Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[Irvine511]

You're a gay conservative, you can't let this into your realm of acceptability. I get that. The pertinent issue for you is the pertinent issue for you, I get that also. I feel my view is more inclusive and for the better of bisexual people who wish this type of thing. I'm done with it, you or 3 other people telling me my views don't make sense or are leaps in logic doesn't necessarily make it so. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing.

i'm conservative in that i think polygamy is different from marriage equality. you're right. if you want polygamy, argue for that.

i can't make it any more simple than that.

 

[acrobatique]

Were it that life was always simple, though

 

[martha]

It's good to assume stuff.

It helps with the cred.

 

[Irvine511]

Were it that life was always simple, though

i don't deny that a bisexual often finds himself in a far more complex situation.

but i fail to see how the promotion of polygamy is more of a concern, or any concern at all, of marriage equality.

other than the predicament of a few bisexuals who would prefer to be married to more than one person, you haven't put forth any other pro-polygamist argument.

now's your chance -- go for it.

 

[acrobatique]

Martha, it's clear to me that your aim here is to snipe but I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed if you for a second believe that I will be goaded into responding in kind. You'd likely get better results from re-training your sights on that Diamond character.

 

[acrobatique]

but i fail to see how the promotion of polygamy is more of a concern, or any concern at all, of marriage equality.

I know you don't, and I'm fine in knowing that. I have no burning desire to convert you to my way of thinking, I can only express my opinion, which I have, and it's up to you to either see it or not. Surely you don't truly believe that you are all-perceptive or all-knowing? I'd like to think there will be a few things I currently see in a certain light that I could ultimately see differently one day. It's happened a few times, and I'm sure it will happen again

 

[yolland]

I don't imagine anyone in here finds it hard to grasp that there are some people who'd be perfectly happy to be involved in the sort of relationship acrobatique seems to be describing. And at the non-formalized level, there are doubtless already quite a few open marriages that look just like it, as well as quite a few non-marital relationships. But when you're talking legally formalizing such a relationship all the way around, then yes, it seems to me that at that point you're inevitably describing polygamy. "Mutually agreed upon semi-exclusivity" might be accurate at an emotional level, but if nothing else, the hypothetical husband in acrobatique's 'wife + wife + husband' scenario must be either a bisexual man who unlike his spouse(s?) is settling for "50%", or a straight man with two wives, or a straight man married to only one of the women (in which case he's formally "exclusive" with her in a way she isn't with him). All of those three are structurally polygamy. It's conceivable that the second woman is herself bisexual and married to both, in which case her role in the relationship really would mirror the first woman's both formally and emotionally--which seems to be the role acrobatique wishes to draw a unique status distinct from 'polygamy' around--but I don't see how that could also be true of the man. Again, that doesn't mean there aren't men out there who'd be happy to be in such a marriage--but it is a polygamous one, and I think their rights to it need to be argued on those grounds. Once polygamy is legal, then yes, you can say 'None of your business how exactly these interrelationships work.' But first you need to make the case why anyone--male or female, gay, straight or bisexual--should be able either to take multiple spouses, or to become the second spouse of someone who's his/her only spouse. You can't just say "Only bisexuals have a right to two spouses, but the precise orientation and sexual interrelationship of the parties involved is none of your business" and expect would-be heterosexual polygamists to not consider that unequal treatment.

 

[acrobatique]

I didn't describe a male + female + female bisexual union. I described a male + male + female one.

As for much of what you wrote, really I can't help but think, with all due respect, that you don't really have a real grasp on the truly bisexual person / union and your attempts to understand it are admirable, but fall short, I'm afraid. There is a huge difference between the heterosexual male polygamist and what I'm describing, honestly.

 

[yolland]

I was working off of this,

You're saying to the bisexual who wishes to be committed (and, for sake of context, sexually exclusive) to both of their partners 'hey bisexual girl, you have to make a choice, marry the guy, hell he can give you oral sex and well maybe it's not the same but hell, make that sacrifice' or 'hey bisexual guy, y'know, you have to make a choice - so every other Sunday, have the missus strap on a big rubber thing and ride you, it's not the same, I know, but you can make do'.

but that doesn't matter, my question applies just as well in reverse.

I never claimed to 'have a real grasp on the bisexual person' nor do I see how that's relevant to the question of why legalizing what you're describing wouldn't in practice also necessitate legalizing heterosexual polygamy.

 

[BVS]

There is a huge difference between the heterosexual male polygamist and what I'm describing, honestly.

Not really, there's still one that "dominates" the relationship.

 

[acrobatique]

I never claimed to 'have a real grasp on the bisexual person' nor do I see how that's relevant to the question of why legalizing what you're describing wouldn't in practice also necessitate legalizing heterosexual polygamy.

Well you did try to rationalize out the scenarios in your mind (or at least thats what your words on the screen conveyed) in a way that shows that you very much believe that understanding all the intricacies is necessary / relevant to you agreeing that there might be a difference. I'm saying don't agree, alright by me, because it's going to be fairly impossible for me to convince someone who doesn't really understand the bisexual dynamic to come to terms with it as being different from the hetero polygamist who just wants to get his jollies with as many wives as possible. Even for a man + woman + woman bisexual scenario there's a philosophical (if you will) gap there in how the man views the women (if he's a real man) and their role. Their role is not the same as the passive 4th wife of the Texas polygamist. If you can't see that I don't know on what other basis I can discuss it with you, really.

 

[acrobatique]

Not really, there's still one that "dominates" the relationship.

Really now? Who dominates the relationship in a male + male + female bisexual relationship? Who dominates in a female + female + male bisexual one? Think carefully, it's not as obvious as you might think. And of course not every situation is the same.

Honestly, not to stereotype but that comment you made...it sounds pretty typical of how a heterosexual male perceives these types of things, and that's fine if that's what they are able to understand, but it is quite different from that Texan cult polygamist. Quite.

 

[Irvine511]

Well you did try to rationalize out the scenarios in your mind (or at least thats what your words on the screen conveyed) in a way that shows that you very much believe that understanding all the intricacies is necessary / relevant to you agreeing that there might be a difference. I'm saying don't agree, alright by me, because it's going to be fairly impossible for me to convince someone who doesn't really understand the bisexual dynamic to come to terms with it as being different from the hetero polygamist who just wants to get his jollies with as many wives as possible. Even for a man + woman + woman bisexual scenario there's a philosophical (if you will) gap there in how the man views the women (if he's a real man) and their role. Their role is not the same as the passive 4th wife of the Texas polygamist. If you can't see that I don't know on what other basis I can discuss it with you, really.

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.

however, that is still a polygamist relationship. how is it not?

 

[U2Scot]

Without gay marriage, how will we ever see in print the union of Patrick Fiztgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick ?

 

[BVS]

Really now? Who dominates the relationship in a male + male + female bisexual relationship? Who dominates in a female + female + male bisexual one? Think carefully, it's not as obvious as you might think. And of course not every situation is the same.

Honestly, not to stereotype but that comment you made...it sounds pretty typical of how a heterosexual male perceives these types of things, and that's fine if that's what they are able to understand, but it is quite different from that Texan cult polygamist. Quite.

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.

Wow, you are full of assumptions, generalizations, and condensation aren't you?

 

[acrobatique]

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!

 

[martha]

None of us understand.

 

[martha]

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!

 

[acrobatique]

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.

 

[BVS]

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."

 

[acrobatique]

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?

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[acrobatique]

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.

 

[martha]

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?

 

[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.

 

[BVS]

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...

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.

 

[Diemen]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[VintagePunk]

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:

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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!!!!