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, 01:36 PM   #201
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:29 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.
Yeah. That happens every day all over the country.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:45 PM   #202
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
I'm not arguing for arguing's sake. In a recent post I condensed my belief and described it succinctly. Further thought given to it might give you some answers to these issues you raise. It's not really for me to answer confusion felt by others, in the end what matters is what those three adults consent and make pact to do.


Irvine you have brought up valid points re the more secular aspects ie taxation legal protection of the right to marry as being a huge impetus behind this movement. I'm approaching this from more of a love / committment/ emotional / sexual standpoint, so I think there is likely a bit of difference there in how are thoughts are being expressed.

I want you however to think about the following statement you made:

Quote:
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.
Don't answer, just think about it for a while. Do you honestly believe that this statement doesn't apply, with all of the potential implications, for bisexual people and that they should settle for the 50% you speak of in their committed relationships? Just think about it, it took me 2 decades to arrive at my current mode of thinking and believe me it was far more close minded 20 years ago.

That's really all I'm going to say on the matter, my intent was not to appear angry or bitter, but I do believe there is a bit of a double standard, just my feeling on it.
__________________

acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:03 PM   #203
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
I'm not arguing for arguing's sake. In a recent post I condensed my belief and described it succinctly. Further thought given to it might give you some answers to these issues you raise. It's not really for me to answer confusion felt by others, in the end what matters is what those three adults consent and make pact to do.

Irvine you have brought up valid points re the more secular aspects ie taxation legal protection of the right to marry as being a huge impetus behind this movement. I'm approaching this from more of a love / committment/ emotional / sexual standpoint, so I think there is likely a bit of difference there in how are thoughts are being expressed.
I appreciate you approaching it from a love/ commitment/ emotional/ sexual standpoint, but that's not enough to make a legal contract, which is what you were arguing at the beginning. A marriage of 2 consenting adults, is a marriage of 2 consenting adults. But a marriage of three or more can often place one or more in a legally disadvantaged scenario.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:11 PM   #204
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

that's not enough to make a legal contract
Just popping in to say one thing: the strongest argument, in my opinion, the gay community ever made for gay marriage to be legal was on the grounds of love and commitment, I concluded that if they love each other who am I to tell them they can't affirm it? I know others had more logical, rights-based, legalistic, etc tacks to their line of argument, all perfectly valid, but a great number of the straight people I know really sortof 'came around' when we finally got it recognized that we don't really choose who we love...
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:18 PM   #205
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:29 PM
.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:22 PM   #206
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


Just popping in to say one thing: the strongest argument, in my opinion, the gay community ever made for gay marriage to be legal was on the grounds of love and commitment, I concluded that if they love each other who am I to tell them they can't affirm it? I know others had more logical, rights-based, legalistic, etc tacks to their line of argument, all perfectly valid, but a great number of the straight people I know really sortof 'came around' when we finally got it recognized that we don't really choose who we love...
Well you're just proving there is no secular argument... The only reason people are against gay marriage is their bigotry towards homosexuality. No one ever produced a legal or logical reason. I'm not sure why anyone would need a love or commitment argument for legalization...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:28 PM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
\\
Don't answer, just think about it for a while. Do you honestly believe that this statement doesn't apply, with all of the potential implications, for bisexual people and that they should settle for the 50% you speak of in their committed relationships? Just think about it, it took me 2 decades to arrive at my current mode of thinking and believe me it was far more close minded 20 years ago.


i have said, repeatedly, that i think bisexual is as authentic and unchosen a sexual orientation as straight or gay. simply because i didn't mention bisexuality as i was laying out an argument for gay marriage doesn't belie any sort of deeply hidden belief that bisexuals are less worthy than straights, nor is my anecdotal experience that many bisexual males eventually identify as exclusively gay.

and i'm not sure why you keep bringing this up instead of the more pertinent issues at hand.

you also keep making a leap that i don't think you can logically make. you're saying that a bisexual is always going to be giving up something unless he is able to marry one same-sexed and one opposite-sexed person, and that this is as authentic to his sexual orientation as is the desire for a gay person to be with a same-sexed person or a straight person to be with an opposite sexed person.

i simply don't agree. no one is forcing a bisexual to have to be with one person, but if a bisexual wishes to marry, at present, they must marry only one other person. and i don't know of too many bisexuals who feel that this is a gross violation of their civil rights, mostly because it isn't. a bisexual can still marry an opposite-sexed partner, and those two partners can decide to introduce someone else into the relationship should they so wish.

you seem to be saying that all three might want to be married to each other, and that's fine, but i see that as no different than three gay men wanting to all be married to each other. a bisexual might be happier and more fulfilled being married to two other bisexual people, but that doesn't mean that he/she is totally denied access to the institution. and that's what we're talking about here.

and, frankly, i know a few bisexuals who would be insulted to think that their partner can't fulfill them 100%.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:41 PM   #208
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
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.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:44 PM   #209
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
You're a gay conservative,
Man, you really aren't starting out on the right foot in here...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:45 PM   #210
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Man, you really aren't starting out on the right foot in here...
Uh, he referred to himself as such, did he not? It wasn't meant to be an insult. There are black conservatives, gay conservatives, gay liberals, whatever. I don't say it derisively at all.

edit: my mistake, upon review he said what he was fighting for 'is more conservative than that'. My apologies, again it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:47 PM   #211
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:50 PM   #212
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Were it that life was always simple, though
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:54 PM   #213
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:29 PM
It's good to assume stuff.

It helps with the cred.
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:00 PM   #214
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:03 PM   #215
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
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 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:09 PM   #216
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:20 PM   #217
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:29 AM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:36 PM   #218
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 06:29 PM
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.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:40 PM   #219
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:29 AM
I was working off of this,
Quote:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 03:57 PM   #220
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
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.
__________________

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 06:29 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
×