Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[Diemen]

Originally posted by acrobatique

Actually I'm a bit disappointed in the laziness of your answer, it's very narrow minded in my opinion. The pet rock comment? You sound like those anti-gay marriage fanatics: "what next, will I be able to marry my dog? oh noes!"

I think that was kinda the point.

[acrobatique]

Oh - I get it. So in order to make it sound more cozy and normal for straight folk and ward off the crazy 'what will be next - me marrying my dog?!?!' comments, we'll allow gays to marry, but we'll draw the line at bisexual unions? Nope, that's too far people.

Where does the line in fact get drawn, and who says so? I'm betting any answer to that is not going to be "secular", not legitimately anyways.

[martha]

Originally posted by acrobatique


You sound like those anti-gay marriage fanatics: "what next, will I be able to marry my dog? oh noes!"

You're new here, but that actual argument has been made in FYM as a legitimate reason for disallowing gay marriage.

[Vincent Vega]

Irvine is a homosexual agnostic.

Being bisexual doesn't necessarily mean that you love a man and a woman at the same time, so you want to argue bisexuality or polygamy?

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by martha


You're new here, but that actual argument has been made in FYM as a legitimate reason for disallowing gay marriage.

I fully understand that, and reject it. It's not a legitimate reason.

It's by no means a new argument, I imagine this place is merely a microcosm of the outside world, much like any other internet forum.

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Irvine is a homosexual agnostic.

Being bisexual doesn't necessarily mean that you love a man and a woman at the same time, so you want to argue bisexuality or polygamy?

While stating one's own orientation likely helps us understand one another's comments better, I fail to see why this should becloud some deeper thought.


Being bisexual doesn't mean that exclusively, of course it doesn't, just as much as being gay or straight doesn't mean you necessarily want a long-term relationship with anyone. Please don't try and force this into narrow definitions of terms, it's counterproductive.

I'm not arguing for or against polygamy in it's most common form, but it is interesting how similar the arguments can be..

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by acrobatique


While stating one's own orientation likely helps us understand one another's comments better, I fail to see why this should becloud some deeper thought.


Being bisexual doesn't mean that exclusively, of course it doesn't, just as much as being gay or straight doesn't mean you necessarily want a long-term relationship with anyone. Please don't try and force this into narrow definitions of terms, it's counterproductive.

I'm not arguing for or against polygamy in it's most common form, but it is interesting how similar the arguments can be..

Coming into a new forum it can hardly be expected of the "older" posters that everyone introduces oneself.
I mentioned that he is agnostic to indicate that it is unlikely for him to argue polygamy in a non-secular way.

I am not trying to force it into any kind of narrow definition, not at all, but was curious as to why you made mention of a bisexual polygamist relationship several times, instead of a general polygamist relationship. And I would side with Irvine that this might merit its own debate, either. He also said before, referring to biracial relationships, that these struggles for equality all have their commonalities, as well as their differences.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by acrobatique


Good ol' condescension. Ever noticed that? Some actually think they're better because of their orientation. Love it.

erm, go look at what prompted that post, and the poster, and therein you'll find the source of the condescension.

but, yes, i will stake the claim that there is much that *some* straight couples can learn from gay couples where there are no traditional gender roles.

god forbid we allow difference to illuminate something in our own lives.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
[B]



Coretta is not an ordained minister.

right. which is why she never allowed her thinking to be clouded by religious hatred and weak-mindedness, my sweet little mormon.

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by Irvine511


god forbid we allow difference to illuminate something in our own lives.

I think you know what I meant. It's that disdain. Maybe not what you meant to convey, but it's fairly common.

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega

why you made mention of a bisexual polygamist relationship several times, instead of a general polygamist relationship. And I would side with Irvine that this might merit its own debate

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.

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?

[Irvine511]

[q]bisexual by most people's understanding means the ability to form relationships both emotional and sexual. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon about identifying oneself as bisexual however: if you were to ask a group of bisexual women if they could form a romantic relationship with a woman, the majority will say yes. Ask that same question of an equal number of men who call themselves bisexual, and you get some pretty different results.[/b][/q]


yes, you would. why do you think that is so?




