Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-15-2008, 01:10 AM   #151
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Equal access to a formally monogamous relationship? No. But why would you want that access if you weren't interested in monogamy anyway?
Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?
__________________

__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:11 AM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




lucky for you, there are chub chasers out there.
i can show u pictures of me 20 years ago instead of 20 weeks ago, but no reason to win an argument when one is not here for that.

__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:16 AM   #153
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?
What? Of course I'm not saying that. I'm trying to play along with the scenario you're describing, but I don't see why it would constitute monogamy. What about the one spouse of the opposite sex? What kind of relationship would you describe them as being in and how is it different from polygamy? Monogamy implies mutuality, no?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:26 AM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?


what about the other partners involved? what if they don't like each other?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:35 AM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


i can show u pictures of me 20 years ago instead of 20 weeks ago, but no reason to win an argument when one is not here for that.



i have no doubt. you were hot.

once upon a time.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:42 AM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:20 AM

..so.. i guessin gettin funky with
mr chunky isn't krunky

word

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:43 AM   #157
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
..so.. i guess gettin funky with
mr chunky isn't krunky

word

<>


i prefer meat to bone, don't you worry, big daddy
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:22 AM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:20 AM
I'll be honest. I didn't read this whole thread.

But. . .

I think I can safely say that there was no secular argument made for opposing gay marriage. Because there isn't one.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:04 AM   #159
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

what about the other partners involved? what if they don't like each other?
I think you're misunderstanding the part you quoted, I'm saying that being bisexual doesn't always necessitate threesomes.

Having said that, most bisexual people who respect the sig others will not pursue something with someone that can't get along with all concerned, for the most part. Or they go behind one of their backs, commonly known as cheating
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:13 AM   #160
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

What? Of course I'm not saying that. I'm trying to play along with the scenario you're describing, but I don't see why it would constitute monogamy. What about the one spouse of the opposite sex? What kind of relationship would you describe them as being in and how is it different from polygamy? Monogamy implies mutuality, no?
I'd call them a consenting adult who understands that the person they love also loves someONE of their own sex. Not too confusing to me. Frankly I couldn't care if we can or can't apply 'monogamy' to what I'm describing. Call it 'mutually agreed upon semi-exclusivity', I don't care.

Look, the bottom line is I don't think it's possible for straight - or for that matter gay - people who hold the traditional view of marriage being of only 2 persons to understand this at all. Therefore, either the stigma and negative connnotations need to be removed from the term 'polygamy' when describing certain relationships, or we need a new word. Pretty sure a gay man would get tired of discussing this in a decent manner if I insisted on using 'sodomy' and 'sodomite' to describe his activities in my every sentence. It's just got too many negative implications. Most of the responses to my scenario are closed circle arguments "you can't do that because that's polygamy, and polygamy is illegal because of all the young girls victimized by it and...". Which is basically the same as: "You can't marry a man, because that is sodomy, and sodomy is illegal, I mean it just opens the door for pedophiles to take advantage of our little boys and....". All the same irrational fears, etc. I honestly don't know how much plainer I can put it.

Interestingly enough, most of our 'perceptions' and these terms have their root in Judeo-Christian origins, we made laws based on our beliefs, and now we try and rethink all that but we're still doing it thru the lens of those old perceptions that won't die. It's kindof ridiculous, really.
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:29 AM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:20 AM
oh come on.

polygamy is a word that is neutral in and of itself, and it has only become a "bad" word through historical context and the behavior of it's practitioners.

"sodomy" is a religious word, a direct biblical reference, and when you break it all down, it's actually referring to *any* non-procreative sex. so if you've ever performed or received oral sex, you are by definition a sodomite! and sodomy is most certainly not illegal, and widely practiced by hetero and homosexuals. polygamy is expressly not legal. if you think it should be, then make the argument on those grounds, don't say that a poly relationship is an immutable part of being bisexual because i know many bisexuals who would disagree with you.

i think you're worrying about an understanding of polygamy that you think exists in my mind, when the truth is that i know *exactly* the kind of poly relationship you are talking about.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:36 AM   #162
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I'll be honest. I didn't read this whole thread.

But. . .

I think I can safely say that there was no secular argument made for opposing gay marriage. Because there isn't one.
Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:40 AM   #163
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.
What examples of this were you thinking?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:57 AM   #164
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.


australian scientists are revolting to me, and i don't want things that revolt me to be able to marry innocent young american democrats from Virginia, and that's perfectly secular.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:59 AM   #165
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


What examples of this were you thinking?
Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.

A certain proportion of people find some activity or thing offensive and get it made illegal, and that reason they are offended may simply be a gut reaction (such as gays make me feel uncomfortable) and since most people don't give a fuck about liberties they don't use they have no problem getting it banned.

It may not be right, it may be homophobic but there can be a completely secular and self-interested reason to not allow gay marriage. Fortunately enough the argument is so utterly weak and is predicated on living in an illiberal democracy.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com