# Any atheists against same sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757 "2006-06-07T16:38:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/221 "2006-06-19T22:52:12Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Oh, dear. I was under the impression that we’re arguing over the validity of polyamorous sexual orientation. I seem to be confused. Pardon me, I _do_ forget things. I’m pretty sure that **Diogenes** , at least, is arguing that being polyamorous is not analogous to being gay in anyway that is useful to the discussion at hand. How this point keeps being turned into, “Why do you hate polygamists so much?” is beyond me. I’m just glad it’s him in the hotseat and not me, this time. > [@Ensign Edison](#): > > How can you be so sure of yourself, tell me to my face that I am lying or deluded, then insist you don’t have the information? No offence, **EE** , but for all anyone here knows, maybe you _are_ lying, or deluded. If you’re going to make a claim of fact, you need more than just your own word to coroborate it. If I came here and claimed that I used to be gay, but now I’m not thanks to the power of Jesus, would you accept that homosexuality is something that can be cured, or would you argue that I was deluded or lying? Wouldn’t you at least want some evidence that I’m not a statistical anomaly, or in some other way not representative of other homosexuals? > [@](#): > > Why aren’t you demanding that I show you proof that I’m not gay by choice? Probably because he’s familiar with the wealth of scientific evidence and peer-reviewed papers that have shown, again and again, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangable. I’ve seen no such studies that say the same for polygamists, and I don’t think **Dio** is committing some unbelievable breach of ettitquette in asking for one instead of accepting your claims on face value. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/222 "2006-06-19T22:52:18Z")
No it can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/223 "2006-06-19T22:54:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No it can’t. Sorry, this post was is repsonse to **Excalibre’s** claim that sexual orientation could be explained as a cultural phenmenon in the same sense as polygamy or monogamy. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/224 "2006-06-19T23:13:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m pretty sure that **Diogenes** , at least, is arguing that being polyamorous is not analogous to being gay in anyway that is useful to the discussion at hand. How this point keeps being turned into, “Why do you hate polygamists so much?” is beyond me. I’m just glad it’s him in the hotseat and not me, this time. You might be sure, but you’d be wrong, and exposing the fact that you’re not paying attention to this thread. Both Excalibre and I have explicitly stated that **this is a hijack** and that the rights of poly folks **are not relevent to this discussion.** I have gone so far as to say that I just don’t think poly marriage rights are as important as gay marriage rights. Furthermore, this is absurd. Are you claiming that I’m the only poly person that says my polyness is not a choice? Excalibre has met many others. Perhaps you think we are all deluded or lying, but the fact of the matter is that there is a significant subset of polyamorous people who believe they are not that way by choice. And I am NOT responsible to prove that. If Dio wants to argue about this topic, he’s responsible to first have the slightest bit of information about it. The information that a whole lot of people are either lying, deluded, or actually oriented toward polyamory to the degree that they cannot be happy in monogamy is easily available to anyone who spends even five minutes doing any kind of research on this subject. Demanding scientific proof that some people cannot choose to be happy with monogamy on the basis of the “well, they could be lying or deluded and it really is secretly a choice” is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/225 "2006-06-19T23:30:49Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > You’re using circular reasoning here. Because the concept of a polyamorous sexual orientation is false, a monogamous polyamorist is a monogamist. And because polyamorists thus _can_ be monogamous, polyamory is not a valid sexual orientation! Truly dizzying logic. The flaw here is that I never said a poyamorous orientation is “false.” I’m saying it hasn’t been proven that such an orientation exists at all (with all respect to **Ensign Edison’s** description of his own life experience, while I do not question his honesty in what he says, it hardly amounts to scientific confirmation for the existence of a polyamorous orientation which is clinically distingushable from a monogamous one). Sexual orientation is CLINICALLY defined by attraction. I am trying to find out if there is any similar CLINICAL definition polyamory or if the dictionary definition still holds. > [@](#): > > The strange thing is that your argument could be employed identically