[q]Actually, this is mostly put forth by gay people looking to make themselves better and straight people looking to make themselves feel better. Most thinking adults realize that sexuality is a bit more complex than 'this or that'.[/q]


as a thinking adult, i’d have to say that my sexuality isn’t quite as complex as the next persons, but more complex than someone else’s. for many people, it is very much ‘this’ or ‘that’ and I don’t buy the line that bisexuality is somehow a more authentic form of sexuality. to me, the Kinsey scale makes a lot of sense, and i fully agree that sexuality occurs on some sort of spectrum, but on the whole, you’ll find far more 0’s, 1’s and 4’s and 5’s than you will 3’s. not that a 3 isn’t any more or less worthy of love, life, respect, and rights than anyone else.

with men, however, you’ll find that there are many bisexual men who are, indeed, gay, and who are clinging to the bisexual label to give them a hope of maybe one day they’ll find that girl. i was one of those men once. there was a NYT article that came out in recent years called “gay, straight, or lying” which was about male bisexuality, and it generally confirmed what most gay men will tell you – for many men, bisexuality is a cop-out, and were it not for homophobia and the costs incurred when one comes out, you’d have a whole lot more self-identified gay men.

so what does this mean? you seem to be looking to pick a fight with me, so I suppose it might disappoint you to know that I don’t care how someone self-identifies. i just want someone to be happy. yes, my experience might tell me to be a bit suspicious of a young man who says he’s bisexual, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe him, or that I don’t wish him happiness to pursue a life with the man or woman he falls in love with.



[q]Hmm. I think more and more people are less and less comfortable with the polarized notion of 'gay' and 'straight'. Just my take on it. And what do you mean 'transgression'? A gay person who had straight trysts would look back at those as trangressions??[/q]

you seem to want a semantics discussion, so … it is a transgression of a standard sexual norm. heterosexuality is what is considered the norm. because i am homosexual, i am socially transgressive. I am punished by gender norms. but i live with that, and the costs aren’t as great as they once were.

homosexuality is abnormal. it is a naturally occurring abnormality, like red hair or left handedness, but it is not the norm. and I am fine with that. and so are many other people.


[q]Why only two men or two women though? How do truly bisexual couples who want to realize the fullness of their emotional, romantic and sexual needs do so then in a legally recognized monogamous (well I guess it's not technically monog, but whatever) union, and why shouldn't they be allowed to affirm that committment to each other? Before you say 'well two of them can marry and just have the third as a long term committed partner', remember that gay people don't want to be told that they can't have marriage but they can be long term committed partners either, do they?[/q]

you’re confusing quite a few things here. you are not arguing for the social recognition of bisexuality nor are you arguing that a bisexual has rights that are denied to him/her on the basis of an immutable characteristic. a bisexual has the option to marry someone they love. just like a polygamist has the right to marry someone they love. a gay person has no right to marry someone they love.

you are not asking for rights for bisexuals but for rights for polygamists. that’s fine, but argue it on it’s own terms. i don’t think you’re going to get very far arguing that the rights of a bisexual are violated or that they are barred entry from the 1049 rights that married couples are able to access.



[q]Understand that I agree with your views mostly, but you do realize that what you are saying is pretty much similar to what someone who objects to the 'lumping in' of this issue with racial equality? I'm not arguing that polygamist marriages should be legal, I'm saying that what's good for gay people, why can't it be just as good for bisexual folk?[/q]


polygamy is very much a cultural practice, is it not? Race and sexual orientation are immutable characteristics, are they not? Is this not a difference that should be teased out and used for evaluation? No one says that being gay is exactly like being black, but we are saying that many of the arguments used against interracial couples – go look up Loving vs. Virginia on wikipedia – are almost precisely the same as those used against gay couples.

if you are bisexual and wish to marry the person you love, and that person you love is of the same sex, then, please, fight for marriage equality. if you love more than one person and want to marry both of them, or more, then you’re talking about polygamy not bisexuality.


