Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 16 - 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, 06:24 PM   #226
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i can fully agree that polygamy isn't always what we saw in Texas. i think everyone has said that, and i think everyone is well aware that there could be a happy threesome couple living in the NJ suburbs who aren't about to rape any 13 year old girls any time soon.
Well yes in your case you have stated that and no, other posters seem to be implying that they can't see a huge difference, and to open the doors to the type of arrangement I'm describing and not allow it for the cultish polygamist would be discriminatory, so we basically shouldn't allow it. People said the same thing about removing the sodomy laws off the books, that it would open up the doors for more child molestation. And we all piped up and said things like "I'm sure there are gay couples living in the NJ suburbs who have no interest in raping 13 year old boys", didn't we? And for good reason!

Honestly when people use words like 'dominant', 'owner' and such in the context of a discussion like this, to me that highlights the perspective this thing is being viewed through, and I can't argue on those grounds, because it's not a concept I really understand or sympathize with myself - that is, the Texan cult polygamist. For all I know, he probably thinks of himself as as much of a wife-owner as a land-owner!
__________________

__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:24 PM   #227
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:47 PM
None of us understand.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:26 PM   #228
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, you are full of assumptions, generalizations, and condensation aren't you?
Yep. But none of these points have ever even been heard of here in FYM before!
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:27 PM   #229
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The person that is bisexual will always be the dominate one, if there partners are of one sexual preference. They get to call who sleeps in the second bedroom, etc... Plus if we're talking about a legal marriage then they are the ones with legal ties with the two others and the other two have absolutely no legal ties with each other.
Look, I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what you're talking about???? What you are describing as your idea of how this sort of thing plays out in any truly consensual and respectful environment is at best, frankly, ridiculous.

edit: your second paragraph about the legality and ties etc is precisely why it should be allowed for them all to become legally obligated to one another if they so choose.
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:32 PM   #230
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Well yes in your case you have stated that and no, other posters seem to be implying that they can't see a huge difference, and to open the doors to the type of arrangement I'm describing and not allow it for the cultish polygamist would be discriminatory, so we basically shouldn't allow it. People said the same thing about removing the sodomy laws off the books, that it would open up the doors for more child molestation. And we all piped up and said things like "I'm sure there are gay couples living in the NJ suburbs who have no interest in raping 13 year old boys", didn't we?

Honestly when people use words like 'dominant', 'owner' and such in the context of a discussion like this, to me that highlights the perspective this thing is being viewed through, and I can't argue on those grounds, because it's not a concept I really understand or sympathize with myself - that is, the Texan cult polygamist. For all I know, he probably thinks of himself as as much of a wife-owner as a land-owner!
Before continuing under assumptions, maybe you should wait until someone actually makes those kind of comparisons...

I'm sure you are aware of the saying, "you know what they say about assumptions."
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:36 PM   #231
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Before continuing under assumptions, maybe you should wait until someone actually makes those kind of comparisons...
I only used words others had used. I certainly didn't introduce the domination / owner aspect, did I?? Or that there was no real difference, do you need me to go back and quote it for you?

Then again, if it doesn't apply to you, it won't stick, will it?
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:38 PM   #232
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Look, I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what you're talking about???? What you are describing as your idea of how this sort of thing plays out in any truly consensual and respectful environment is at best, frankly, ridiculous.

edit: your second paragraph about the legality and ties etc is precisely why it should be allowed for them all to become legally obligated to one another if they so choose.
Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Your assumptions are what's getting ridiculous.