to bisexual people; since they’re _capable_ of acting like anyone else, then there’s no reason bisexual people shouldn’t be expected to live as straight people, right? I haven’t said that anybody “should be expected” to live in any way at all, so that’s kind of a bogus angle. > [@](#): > > Actually, you have. You’ve seen **Ensign Edison** ’s reference to her own (his own?) life above. His post is his cite, huh? Am I really out of line if I ask for something a little more scientific? > [@](#): > > You have been doing a lot of argument from definition here. You say that a person’s sexual orientation is defined by their attractions That’s not a definition I picked out of the air. It’s the clinical criterion. > [@](#): > > - thus logically precluding the idea that polyamory constitutes a sexual orientation. But I don’t tend to find arguments from definition convincing. One might define sexual orientation however they liked - but then, the logical impossibility that you have demonstrated only exists if one accepts your definition as axiomatic. I’m afraid I don’t accept your axioms, particularly since I’ve heard a lot of heartfelt stories a lot like **Ensign Edison** ’s, about how poly people have some particular emotional need that is only fulfilled in polyamorous relationships. There is an abundance of scientific support for gender-based sexual orientation. Show me that there is any clinical or scientific evidence for polyamory as an orientation analogous to hetero and homosexuality. It is the ones who are making the assertion that it’s analogous who have the burden to prove it with something a little better than a personal memoir. > [@](#): > > You keep repeating a definition - and ironically, it’s a definition rooted in something that’s _impossible for anyone else to actually measure_. Thus, in the axiomatic system you’ve constructed here, you’ve proven that we can only take people’s word on it that they’re gay, but we emphatically _cannot_ take people’s word on it that they’re polyamorous! This is bullshit in multiple ways. First because you have yet to show that polyamory has anything but a behavioral definition so complaining about me using the only definition available makes no sense. If you think the word has another definition then prove it. Second, what am I supposed to be taking the polyamorists’ word for? That they’re attracted to lots of people at once? Who isn’t? How does that distinguish them from me? Do you have any clinical evidence of polyamory as distinct orientation or don’t you? If so, how is it defined? > [@](#): > > Oh, dear. I was under the impression that we’re arguing over the validity of polyamorous sexual orientation. I seem to be confused. Pardon me, I _do_ forget things. Maybe you are but I’m not. I don’t even know what the hell you mean by “valid.” valid in what sense? > [@](#): > > Poor phrasing on my part. You have falsely compared polyamorous people to monogamous people by implying that, since _you_ can be perfectly happy in a monogamous relationship, it must be the case that they can as well. 1. Who the hell said I was happy 😉 2. All I’m doing is asking for some clinical evidence that any such thing as poly and mono orientations exist at all. > [@](#): > > In fact, what you’ve said necessarily entails that polygamous people are simply promiscuous and lack self-control: “You don’t HAVE to bang everyone you’re attracted to, you know.” I haven’t said they lack control. It seems to me to be what THEY’RE saying. > [@](#): > > The trouble is that you’re sorting people into groups regarding whose sexual orientation is “real” or “valid”, and whose isn’t. No, I’m asking for proof that one particular alleged orientation has any clinical recognition as being genuine. All I want is a cite that there is such a thing as a polyamorous orientation. Do you have one or don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/226 "2006-06-19T23:37:18Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > You might be sure, but you’d be wrong, and exposing the fact that you’re not paying attention to this thread. Both Excalibre and I have explicitly stated that **this is a hijack** and that the rights of poly folks **are not relevent to this discussion.** I have gone so far as to say that I just don’t think poly marriage rights are as important as gay marriage rights. Yes, I’ve seen that. That’s nothing to do with the bit you just quoted from me, though. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, this is absurd. Are you claiming that I’m the only poly person that says my polyness is not a choice? Excalibre has met many others. Perhaps you think we are all deluded or lying, but the fact of the matter is that there is a significant subset of polyamorous people who believe they are not that way by choice. No, I’m saying that if this is such an indubitable truth, then it should be easier to find more evidence for it than just your say-so. > [@](#): > > And I am NOT responsible to prove that. If Dio wants to argue about this topic, he’s responsible to first have the slightest bit of information about it. The information that a whole lot of people are either lying, deluded, or actually oriented toward polyamory to the degree that they cannot be happy in monogamy is easily available to anyone who spends even five minutes doing any kind of research on this subject. Then show it, if it’s so easy. That should put the final nail in **Dio** ’s coffin, right? I’d think it’d be worth the five minutes research for that alone. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/227 "2006-06-19T23:41:25Z")