[q]Really? What secular reason can you give me for why two men and a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or for that matter for a man to have 3 wives? Most of what we consider law has some root in religion. Most of the stigma that polygamy has (pretty deservedly, too, in most cases) had heaped upon it could likely be a product of what happens when you marginalize a behaviour and outlaw it. People will still do it, but because of the rejection of society they circle the wagons and keep it close - which of course leads to the horrifying incest / in-breeding etc in these families..but think if it wasn't illegal - do you think that every polygamist family would have those issues? Isn't much of the stigma of promiscuity and disease heaped upon gay people a byproduct of centuries of being outlawed and outcast and misinformation spread? Just as surely as not every gay male wants to have wild unprotected sex with 100 men, I'm sure there are a number of people who would coexist in a polyamorous relationship without raping the daughter of their second wife or taking a 14 year old bride.[/q]

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

i tend to agree with you. i am sure there are adults out there who are capable of existing in a happy, healthy polyamorous relationship. but the difference is that so long as they are heterosexual or at the least bisexual, they still have access to the institution of marriage that a gay person does not have and will not have until same sex marriage is legal. you are free to fight this battle, but don’t pretend that what you’re arguing is about sexual orientation. it’s not. it’s about polygamy. so make that argument.

[acrobatique]

No, I'm not arguing for polygamy. I'm arguing that if the definition of the term 'married' is to be expanded to include gay unions, then it also has to be expanded to include bisexual unions in their fullest sense. 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.

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?

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

[yolland]

What do you mean, 'in their fullest sense'? Are you suggesting that the 'natural' condition of bisexual relationships is polygamous? Why would that be any more true than for heterosexual relationships?

[acrobatique]

Curious..

Should the definition of marriage allow an adult male be allowed to marry his adult son? Adult woman her adult daughter?

Much as I find the suggestion revolting, why or why not? And secular arguments only, please.

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by yolland
What do you mean, 'in their fullest sense'? Are you suggesting that the 'natural' condition of bisexual relationships is polygamous? Why would that be any more true than for heterosexual relationships?

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

[martha]

Originally posted by acrobatique
Curious..

Should the definition of marriage allow an adult male be allowed to marry his adult son? Adult woman her adult daughter?

Much as I find the suggestion revolting, why or why not? And secular arguments only, please.

Here we go again.

[martha]

Originally posted by acrobatique




I fully understand that, and reject it. It's not a legitimate reason.

It's by no means a new argument, I imagine this place is merely a microcosm of the outside world, much like any other internet forum.

I only pointed that out so you could understand why Irvine brought it up.

[acrobatique]

Originally posted by martha


Here we go again.

I guess you think that is on par with the 'should I be allowed to marry my dog' catcalls, right?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by acrobatique


I guess you think that is on par with the 'should I be allowed to marry my dog' catcalls, right?

i'll explain it again.

a bisexual has the right to marry the person of their choice, so long as that person is of the opposite sex. an "authentic" bisexual has a 50/50 chance of winding up with a man or a woman, so while the ability to marry the person of your choice is lower than it is for heterosexuals, it is not barred by law the way that it is for homosexuals. thus, the institutional discrimination doesn't exist for bisexuals (or polygamists) in the way that it does for homosexuals.

that said, a polygamous relationship means a relationship with more than one person. you can have any number of partners of any kind of gender you want, but the fact remains that it is still polygamy. i agree that you might need to reclaim that word from the fundamentalist compound image we all have, but that is still what any relationship of three or more adults is -- polygamist.

so make the argument on the necessity of polygamy, not on polygamy as the natural state of a bisexual. there are many, many bisexual women married to men who invite other women into their beds. that's fine. that bisexual woman might *prefer* to be married to that woman and that man, but she is still able to be married to that man and to have her union recognized by the state.

i think gay, straight, and bisexual people can all argue that they'd be fuller realized in a polygamist relationship. but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden any legal recognition on the basis of an immutable characteristic.