Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[acrobatique]

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

Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?

 

[diamond]

lucky for you, there are chub chasers out there.

i can show u pictures of me 20 years ago instead of 20 weeks ago, but no reason to win an argument when one is not here for that.

 

[yolland]

Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?

What? Of course I'm not saying that. I'm trying to play along with the scenario you're describing, but I don't see why it would constitute monogamy. What about the one spouse of the opposite sex? What kind of relationship would you describe them as being in and how is it different from polygamy? Monogamy implies mutuality, no?

 

[Irvine511]

Ugh. So the bisexual person could not be interested in monogamy to one person of both sexes? Ie one man and one woman? You make the assumption that because one identifies as bisexual that necessarily means that they want to sleep around?

what about the other partners involved? what if they don't like each other?

 

[Irvine511]

i can show u pictures of me 20 years ago instead of 20 weeks ago, but no reason to win an argument when one is not here for that.

i have no doubt. you were hot.

once upon a time.

 

[diamond]

..so.. i guessin gettin funky with
mr chunky isn't krunky

word

<>

 

[Irvine511]

..so.. i guess gettin funky with
mr chunky isn't krunky

word

<>

i prefer meat to bone, don't you worry, big daddy

 

[maycocksean]

I'll be honest. I didn't read this whole thread.

But. . .

I think I can safely say that there was no secular argument made for opposing gay marriage. Because there isn't one.

 

[acrobatique]

what about the other partners involved? what if they don't like each other?

I think you're misunderstanding the part you quoted, I'm saying that being bisexual doesn't always necessitate threesomes.

Having said that, most bisexual people who respect the sig others will not pursue something with someone that can't get along with all concerned, for the most part. Or they go behind one of their backs, commonly known as cheating

 

[acrobatique]

What? Of course I'm not saying that. I'm trying to play along with the scenario you're describing, but I don't see why it would constitute monogamy. What about the one spouse of the opposite sex? What kind of relationship would you describe them as being in and how is it different from polygamy? Monogamy implies mutuality, no?

I'd call them a consenting adult who understands that the person they love also loves someONE of their own sex. Not too confusing to me. Frankly I couldn't care if we can or can't apply 'monogamy' to what I'm describing. Call it 'mutually agreed upon semi-exclusivity', I don't care.

Look, the bottom line is I don't think it's possible for straight - or for that matter gay - people who hold the traditional view of marriage being of only 2 persons to understand this at all. Therefore, either the stigma and negative connnotations need to be removed from the term 'polygamy' when describing certain relationships, or we need a new word. Pretty sure a gay man would get tired of discussing this in a decent manner if I insisted on using 'sodomy' and 'sodomite' to describe his activities in my every sentence. It's just got too many negative implications. Most of the responses to my scenario are closed circle arguments "you can't do that because that's polygamy, and polygamy is illegal because of all the young girls victimized by it and...". Which is basically the same as: "You can't marry a man, because that is sodomy, and sodomy is illegal, I mean it just opens the door for pedophiles to take advantage of our little boys and....". All the same irrational fears, etc. I honestly don't know how much plainer I can put it.

Interestingly enough, most of our 'perceptions' and these terms have their root in Judeo-Christian origins, we made laws based on our beliefs, and now we try and rethink all that but we're still doing it thru the lens of those old perceptions that won't die. It's kindof ridiculous, really.

 

[Irvine511]

oh come on.

polygamy is a word that is neutral in and of itself, and it has only become a "bad" word through historical context and the behavior of it's practitioners.

"sodomy" is a religious word, a direct biblical reference, and when you break it all down, it's actually referring to *any* non-procreative sex. so if you've ever performed or received oral sex, you are by definition a sodomite! and sodomy is most certainly not illegal, and widely practiced by hetero and homosexuals. polygamy is expressly not legal. if you think it should be, then make the argument on those grounds, don't say that a poly relationship is an immutable part of being bisexual because i know many bisexuals who would disagree with you.

i think you're worrying about an understanding of polygamy that you think exists in my mind, when the truth is that i know *exactly* the kind of poly relationship you are talking about.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I'll be honest. I didn't read this whole thread.

But. . .

I think I can safely say that there was no secular argument made for opposing gay marriage. Because there isn't one.

Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.

 

[BVS]

Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.

What examples of this were you thinking?

 

[Irvine511]

Homosexuality is revolting and I don't want things that offend me to be legal, thats perfectly secular and it is used often enough for other purposes.

australian scientists are revolting to me, and i don't want things that revolt me to be able to marry innocent young american democrats from Virginia, and that's perfectly secular.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What examples of this were you thinking?

Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.

A certain proportion of people find some activity or thing offensive and get it made illegal, and that reason they are offended may simply be a gut reaction (such as gays make me feel uncomfortable) and since most people don't give a fuck about liberties they don't use they have no problem getting it banned.

It may not be right, it may be homophobic but there can be a completely secular and self-interested reason to not allow gay marriage. Fortunately enough the argument is so utterly weak and is predicated on living in an illiberal democracy.