Dio, you either missed it, or you’re claiming that your question about the difference hasn’t been answered. If you know that it has, please explain how it is insuffcient to answer your question about how being poly is different from being attracted to many people. Also, just as a note, you’ve declared “all” you’re “doing” or “asking for” as different things on this page of the thread alone, as you have a habit of doing. It should have been extremely clear to you long before now that Excalibre and I are not talking about definitions as they do exist, but as we (along with others) feel they should. If that was in fact “all” you were after “all” along, I’m curious how it can have taken this long to realize the miscommunication. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/228 "2006-06-19T23:54:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Then show it, if it’s so easy. That should put the final nail in **Dio** ’s coffin, right? I’d think it’d be worth the five minutes research for that alone. If you’re going to dismiss my claim on the basis of the fact that I may be lying or deluded, why shouldn’t you do the same with all of us? But hey, here are some links: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/09/EB16662](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/09/EB16662) ("Others insist, although they concede it’s hard to prove with few studies existing, polyamory is a fixed orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality. “In my experience with clients, it’s very, very clear to me that some people are inherently monogamous,” Labriola said. Try as they might, those confirmed monogamists will never truly be happy in an open relationship.) [Polyamory Language Page](http://www.polyamorysociety.org/language.html) (note the repeated use of the term 'polyamorous orientation) These Unitarians think it’s an orientation: [Polyamory and the UUA](http://www.uupa.org/Literature/polyprinciples.html) [sexuality.org](http://sexuality.org)’s poly FAQ sums it up: " and according to the philosophy of some folks, people aren’t polyamorous, although behavior can be. Some people find that approach useful, and others prefer to think of “polyamorous people”. And of course I never meant to suggest there wasn’t controversy over this opinion. I personally think that with polyness and queerness both, for some people it is a choice, and for others it is not. That is what was at issue here ot begin with, Miller: whether it is a choice, not whether it has been scientifically demonstrated to function as an orientation. I didn’t need a study to prove that gayness is possible and usually involuntary to know I was gay, and I don’t need one to know that I cannot choose to be happy in a monogamous relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/229 "2006-06-20T00:03:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m pretty sure that **Diogenes** , at least, is arguing that being polyamorous is not analogous to being gay in anyway that is useful to the discussion at hand. How this point keeps being turned into, “Why do you hate polygamists so much?” is beyond me. I’m just glad it’s him in the hotseat and not me, this time. No one’s said that to him. Not remotely. And the thing is, he _hasn’t_ come up with any convincing reason that it’s not analogous. I actually used to be entirely skeptical about the very idea of polyamory. But when I realized that it’s very hard to justify that attitude logically without also saying the same thing about gay people, I changed my mind. When I found myself formulating the same arguments that are used to oppose gay marriage, I realized that I was probably responding more to my own irrational prejudice than anything else. > [@](#): > > No offence, **EE** , but for all anyone here knows, maybe you _are_ lying, or deluded. If you’re going to make a claim of fact, you need more than just your own word to coroborate it. If I came here and claimed that I used to be gay, but now I’m not thanks to the power of Jesus, would you accept that homosexuality is something that can be cured, or would you argue that I was deluded or lying? Wouldn’t you at least want some evidence that I’m not a statistical anomaly, or in some other way not representative of other homosexuals? Well, except the problem is that - as **Diogenes** has admirably pointed out - there is no logical piece of evidence that could be presented to support the existence of polyamory _except_ a polyamorist’s own word. You can take that as evidence that it doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t