And your edit, shows me you haven't exactly thought out the legal aspects of this kind of marriage.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:49 PM   #233
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Your assumptions are what's getting ridiculous.
Trust me, your assertions show me that you either don't have a clue in the world or you have some limited knowledge based on some limited personal experience which likely doesn't fall into the type of consensual and respectful union I'm discussing. Call it assumption, call it whatever, it's you that keeps going on and on about who is what to who. If that's what's working for you in your case, good for you. Sounds emotionally damaging, limiting, and a perfect breeding ground for mistrust and discontent, but hell that's just my opinion.
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:54 PM   #234
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Sounds emotionally damaging, limiting, and a perfect breeding ground for mistrust and discontent, but hell that's just my opinion.
Assumption # 47? Anyone keeping count?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:02 PM   #235
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:47 PM
This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:

It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:07 PM   #236
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Trust me, your assertions show me that you either don't have a clue in the world or you have some limited knowledge based on some limited personal experience which likely doesn't fall into the type of consensual and respectful union I'm discussing.
So how many of these longterm relationships between three consenting adults have you studied? I mean you haven't answered a single one of the questions I bring up, you just keep ignoring them and throw some assumption my way...


Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

If that's what's working for you in your case, good for you. Sounds emotionally damaging, limiting, and a perfect breeding ground for mistrust and discontent, but hell that's just my opinion.
I'm not even sure what the hell you are inferring here, but I'd refrain from getting personal.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:09 PM   #237
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Acrobatique, in the grounds of this polygamist/bisexual relationship, are all 3 members bisexuals or just one of them, or do you think that matters?

Second, simply because a bisexual can be sexually attracted to both a man and a woman does not mean that the ultimate expression of that is to be simultaneously involved in a relationship with both. Their sexual attraction is not limited by gender, yes. That doesn't have any affect as I see it, however, on whether their attraction is devoted to one person at a time or not. Maybe you could explain why you think a relationship with two people at once is the ultimate expression of bisexual love, because I admit I'm a bit confused by it.

To me it would be no different than arguing that since heterosexual Jim is attracted to both Jane and Jill, that he should be able to marry both, so it seems like you're really arguing for polygamy before anything else.





edit: I didn't see your post before mine, melon. I was wondering how to approach that aspect of it. Well said.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:09 PM   #238
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:24 PM   #239
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:

It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.
Thank you.

The notion that bisexuals need to marry two people to be emotionally and sexually fulfilled is bizarre, at best.

In theory, marriage is a legal, sexual and emotional commitment to one person. If you need to involve more than one person in a marriage scenario, then bisexual people (or people of any sexual orientation, really) shouldn't marry, they should fulfill their needs by dating more than one person.

The best analogy I could come up with is, what if, hypothetically, a straight person didn't feel fulfilled as a sexual being unless s/he took part in two different sexual acts, but it was impossible to find an opposite-sex partner who would perform both acts? Well, this person would either suck it up and make due with just the one act within marriage with one person, or seek out the two acts with two different people without marriage. You could use the same analogy with any personal trait - your ideal person needs to have two different traits for you to be fully emotionally fulfilled, but you can't find them within one person? You date two people, then. Seems pretty simple to me. If you need something that you can only get from two people, don't get married. This holds true for all orientations.

Also, the argument that bisexual people are at an advantage because they can still marry an opposite sex partner strikes me as kind of irrelevant. Certainly, they can be sexually and emotionally satisfied by either sex, but we all know that finding someone to commit to for a lifetime is far more complex than that. What if the person they do meet and want to take that step with is of the same sex? The fact that they can marry someone of the opposite sex isn't really helpful then if that's not who they want to commit to, is it?

Besides, are there any bisexual people who even want to marry two people? I suspect that outside of this new poster's mind, it's really not an issue.


ETA:

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen

To me it would be no different than arguing that since heterosexual Jim is attracted to both Jane and Jill, that he should be able to marry both, so it seems like you're really arguing for polygamy before anything else.

We were posting at the same time, and you said essentially the same thing I'm saying.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:58 PM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:47 PM
I just choked on a the cracker I was eating - IRVINE is a Gay Conservative?


What the hell does that make me !!!!!!


I love it when newbies make a splash in the FYM pond.

It brings out the best in some of the regulars.


OK - here it is the truth as I see it - If I were living in bizzaro world and my wife said hey, know what I am bisexual and I want to invite someone into our lives of the female persuasion to enter into a marriage - I would think about it for a few minutes and then come to the conclusion that there was NO WAY IN HELL I could handle two women for more than two minutes hehe.....and then in the words of Kramer - I;m out!!!!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 06:47 PM.


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