Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[Irvine511]

Bisexuality is not a cultural thing, it is an immutable characteristic as much as homosexuality is. Of course, you don't personally seem to believe that, and I find it highly ironic that as a gay person you would suspect that person before giving him the same benefit of the doubt that you rightly demand about your own identity.

then you've misread my posts. go back and take a look. i think that bisexuality is as immutable as any other sexual orientation.





[q]I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but when you make assertions like 'most gay men will tell you..' - well frankly, that means little, because those same gay men clearly aren't bisexual, are they?[/q]


and many bisexual men eventually come all the way out and are gay men. i'm not saying this is right or wrong, and i've stated that this is anecdotal. but this has been my experience, and men tend to be more black and white in their sexual orientation than women tend to be.

this isn't good, bad, right, or wrong. human sexuality is a complex and beautiful thing. but i think it's incorrect to pretend that there aren't differences, and i think we do ourselves a disservice not to look at similarities and differences.

So you would be opposed to a bisexual person pursuing a legal marriage / life with the man and woman they love?

no, not really. i'm quite opposed to the sexual exploitation of women by one powerful, cultish man, and i'm opposed to the marrying off of teenaged girls to this one powerful, cultish man. but we both agree upon that.

if there are three adults in, say, Paramus, NJ who want to all be married to each other, i guess i don't care all that much. i don't think anyone is harmed, and i think solidifying bonds between people is better than rendering them asunder.

but this seems to me to miss what is the issue here. all three of these people -- unless they are all men or all women -- have an avenue into a marriage with the person of their choosing. there is a path for the bisexual to social equality. it might be different than the ideal, but it is available.

this does not exist, yet, for gay people.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not terming it polygamist for 3 persons who live in a bisexual relationship to marry, that is the term that has been forced upon it here. I think any attempt by a gay person to call what I'm describing 'illegal polygamy' is as ridiculous as the straight person calling the gay couple 'illegal sodomists' or some such foolishness. So while I would agree that they could be different debates, let's not fool ourselves here, they are very closely related.

Might be that there are different definitions in America and Germany. Here one refers to polygamy if it's marriage between more than two people, fair and simple, and without any consideration whether it's legal or illegal.
If in the US the term polygamy is strictly linked with the illegality of it, I apologize for the confusion.

It was rather a recommendation from my side to discuss that issue on its own, feel free to disagree.

Anyways, about religion, I thought we were trying to debate this on secular merits? Why do I care about someone's religion? I'm not even bothering with the holy quotations, far as I'm concerned they're irrelevant beyond gaining an understanding as to why society has such stupid laws and misconceptions in the first place.

Or are we proving that the thing - as is the case with any debate on polygamy, bisexual or not - simply cannot be debated in a purely secular sense?

I'm agnostic if not even atheist (though I will always be open for this tiny percentage point that I'm wrong) either, and would love to see a discussion of these topics without religion in any way included. As you see in this thread, and Martha pointed out countless times, apparently the secular arguments for a restriction of marriage are extremely limited, and very weak.

I would also like to add that religion here in Germany plays more or less no role in the public sphere and religious interference in state issues (and marriage today is a state issue in this country) is extremely limited, i.e. there is still a church tax you pay if you don't leave the church, but that's basically it. Though they are still weighing in on issues such as marriage being open for homosexuals or the euthanasia debate, and have some influence on the conservative side of society and politics, their influence is much more limited than in the US. Hence, they might decelerate progress, but don't slow it down as much.

I can't think of any compelling arguments against polygamy, except for religion, tradition and that most people would find it gross (so, pretty weak arguments again), but I have to admit that I didn't make up my mind on that issue at all.

we’ve just seen in Texas why polygamy was outlawed. It has historically involved the statutory rape of young teenaged girls.

Ok, that would make a very compelling argument.

 

[yolland]

No I'm not suggesting that, I'm outright stating that the fullest realization of a bisexual person's identity could well be a union where they are free to have both of the individuals they love as permanent and legally recognized partners. Of course not every bisexual person needs/wants this, but then again not every gay person necessarily wants to marry, either. Some gay people don't even have gay sex!

Of course, arguable that it's no different than heterosexual relationships, but that's a whole other debate

Why is it a whole other debate? When you--male or female; gay, bisexual or straight--marry someone, you're freely choosing to formally and legally commit to a monogamous romantic relationship with them (and vice versa). In no gender's or orientation's case does that mean you're no longer capable of falling in love with and/or becoming sexually involved with someone besides your spouse; it simply means you're choosing to formally commit to not do that. Being bisexual doesn't mean you require a threesome to feel sexually satisfied anymore than being heterosexual means that.