strike me as a safe assumption. After all, you have only my word that I’m gay. Since my behavior is apparently indicative of nothing, how do you know I’m gay? How do we know anyone is gay? As I said, there are people who would deny even that! It seems obviously true to you or me, **Miller** , but only by virtue of the fact that we have personal experience. The fact is that an identical argument - that there’s no proof outside of people’s own claims - can be made about gay people. Further, it’s inaccurate to say that no evidence has been provided. A personal claim is, perhaps, not _strong_ evidence, but the only counterargument so far has been **Diogenes** ’ unconvincing argument from definition. As far as the balance of evidence, _you’re losing right now._ > [@](#): > > Probably because he’s familiar with the wealth of scientific evidence and peer-reviewed papers that have shown, again and again, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangable. I haven’t. I _know_ it’s innate and unchangeable, but I’ve actually seen very little in terms of defensible scientific evidence for it, beyond weak claims showing faint correllations between certain alleles and homosexuality. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen no such studies that say the same for polygamists, and I don’t think **Dio** is committing some unbelievable breach of ettitquette in asking for one instead of accepting your claims on face value. Perhaps this is a personal issue, but I’m loathe to try to argue that someone’s sexual identity is false. As I’ve mentioned, that’s exactly what people do when arguing about the existence of homosexuality (as ridiculous as that seems to you or me, **Miller**.) It doesn’t leave much better a taste in my mouth in this case - even when I caught myself doing it. Sorting identities into “valid” and “invalid” does not strike me as a terribly useful thing to do, especially when the closest thing you have to support your claim is absence of evidence. Argument from absence of evidence is a poor tactic in general, and moreso in this case when there are plenty of valid reasons why that evidence might be absent. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/230 "2006-06-20T00:08:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In defence of my statement that banning polygamous marriage didn’t seem as great an injustice as banning SSM: > > For starters, the only time I ever hear anyone talking about legalizing polygamy is ( **clairobscur** excepted) when it’s someone trying to argue against SSM. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an actual polygamist complain about not being able to get married. Polygamy is a completely separate issue from SSM, as it invokes a host of new issues to deal with that simply aren’t present with SSM. SSM doesn’t raise any new complications other than allowing two people of the same gender to be married. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/231 "2006-06-20T00:09:22Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > Dio, you either missed it, or you’re claiming that your question about the difference hasn’t been answered. If you know that it has, please explain how it is insuffcient to answer your question about how being poly is different from being attracted to many people. Where did you answer that? I must have missed it? What is the clinical difference? > [@](#): > > Also, just as a note, you’ve declared “all” you’re “doing” or “asking for” as different things on this page of the thread alone, as you have a habit of doing. Not really. Every single time I’ve said it boils down to the same request for proof that polyamory has any clinical recognition as a sexual orientation. That’s your assertion and it’s your burden to prove it. I’ve heard it said that an assertion by itself is just an ass with 'er tie on. > [@](#): > > It should have been extremely clear to you long before now that Excalibre and I are not talking about definitions as they do exist, but as we (along with others) feel they should. If that was in fact “all” you were after “all” along, I’m curious how it can have taken this long to realize the miscommunication. You actually haven’t been very clear at all about what you “feel” the definition should be. What is the clinical distinction between a poly and mono orientation if it isn’t behavior? (I’m not trying to be cute with semantics, I’m willing to give you the word but I want to see how you delineate the difference and I still want to see some scientific evidence that the difference is real.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/232 "2006-06-20T00:27:36Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > No one’s said that to him. Not remotely. And the thing is, he _hasn’t_ come up with any convincing reason that it’s not analogous. Hyperbole on my part, but you and **Ensign Edison** both seem awfully upset that he’s not just rolling over and agreeing with you. Far out of proportion with anything he’s actually said, as near as I can tell. But p’raps that’s more a case of me reading too much into your posts, than you reading too much into his. > [@](#): > > I actually used to be entirely skeptical about the very idea of polyamory. But when I realized that it’s very hard to justify that attitude logically without also saying the same thing about gay people, I changed my mind. When I found myself formulating the same arguments that are used to oppose gay marriage, I realized that I was probably responding more to my own irrational prejudice than anything else. