Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 10 - 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, 12:51 PM   #181
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

I believe that the definition should further be expanded to allow bisexual people to marry my partners of like orientation. You don't seem to agree.

I think you're hypocritical, and that's basically what my argument amounts to.
And some Christians will take that very same argument and want to include minor children and animals and use it against you.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:52 PM   #182
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Are the partners just there to satisfy the bisexual person who owns them? Do they have other partners to met their needs? Is the female partner strictly lesbian? Is the male partner strictly straight? Are they happy with their secondary, split roles in this "relationship"?

Denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry because you want a permanent threesome is indeed "splitting hairs." You can advocate for the kinds of relationships you want, but it's disingenuous to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry because you can't marry two people.
Considering that you actually believe that in my little example I was saying that I really wanted to deny them this right...well, there's not alot I can really say to someone with such apparently limited perceptive abilities, I'm sorry.
__________________

acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:53 PM   #183
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


And some Christians will take that very same argument and want to include minor children and animals and use it against you.
Are you for real? There is a distinct and significant difference. I'm sure Irvine knows what it is, you might want to research it a bit, but it is indeed a secular and legal concept.

Hint: it starts with the letter "C"
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:57 PM   #184
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Are the partners just there to satisfy the bisexual person who owns them? Do they have other partners to met their needs? Is the female partner strictly lesbian? Is the male partner strictly straight? Are they happy with their secondary, split roles in this "relationship"?
Exactly what business is it of yours? They are all consenting adults who want to affirm their love for each other. What more do you want? Do you interrogate your gay friend similarly? Talk about "ick"!
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:57 PM   #185
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


I believe that the definition should further be expanded to allow bisexual people to marry my partners of like orientation. You don't seem to agree.

I think you're hypocritical, and that's basically what my argument amounts to.
The problem with your scenarios of bisexuals is they don't explore the issues of consent, does the husband have to legally consent with the "other" wife? Does he legally marry the "other" wife? It also doesn't consider the legal and monetary issues, not to mention paternity issues.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:59 PM   #186
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Nice assumptions for a newbie who has no idea who's who here and what we've been fighting to change.

Good job.
You realize that everything in that sentence was sarcastic, including the 'us', right?

Please tell me you do realize that.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:00 PM   #187
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

They are all consenting adults who want to affirm their love for each other.
Not exactly...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:01 PM   #188
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Not exactly...
Again, how the hell would you know this?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:03 PM   #189
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


You realize that everything in that sentence was sarcastic, including the 'us', right?

Please tell me you do realize that.
Your posts are argumentative, condescending, assume things that may or may not be true about posters, and frequently use anger and bitterness. You burst on the scene here in FYM with strident, combative posts, and made no attempt to find out who people were and what their beliefs are.

So, no. I guess I missed the carefully constructed sarcasm.
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:06 PM   #190
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Again, how the hell would you know this?
Let's say a man marries a woman, that woman later on wants to marry a woman as well. So does the man have a legal say? Does he stand up and say I do? What if they don't get along, does he have the right to divorce the "other" wife?

As a newbie you may want to lay off the condescending laughs especailly when you haven't answered these questions, if you ever want to get respect.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:08 PM   #191
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The problem with your scenarios of bisexuals is they don't explore the issues of consent, does the husband have to legally consent with the "other" wife? Does he legally marry the "other" wife? It also doesn't consider the legal and monetary issues, not to mention paternity issues.
You know for sake of argument and to attempt to completely divest this discussion of the usual (some substantiated and some irrational) fears surrounding a two woman one man relationship, we're going say that it's 2 bisexual men and a woman.

So let's discuss paternity, for one. If two gays marry and decide that they'd like to have a child, say, thru artificial insemination of a female egg donor, will you worry about paternity issues there, or will the child not have one mother and two dads, one biological and one not? I fail to see any difference, really, except that in the scenario I'm describing it is possible that both men might actually impregnate the woman. In which case she has two children by two different men, and they both call them their dads. How is that any different from any step-parent/remarriage/step-sibling scenarios?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:11 PM   #192
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Let's say a man marries a woman, that woman later on wants to marry a woman as well. So does the man have a legal say? Does he stand up and say I do? What if they don't get along, does he have the right to divorce the "other" wife?

As a newbie you may want to lay off the condescending laughs especailly when you haven't answered these questions, if you ever want to get respect.
First off, this is no different from a straight relationship where one person ends up wanting more. Either the other person agrees, or they part. Simple. It's an adult decision.

Secondly, I'm tired of hearing the 'newbie' excuse. I have already been attacked unnecessarily, and frankly I found the question a bit laughable, noone can really know what is in the hearts and minds of people involved in any relationship, gay, straight, whatever. We pretty much keep out of their business, do we not?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:14 PM   #193
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


You know for sake of argument and to attempt to completely divest this discussion of the usual (some substantiated and some irrational) fears surrounding a two woman one man relationship, we're going say that it's 2 bisexual men and a woman.

So let's discuss paternity, for one. If two gays marry and decide that they'd like to have a child, say, thru artificial insemination of a female egg donor, will you worry about paternity issues there, or will the child not have one mother and two dads, one biological and one not? I fail to see any difference, really, except that in the scenario I'm describing it is possible that both men might actually impregnate the woman. In which case she has two children by two different men, and they both call them their dads. How is that any different from any step-parent/remarriage/step-sibling scenarios?
It's up these adults who raises and if the mother is involved.