I understand there's a debate to be had about whether or not polygamy should be legal, since some in certain American subcultures would like it to be; but as Irvine said, that's a separate debate from extending monogamous marriage to couples of all orientations. If polygamy were legal here, most polygamous marriages would be heterosexual anyway. Personally I'm not in principle opposed to legalized polygamous marriages, so long as it were clear to me that this wouldn't result in people (particularly girls and young women) being forced into marital arrangements not of their choosing. However, since I can't think of a single culture or subculture where polygamy is traditional where marriages aren't also traditionally arranged--and, again, where women in particular traditionally have very little say in the matter--I'm wary concerning that choice factor. It's true that there are gray areas here in that arranged *monogamous* marriages are legal, and while technically forced arranged ones are not--i.e., technically the man and woman involved must consent to the arranged marriage--in practice that's not so easy to monitor or enforce. But that's not in itself a good reason to knowingly broaden the scope of potential for such abuses.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

shrillness aside, I listed the "main" reason.

I'll ask you once again to cut the crap, if you are using that word "shrillness" to describe me. I've asked you numerous times, and yet you continue. Should I start asking someone else?

That's the natural logical conclusion from what you posted, it's not "shrillness".

 

[diamond]

Umm, I forget what we were squabbling about.



<>

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Umm, I forget what we were squabbling about.

That's your response? I wasn't "squabbling" at all, just responding to what you posted. You seemingly didn't like that, so you insulted me.

 

[diamond]

No I did not either

 

[kafrun]

I don't agree with that argument either, I think it's stupid. Kids are gonna get bullied no matter what. It's almost like saying people shouldn't have children with disabilities because they are more likely to be bullied. Kids look for any excuse to bully others these days.

Children of biracial parents may be bullied. Children of fat parents, low-income parents, older parents, younger parents.. you get the idea. Kids will zero in on anything if it suits them to make someone a target. If a child grows up in a loving, strong, supportive family they'll come out even stronger and smarter than their counterparts, and likely more accepting of others' differences.

 

[redhotswami]

Children of biracial parents may be bullied.

Truuuuuuuuuuuuue story. I could write a fuckin book!

 

[martha]

Truuuuuuuuuuuuue story. I could write a fuckin book!

Then to protect you, biracial marriage should clearly be relegated to second-class status. Or perhaps outlawed all together.

Because we do need to think of the children.

 

[diamond]

and what's bi racial marrigage have to do w gay unions?

oh yes that's right the agenda-silly me.

 

[redhotswami]

and what's bi racial marrigage have to do w gay unions?

oh yes that's right the agenda-silly me.

did you miss the part when we were talking about reasons kids get bullied and how that is not a valid reason to deny people rights? also i think you should stop taking spelling lessons from A_Wanderer

 

[acrobatique]

all three of these people -- unless they are all men or all women -- have an avenue into a marriage with the person of their choosing. there is a path for the bisexual to social equality. it might be different than the ideal, but it is available.

It's not available truly for the bisexual who wants to marry their same sex though, is it?

I have read your thoughts and think you make alot of valid points. I'm not arguing with you really, we pretty much agree I'm just saying that in the redefinition of marriage there are other questions raised..

 

[diamond]

 

[acrobatique]

In no gender's or orientation's case does that mean you're no longer capable of falling in love with and/or becoming sexually involved with someone besides your spouse; it simply means you're choosing to formally commit to not do that. Being bisexual doesn't mean you require a threesome to feel sexually satisfied anymore than being heterosexual means that.

If you are bisexual and wish to fulfill your natural inclinations as do straight and gay people, you can't really make that choice - the choice to formally commit to not being sexually involved with someone other than your spouse - without suppressing the other side of you. Explain to me how a bisexual person gets to retain their identity while remaining monogamous? I don't expect you to understand this, and again you seem to want to polarize bisexuality into the extreme where a threesome is the standard sex act. I wasn't even talking about sex per se. A truly bisexual person also enjoys an emotional and romantic connection with both sexes. Emotional and romantic connections can sometimes lead to - you guessed it - marriage. Which works for straight and gay people, but if you're bisexual, you are forced to choose one or the other.

 

[Irvine511]

It's not available truly for the bisexual who wants to marry their same sex though, is it?

I have read your thoughts and think you make alot of valid points. I'm not arguing with you really, we pretty much agree I'm just saying that in the redefinition of marriage there are other questions raised..

i don't think it's a redefinition so much as it's an expansion and a way for marriage to be more inclusive.

bisexuals have every interest in the extension of marriage rights to all.

 

[Irvine511]

that turn you on, baby?

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Explain to me how a bisexual person gets to retain their identity while remaining monogamous?[/q]



ah, now this is very interesting to me.

i suppose the idea behind marriage is the legalization of a commitment based upon love and sexual attraction. this seems to imply monogamy, or at least fidelity (certainly many couples are in happy open marriages).

you're right, there is a choice here.

i'm a male. i like all sorts of men. i'd argue that monogamy is hard for many men, possibly more so than it is for women. but i've chosen to commit myself to one man. perhaps this is going against my human nature. in fact, i'd say it is going against nature, to be monogamous. but i've made that choice because i've decided that i gain more from being monogamous and committed than i would from being single and free-wheeling. monogamy is not for everyone. not at all.

but being married seems to necessarily connote that a particular decision has been made.