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread who has been arguing against the idea of polyamory as a valid lifestyle, or acceptable family arrangement, or whatever. Just some (well founded, IMO) that its a sexual orientation akin to hetero- or homosexuality. > [@](#): > > Well, except the problem is that - as **Diogenes** has admirably pointed out - there is no logical piece of evidence that could be presented to support the existence of polyamory _except_ a polyamorist’s own word. You can take that as evidence that it doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t strike me as a safe assumption. After all, you have only my word that I’m gay. Since my behavior is apparently indicative of nothing, how do you know I’m gay? How do we know anyone is gay? As I said, there are people who would deny even that! It seems obviously true to you or me, **Miller** , but only by virtue of the fact that we have personal experience. > > The fact is that an identical argument - that there’s no proof outside of people’s own claims - can be made about gay people. > > Further, it’s inaccurate to say that no evidence has been provided. A personal claim is, perhaps, not _strong_ evidence, but the only counterargument so far has been **Diogenes** ’ unconvincing argument from definition. As far as the balance of evidence, _you’re losing right now._ Actually, that’s not true. If there’s been one positive result of all these stupid “Jesus can make you straight!” programs out there, it’s that they’ve pretty dramatically debunked the idea that orientation is a choice. They’ve taken populations that desperately want to be straight, put them in an enviroment that overwhelmingly re-enforces that desire (as if mainstream society didn’t do that enough as it is) and used every tool in the book to make it stick. The result? Overwhelming failure, and proof positive that, with vanishingly few exceptions, orientation is an immutable constant. So far as I know, there isn’t any sort of a similar program for people who are polyamorous, so I don’t know that there’s any comparable data. But it is evidence that these things are provable on a level beyond simple personal anecdotes. So, the claim has been made in this thread that polyamory is a similarly immutable constant. The evidence? That’s how **Ensign Edison** feels. But that really isn’t a useful data point. Maybe **Ensign Edison** is right, and that’s how all polyamorists feel. Maybe he’s right, but he’s the _only_ polyamorist who feels that way. Maybe he’s lying, to score points in this debate. Maybe he thinks he’s telling the truth, but hasn’t met that one guy who’ll make him forget everyone else and he can settle down to a monogamous relationship. Maybe it’s true for him _right now_, but as he gets older, his desires will change and he’ll want just one guy. Or maybe he’s completely off his rocker, and his poly partners are a candy wrapper and an invisible wombat. That’s why **Dio** asked for a cite. That’s why anyone asks for a cite around here that pertains to any question that isn’t specifically flagged as a request for an opinion. What does that have to do with the concept of legally recognizing polyamorous marriages? As everyone in this thread will tell you, **Dio** included, “Not a goddamned thing.” No one in this thread has argued that polyamorous relationships _shouldn’t_ be recognized (although I suspect **randyjet** would, and probably **Minotaurus** as well). No one has argued that they’re invalid, not worthy of respect, not worthy of legal protection, or in anyway lesser than any other sort of relationship, except insofar as the ban against them is not as bewilderingly arbitrary and spiteful. > [@](#): > > Perhaps this is a personal issue, but I’m loathe to try to argue that someone’s sexual identity is false. As I’ve mentioned, that’s exactly what people do when arguing about the existence of homosexuality (as ridiculous as that seems to you or me, **Miller**.) It doesn’t leave much better a taste in my mouth in this case - even when I caught myself doing it. Sorting identities into “valid” and “invalid” does not strike me as a terribly useful thing to do, especially when the closest thing you have to support your claim is absence of evidence. Argument from absence of evidence is a poor tactic in general, and moreso in this case when there are plenty of valid reasons why that evidence might be absent. As a wise man once said, “No one’s said that to him. Not remotely.” ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/233 "2006-06-20T00:35:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not really. Every single time I’ve said it boils down to the same request for proof that polyamory has any clinical recognition as a sexual orientation. That’s your assertion and it’s your burden to prove it. I’ve heard it said that an assertion by itself is just an ass with 'er tie on. It’s funny you should say that, because you didn’t start using the term “clinical” until well into this discussion - in fact, not until _after_ **Ensign Edison** posted about his own experiences. The fact that you’ve used it in about two out of every three sentences you’ve written _since_ then doesn’t change what you were saying at the start of the discussion - at which point you weren’t asking for evidence at all, but rather _asserting_ that polyamorists could be perfectly happy as monogamists. A person more cynical than I might wonder whether you’re moving the goalposts of the discussion in order to avoid having to acknowledge what **Edison** said or prove the assertions you made earlier. And a _really_ cynical person might suggest that you probably feel quite safe having set the bar this high, given that you know that no mainstream poly rights movement exists and that polyamorists are not really on our cutural radar. Under those circumstances, it would be odd if any clinical research into the subject existed at all! Think about what it would be like trying to prove that homosexuality existed forty years ago. Though a lack of such research to hand didn’t stop you from asserting earlier that polyamorists aren’t any different from anyone else. I do, however, eagerly await the clinical research you’re going to use to show that one _can_ meaningfully describe “homosexual” and “heterosexual” and measure such things in such a way that makes some meaningful prediction. You’ve defined sexual orientation apart from behavior which makes it rather mysterious to me what clinical reserach you think could have been done within the framework you’ve set out here. I particularly await the evidence you’re going to provide that “homosexual” is meaningful in a cross-cultural context. ---
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/234 "2006-06-20T00:37:19Z")
I am an athiest who is anti marriage. I dont think the govornment or any church organization has any place in a relationship between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, all consenting adults of course. Legally, if there is some financial protection offered for those taken advantage of over the course of a relationship, fine, but this should be minimal and more based on existing laws regarding fraud and misrepresentation than some kind of “devinely admissable” or “under God” contract. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/235 "2006-06-20T01:08:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, the claim has been made in this thread that polyamory is a similarly immutable constant. The evidence? That’s how **Ensign Edison** feels. But that really isn’t a useful data point. Maybe **Ensign Edison** is right, and that’s how all polyamorists feel. Never claimed that all poly people feel that way. I said that it is not a choice for some of us. > [@](#): > > Maybe he’s right, but he’s the _only_ polyamorist who feels that way. Maybe he’s lying, to score points in this debate. The first maybe has been removed since I posted my links. The second is useless, of course. Maybe we’re all lying about everything. If you really think I am lying, there’s no reason to talk to me or have this conversation. I have provided evidence that other poly people say they feel this way, and I say I feel this way. If you think we are all lying, or even that the chance we’re lying is great enough to be worth considering, then there’s nothing else I can say to you. > [@](#): > > Maybe he thinks he’s telling the ruth, but hasn’t met that one guy who’ll make him forget everyone else and he can settle down to a monogamous relationship. Maybe it’s true for him _right now_, but as he gets older, his desires will change and he’ll want just one guy. Or maybe he’s completely off his rocker, and his poly partners are a candy wrapper and an invisible wombat. That’s why **Dio** asked for a cite. That’s why anyone asks for a cite around here that pertains to any question that isn’t specifically flagged as a request for an opinion. Give me a cite that proves you are gay. As for the rest, I know. Do you think that it’s okay for people to think gayness is always a choice if they also think it shouldn’t matter? It might be functionally okay, but it’s still misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/236 "2006-06-20T01:08:42Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > It’s funny you should say that, because you didn’t start using the term “clinical” until well into this discussion - in fact, not until _after_ **Ensign Edison** posted about his own experiences. I didn’t use it before because I didn’t think I had to. It seems I foolishly made an assumption that a couple of veteran Dopers did not need to be told what constitutes a valid cite around here. Since when has a personal anecdote ever