Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 8 - 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 04-14-2008, 11:26 PM   #141
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Yes, but do you see the difference? By choosing to be married / monogamous, you still retain your identity a gay male in a gay relationship - just not one who gets to sleep with many men. We probably agree "so what" here, that's the same choice that heterosexual couples ostensibly make. However, if a bisexual person "chooses" to be in a married / monogamous relationship, they pretty much have to forego that other 'side' of them, don't they?
__________________

acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:36 PM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Yes, but do you see the difference? By choosing to be married / monogamous, you still retain your identity a gay male in a gay relationship - just not one who gets to sleep with many men. We probably agree "so what" here, that's the same choice that heterosexual couples ostensibly make. However, if a bisexual person "chooses" to be in a married / monogamous relationship, they pretty much have to forego that other 'side' of them, don't they?


no, i don't sleep with many men. i sleep with one man. i've made that choice, and that is my identity. i'm a gay male in a monogamous relationship. *** ETA: i saw you edited, so i'll just leave this in but i realize you weren't implying that i'm not monogamous

it does seem that if a bisexual wishes to be married, for the time being, he will have to find an opposite-sexed partner. if marriage equality is realized, a bisexual will be able to choose one other partner, male or female.

this doesn't include sexual monogamy, though. a married bisexual can have sex with whomever he/she wants insofar as their negotiated allows. for the bisexual to be married to more than one person, that then becomes polygamy, which is illegal for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

the point remains that a bisexual has access to marriage. if you feel that you cannot be authentically bisexual without being with two other people, either marriage is not for you, or you need to state your case on the inclusion of multiple partners in a marriage. this is not an issue of sexual orientation.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:38 PM   #143
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Afraid of the AIDS?
No, because I wasn't a sister, but always recruited to be one by over zealous fellows it seemed.

I think it had to do with my dancing in some of the more exclusive alternative clubs when I did a little of this on the dance floor, back in the days of my youth:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...rrissey460.jpg

plus a little of this:

http://www.rvandals.com/sitebuilderc.../morrisday.jpg

mixed in with a little of him:
http://www.dustygroove.com/images/pr...atthe_101b.jpg

and a splash of him:

http://jeremycrow4life.com/wallpaper...aper01-min.jpg

Got you the whole package:

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r...g?t=1208234250



<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:46 PM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:43 PM
Please. Stop.

Your constant bragging about the gays trying to get into your pants is too much.
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:49 PM   #145
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the point remains that a bisexual has access to marriage.
I don't want to fan the fires here, but you seem to be missing that bisexuality isn't a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. I should think you would find it offensive if I suggested that you have a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, right? Certainly, you could, but then you'd be denying your natural orientation, wouldn't you? How is that any different for a bisexual person?

Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:54 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


I don't want to fan the fires here, but you seem to be missing that bisexuality isn't a choice anymore than being gay is a choice. I should think you would find it offensive if I suggested that you have a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, right? Certainly, you could, but then you'd be denying your natural orientation, wouldn't you? How is that any different for a bisexual person?

Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?

you're not fanning the fires. we're having what i think is an interesting discussion.

i don't understand why you feel that bisexuality necessarily connotes polygamy.

yes, i have the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, but it would never be a person that i authentically loved in the way that i love the person of the same sex. *that* would be a mockery of the institution.

a bisexual, by definition, is capable of developing loving, romantic relationships with either sexes. no, a bisexual does not get to choose who he falls in love with, but it is as likely that he will fall in love with a same-sexed person as it is an opposite-sexed person. there for, if he chooses *one* person, and that person happens to be opposite-sexed, then, yes, he has access to the institution of marriage.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:54 PM   #147
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Please. Stop.

Your constant bragging about the gays trying to get into your pants is too much.
Comedic relief?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:54 PM   #148
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Given that a. marriage between same sexes is illegal and b. that a bisexual person really has no greater access to realizing a committed relationship to who they are attracted to than does a gay person, there is no choice for such a person that is in line with the aims of equal access, is there?
Equal access to a formally monogamous relationship? No. But why would you want that access if you weren't interested in monogamy anyway?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:56 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Got you the whole package:

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r...g?t=1208234250


lucky for you, there are chub chasers out there.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:04 AM   #150
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i don't understand why you feel that bisexuality necessarily connotes polygamy.
Ok, one more time for the record, I am not saying that to be bisexual necessitates polygamy. I'm saying that being bisexual can put one at odds with the textbook definition of marriage. Polygamy is a term society is forcing into our discussion. I don't consider what I am describing polygamy. I'm not going to talk to it any more on those grounds, so I'll just end my side there.
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:10 AM   #151
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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?
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:11 AM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:16 AM   #153
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
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?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:26 AM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


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 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:35 AM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:42 AM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:43 PM

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

word

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:43 AM   #157
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
..so.. i guess gettin funky with
mr chunky isn't krunky

word

<>


i prefer meat to bone, don't you worry, big daddy
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 05:22 AM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 04:43 PM
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.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:04 AM   #159
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:13 AM   #160
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.
__________________

acrobatique 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 04:43 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
×