 

[diamond]

that turn you on, baby?

a bit freaky..


<>

 

[diamond]

[q]Explain to me how a bisexual person gets to retain their identity while remaining monogamous?[/q]



ah, now this is very interesting to me.


i'm a male. i'd argue that monogamy is hard for many men, possibly more so than it is for women.

these 2 things we agree on.

men are wired differently.

<>

 

[acrobatique]

Yes, but do you see the difference? By choosing to be married / monogamous, you still retain your identity a gay male in a gay relationship - just not one who gets to sleep with many men. We probably agree "so what" here, that's the same choice that heterosexual couples ostensibly make. However, if a bisexual person "chooses" to be in a married / monogamous relationship, they pretty much have to forego that other 'side' of them, don't they?

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, but do you see the difference? By choosing to be married / monogamous, you still retain your identity a gay male in a gay relationship - just not one who gets to sleep with many men. We probably agree "so what" here, that's the same choice that heterosexual couples ostensibly make. However, if a bisexual person "chooses" to be in a married / monogamous relationship, they pretty much have to forego that other 'side' of them, don't they?

no, i don't sleep with many men. i sleep with one man. i've made that choice, and that is my identity. i'm a gay male in a monogamous relationship. *** ETA: i saw you edited, so i'll just leave this in but i realize you weren't implying that i'm not monogamous

it does seem that if a bisexual wishes to be married, for the time being, he will have to find an opposite-sexed partner. if marriage equality is realized, a bisexual will be able to choose one other partner, male or female.

this doesn't include sexual monogamy, though. a married bisexual can have sex with whomever he/she wants insofar as their negotiated allows. for the bisexual to be married to more than one person, that then becomes polygamy, which is illegal for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

the point remains that a bisexual has access to marriage. if you feel that you cannot be authentically bisexual without being with two other people, either marriage is not for you, or you need to state your case on the inclusion of multiple partners in a marriage. this is not an issue of sexual orientation.

 

[diamond]

Afraid of the AIDS?

No, because I wasn't a sister, but always recruited to be one by over zealous fellows it seemed.

I think it had to do with my dancing in some of the more exclusive alternative clubs when I did a little of this on the dance floor, back in the days of my youth:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/gallery/2007/01/10/morrissey460.jpg

plus a little of this:

http://www.rvandals.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/morrisday.jpg

mixed in with a little of him:
http://www.dustygroove.com/images/products/b/bowie_david_liveatthe_101b.jpg

and a splash of him:

http://jeremycrow4life.com/wallpaper/ad-johnnybravo-wallpaper01-min.jpg

Got you the whole package:

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r153/diamondbruno9/Picture111.jpg?t=1208234250



<>

 

[martha]

Please. Stop.

Your constant bragging about the gays trying to get into your pants is too much.

 

[acrobatique]

the point remains that a bisexual has access to marriage.

I don't want to fan the fires here, but you seem to be missing that bisexuality isn't a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. I should think you would find it offensive if I suggested that you have a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, right? Certainly, you could, but then you'd be denying your natural orientation, wouldn't you? How is that any different for a bisexual person?

Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?

 

[Irvine511]

I don't want to fan the fires here, but you seem to be missing that bisexuality isn't a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. I should think you would find it offensive if I suggested that you have a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, right? Certainly, you could, but then you'd be denying your natural orientation, wouldn't you? How is that any different for a bisexual person?

Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?

you're not fanning the fires. we're having what i think is an interesting discussion.

i don't understand why you feel that bisexuality necessarily connotes polygamy.

yes, i have the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, but it would never be a person that i authentically loved in the way that i love the person of the same sex. *that* would be a mockery of the institution.

a bisexual, by definition, is capable of developing loving, romantic relationships with either sexes. no, a bisexual does not get to choose who he falls in love with, but it is as likely that he will fall in love with a same-sexed person as it is an opposite-sexed person. there for, if he chooses *one* person, and that person happens to be opposite-sexed, then, yes, he has access to the institution of marriage.

 

[acrobatique]

Please. Stop.

Your constant bragging about the gays trying to get into your pants is too much.

Comedic relief?

 

[yolland]

Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?

Equal access to a formally monogamous relationship? No. But why would you want that access if you weren't interested in monogamy anyway?

 

[Irvine511]

Got you the whole package:

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r153/diamondbruno9/Picture111.jpg?t=1208234250

lucky for you, there are chub chasers out there.

 

[acrobatique]

i don't understand why you feel that bisexuality necessarily connotes polygamy.

Ok, one more time for the record, I am not saying that to be bisexual necessitates polygamy. I'm saying that being bisexual can put one at odds with the textbook definition of marriage. Polygamy is a term society is forcing into our discussion. I don't consider what I am describing polygamy. I'm not going to talk to it any more on those grounds, so I'll just end my side there.