 

[Irvine511]

Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.

not all, but in several of these examples i can find reasons that people would outlaw them beyond the ick factor. violence on TV may lead to violence in society, sex on TV may lead to underaged sex, marijuana can be a gateway drug, etc.

i think it's more complex than just the ick factor.

but most of the media censoring has much to do with ratings as with anything else. HBO has lots of violence, nudity, and even ample buttfuckery. it's the broad reach of network TV that censors itself to such a degree, and most of that is because the offense some might take would result in the loss of revenue.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I shouldn't need to point out that I have no issue with the gays in any way shape or form.

I think that the ick factor can be motivation enough for some people, not all homophobia can be reduced to religion, it follows that it is possible if not probably for some opposition to gay marriage to be driven by secular reasons.

 

[martha]

swearing,

I first read this as "sweating" and was more than willing to outlaw it.

 

[BVS]

Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.

Some of these no longer exists because the courts started to realize they couldn't stand. Violence, swearing and sex on tv isn't banned, only regulated for certain stations. Marijuana has many other agurments against it other than offensive, they may not be strong ones, but they exist.

It may not be right, it may be homophobic but there can be a completely secular and self-interested reason to not allow gay marriage.

But when asked if there is a secular argument, it's assumed that it is at least strong enough to stand on it's own, this one doesn't.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Maybe not in the USA; but that is conditional. If there was a state that demanded a strict moral code in the name of national pride and the country was entirely atheistic and that code outlawed homosexuality that law would be secular.

I just don't think that it is fair to say that the religious have a monopoly over homophobia or that one can say gay marriage has a lot of positive arguments in secular debate and then disqualify mere possibility that a secular argument against it can exist.

The arguments in favour in the secular world are so strong that I don't think anybody needs to silence dissent in that fashion.

 

[Irvine511]

I shouldn't need to point out that I have no issue with the gays in any way shape or form.

I think that the ick factor can be motivation enough for some people, not all homophobia can be reduced to religion, it follows that it is possible if not probably for some opposition to gay marriage to be driven by secular reasons.

i think the "ick" factor is what's behind pretty much all homophobia, and that "ick" comes from misogyny. it's all pretty secular, when it comes down to it, all religion does is give it a patina of respectability.

 

[yolland]

polygamy is expressly not legal. if you think it should be, then make the argument on those grounds, don't say that a poly relationship is an immutable part of being bisexual because i know many bisexuals who would disagree with you.

Exactly.

 

[BVS]

i think the "ick" factor is what's behind pretty much all homophobia, and that "ick" comes from misogyny. it's all pretty secular, when it comes down to it, all religion does is give it a patina of respectability.

It is interesting how lesbians never get brought up in the debate, it's always gay men, even in religious discussions.

 

[acrobatique]

sodomy is most certainly not illegal

Is that so, in every state now? I thought there were a few holding on for dear life

So let me get this straight, pardon the pun - you would assert that to be able to marry a man is an immutable part of being gay? That's absolutely as ridiculous as (what you believe to be) my assertion that poly marriage is an immutable part of being bisexual, and you know it.

(pardon graphic descriptions below, but I think we need to put this in a purely sexual context for a second)

What you are doing here is called splitting hairs. 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'. That's basically what it amounts to, UNLESS you invite someone outside the relationship in, isn't it? And what do we do when the two of you fall in love with him, he doesn't want to go home and neither do you want him to, and y'all want to live happily ever after, committed / exclusive, etc etc?

Tell you what: I know two different gay guys who don't even have gay sex, they'd rather remain single/chaste/whatever. I know other gay guys who don't feel any special desire to be married to anyone. So I'm going to conclude that since not every single last gay has this burning genetic need to be "married" to the object of his desire, you don't need it either and it's not an "immutable part of your orientation". Therefore, I rule that you don't get to have gay marriage. You DO have a choice, you know. You can marry a woman, and still be gay. Gay guys can have great relationships with real meaningful emotional connection with women, of course they can, cmon! Society will love you, you won't be "illegal", and when you feel that hankering, well I'm sure the missus will oblige and give you a good ride or let you invite a boy toy in for the night, won't she?

How's that sound?

 

[martha]

How's that sound?

Bitter. Confused. Arrogant. Shit-stirring.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Name one perfectly valid way in which any homosexual marriage has any negative effect on your marriage.

Did you come up with one yet diamond?

 

[acrobatique]

Condensed version, this is what it boils down to for me.

The traditional and currently legal (in most states / countries) definition of marriage is a matrimonial union of a man and a woman.

You believe that as a gay person you believe that the definition should be expanded to give you the right to marry your partner of like orientation. I tend to agree.

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.

 

[martha]

to both of their partners

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.

 

[acrobatique]

Bitter. Confused. Arrogant. Shit-stirring.

I know, huh? Those gays and trannies and bisexuals and all of them, they should shut the hell up and stop causing trouble for us straight folk. God why can't they just be normal?

 

[martha]

I know, huh? Those gays and trannies and bisexuals and all of them, they should shut the hell up and stop causing trouble for us straight folk. God why can't they just be normal?

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

Good job.