

BLOCK: Thank you for having me, I appreciate it.

ferrishmatt 05-12-2009 11:28 AM

Pardon the spelling errors, I'm retyping this up now for my website and will update this with the formatted/edited version.

Quath 05-12-2009 01:31 PM

Thanks for writing this up. For a FOX news segment, I think it went pretty well.

I think accpeting polygamy will go smoother once gay marriage is established. The main idea here is that it is about equality and it is not forcing monoganous couples to do anything different. The other fun argument will be to say that polygamy is supported by the Bible. That was a tough obstacle for homosexuality. (I am an atheist BTW, but I see most opposition coming from "family values" people.)

ferrishmatt 05-12-2009 01:55 PM

I was just as surprised that FOX even did this story. And even more they used the term "polyamorists" and not "polygamists." Then again, if they would have said polygamists I bet Jenny would have straightened them out. The only thing that bothered me was the couple of leads they ran earlier that hour:

"But what about Americans who want to marry (elongated) multiple partners -- at the same time? Could they have marital rights too? The threesomes who now want the legal right to get (voice crackling) hitched!" - Steve Doocy

"What about Americans who want to marry two people? It's actually got a new term folks, it's called a triad (pause) or is it a marriage?" - Gretchen Carlson

The words themselves weren't too bad, it was the almost sarcastic tone in which they were said. If you've seen any of their coverage on the gay marriage stories, you'll know the tone I'm talking about. I refer to it as Condescending Bias.

Amalthea 07-17-2009 05:56 PM

Condescending Bias is such a good word for it! I know exactly what you mean with that tone.

What always drives me batty is that, as a history lover, I feel that I have a decent perspective on the actualities of love and marriage rather than the rosy portrait so-called "traditionalists" like to paint. Women were abused and subjugated universally and across the different marriage systems -- and besides, up until (and including!) the modern century our so-called monogamy was anything but. Men broke the bonds of fidelity with mistresses and paramours... that was just the expected norm and the women weren't to complain about it or expect anything different. Wives were with whom you formed a family and household, lovers were with whom you enjoyed yourself. This was the status quo in all "monogamous" societies! Marriage was not about love it was about domestic economy and politics.

So what could be more fair than a marriage in which expectations are negotiating and all parties communicate honestly their desires and wishes?

Anyway I will get off my soapbox now ;) I just get so worked up with these sort of false traditionalist arguments being used against gay or poly marriage!


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 PM.