Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[martha]

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.

 

[acrobatique]

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]

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]

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"!

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[acrobatique]

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.

 

[BVS]

They are all consenting adults who want to affirm their love for each other.

Not exactly...

 

[acrobatique]

Not exactly...

Again, how the hell would you know this?

 

[martha]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[acrobatique]

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]

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?

 

[BVS]

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]

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.

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...

 

[acrobatique]

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]

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.

 

[BVS]

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...

 

[acrobatique]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

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?

 

[martha]

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.

 

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

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[acrobatique]

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...

 

[Irvine511]

.

 

[BVS]

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...

 

[Irvine511]

\\
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%.

 

[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.

 

[BVS]

You're a gay conservative,

Man, you really aren't starting out on the right foot in here...

 

[acrobatique]

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.