But this scenario still doesn't tackle the issues of who raises the child in a three person marriage when a divorce occurs.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:17 PM   #194
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


First off, this is no different from a straight relationship where one person ends up wanting more. Either the other person agrees, or they part. Simple. It's an adult decision.
No, it's not the same of one person wanting more... You are completely ignoring the legal aspect of a marriage.

Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

Secondly, I'm tired of hearing the 'newbie' excuse. I have already been attacked unnecessarily, and frankly I found the question a bit laughable, noone can really know what is in the hearts and minds of people involved in any relationship, gay, straight, whatever. We pretty much keep out of their business, do we not?
I'm not speaking about what's in their hearts, I'm talking about legally...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:18 PM   #195
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It's up these adults who raises and if the mother is involved.

But this scenario still doesn't tackle the issues of who raises the child in a three person marriage when a divorce occurs.

Simply, no marriage scenario is designed to perfectly address the issues of who raises the kids, the dog, who gets that third weekend in August at the cottage in the event of a divorce, cmon.

10-20 years ago it was pretty cut and dried who would raise the kids in the event of a heterosexual divorce, wasn't it? But we expanded our thinking and moved on, didn't we? I'd like to think that if all parties had the kid's interests at heart and the state upholds that, there would be a way to arrive at an agreement there.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:22 PM   #196
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

No, it's not the same of one person wanting more... You are completely ignoring the legal aspect of a marriage.



I'm not speaking about what's in their hearts, I'm talking about legally...
This is a closed loop if all you are going to revert to is whether or not it's illegal or whether or not legal provisions could be dreamt up that would ensure the protection of the rights of all involved. Gay marriage is still illegal in alot of places because close-minded people can't get their heads around the same 'issues' you are focusing on.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:26 PM   #197
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

I'd like to think that if all parties had the kid's interests at heart and the state upholds that, there would be a way to arrive at an agreement there.
Too bad it's not that easy. Life would be much easier if it was...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:27 PM   #198
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Your posts are argumentative, condescending, assume things that may or may not be true about posters, and frequently use anger and bitterness.
Your opinion is your opinion. I've been able to converse with others who haven't reduced themselves to name calling yet, and never actually addressed you, so I fail to see why you felt it necessary to attack me. But while we're there, I frankly don't see what of any value you've added other than nitpicking and sniping other's thoughts.
Perhaps you can't see that, but it's what I noted about your posts in this thread.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:31 PM   #199
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:21 PM
i fail to see how acrobatique's expression of a bisexual relationship is anything other than a polygamous relationship.



the way marriage is currently structured, it is a two-person contract. in many states, it is one man/one woman. this is beginning to change, and rightfully so.

i don't see how the illegality of polygamy infringes upon the rights of bisexuals. it seems to me that it infringes upon the wishes and desires of those who wish to be in a polygamous relationship. it seems to me, acrobatique, that you are arguing for polygamy, not for the extension of rights to bisexuals. bisexuals are already 50% there. if you fight for marriage equality, a bisexual will have 100% the rights of a gay or a straight person the right to marry whomever he or she chooses.

if you wish to marry two partners, that is polygamy. the sexual orientation of the participants is secondary to the structure of that relationship.

what you seem to be arguing is that polygamy must be allowed so that the rights of a bisexual to have their preferred relationship recognized and protected by law are not infringed upon. and i don't yet buy that argument.

no one argues for gay marriage because they think that anyone has the right to get any relationship whatsoever recognized by the government. *maybe* that should be the case, but that is a separate argument than the one i am concerning myself with.

my argument is the following: we have an institution known as marriage that confers a series of tax incentives and social respect to the two people who enter the partnership. traditionally, this partnership has been entered into by men and women because heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation, and this is the only sexual union that can produce children. however, this is a discriminatory institution for a variety of reasons, and there is a whole class of people -- gay people -- who are completely forbidden to recognize their relationships that are entirely the same as any heterosexual relationship, the only difference being the same-sexed pairing of the two partners. it is part of the genetic make up of a gay person to be attracted to a person of the same sex in the way that it is part of the genetic make up of a straight person to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex. thus, the barriers set up between same-sex marriages are no different from the barriers that were once set up between different race couples. opposite-gender pairing is no longer a necessity (if it ever was) and many straight couples live as if they might as well be gay (i.e., no kids) and marriage is now about personal choice and an expression of love and commitment, not to mention a tool that people use to stabilize their lives.

that's what we're about.

what you haven't yet grasped is that you *are* arguing that if we are to allow people to say that it is natural for them to want to be with the person of the same sex, it is natural for some bisexuals to want to be with one person of the same sex and one person of the opposite sex, and thus a polygamous relationship should be recognized by law.

but there's much more going on here. working for marriage equality isn't a "free to be you and me" movement. it's much more conservative than that. all gay people are asking is to be allowed into the institution, not to turn it into a one-size fits all legal arrangement.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:32 PM   #200
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


This is a closed loop if all you are going to revert to is whether or not it's illegal or whether or not legal provisions could be dreamt up that would ensure the protection of the rights of all involved.
No, I'm asking you how do you propose these issues? You can't just argue for arguments sake(which so far is what you are doing) and not be able to answer these questions.

Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique

Gay marriage is still illegal in alot of places because close-minded people can't get their heads around the same 'issues' you are focusing on.
Um, no they aren't the same issues. A two person marriage would be the same across the board. It's just a matter of transference, your scenarios are not. But how do you truly allow for a legally consentual between three or more?
__________________

BVS 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 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×