been accepted as a cite for anything? of COURSE I was talking about clinical evdience. I took it for granted that that was understood. > [@](#): > > The fact that you’ve used it in about two out of every three sentences you’ve written _since_ then doesn’t change what you were saying at the start of the discussion - at which point you weren’t asking for evidence at all, but rather _asserting_ that polyamorists could be perfectly happy as monogamists. I made no such assertion, sorry. What I did was ask for evidence that people who choose to live in polyamorous relationships are clinically any different than people who choose monogamous relationships. To put it another way, I’m asking for evidence that any such animal as a “polyamorous person” exists at all. I can’t hazard opinions as to what will make them happy until you prove they exist (and by prove they exist, I mean prove that there’s anything more to it than behavior). > [@](#): > > A person more cynical than I might wonder whether you’re moving the goalposts of the discussion in order to avoid having to acknowledge what **Edison** said or prove the assertions you made earlier. And a _really_ cynical person might suggest that you probably feel quite safe having set the bar this high, given that you know that no mainstream poly rights movement exists and that polyamorists are not really on our cutural radar. I haven’t moved the goal posts at all. I just didn’t think I had to stipulate that an assertion is not evidence. And what do poly rights have to do with anything? I’m not opposing any rights. > [@](#): > > Under those circumstances, it would be odd if any clinical research into the subject existed at all! Now we’re getting somewhere. If there’s not yet any clinical recognition that polyamory is a sexual orientation, then why should I accept at face value that it is? I’m an empiricist. I don’t work that way. > [@](#): > > Think about what it would be like trying to prove that homosexuality existed forty years ago. It would have been easy. Proving that some people are sexually attracted to their own gender has always been a trivially easy thing to do. Since you’re not defining polyamory either by attraction or behavior but are using some other kind of vague. unspecified criteria, I don’t see how it’s analogous. > [@](#): > > Though a lack of such research to hand didn’t stop you from asserting earlier that polyamorists aren’t any different from anyone else. I made no such assertion. I just asked for proof that they ARE different from monogamists. This is YOUR assertion and YOUR burden. Why are you acting like a noob? You know how it works here. > [@](#): > > I do, however, eagerly await the clinical research you’re going to use to show that one _can_ meaningfully describe “homosexual” and “heterosexual” and measure such things in such a way that makes some meaningful prediction. You’ve defined sexual orientation apart from behavior which makes it rather mysterious to me what clinical reserach you think could have been done within the framework you’ve set out here. I have no idea what you’re asking for. Sexual orientation doesn’t predict behavior and I never said it did. It describes hardwired attractions and yes, a lot of that depends on self-reporting but it’s self-reporting of something tangible. What are polyamorists supposedly reporting that I need to believe? That they are attracted to more than one person? Who isn’t? If their orientation is not defined by attraction and not defined by behavior then what DOES define it? Why is this such a difficult question? > [@](#): > > I particularly await the evidence you’re going to provide that “homosexual” is meaningful in a cross-cultural context. Same-sex attractions occur in every culture, do they not? Can you name a culture where it doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/237 "2006-06-20T01:19:12Z")
And Dio, once again: The difference is that a polyamorous person cannot be happy with monogamous behavior, just as a gay person cannot be happy with straight behavior. \*\* I cannot choose to be monogamous and be happy or healthy.\*\* I have tried. It doesn’t work. It’s not a choice, for me, and I’m not the only one. You keep talking about attraction, the way homophobes constantly talk about sex. Polyamory is about relationships, not attraction and sex. Do you even understand that much about it? Earlier, you were even using the wrong word, as if you didn’t understand that polygamists and polyamorists form completely different communities. Some of us are wired this way. No, I can’t prove that to you clinically. People were still gay before anyone could prove it, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/238 "2006-06-20T01:20:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I made no such assertion, sorry. What I did was ask for evidence that people who choose to live in polyamorous relationships are clinically any different than people who choose monogamous relationships. Actually, you said, “Polygamy laws do not discriminate against a single group. It applies to homos and heteros alike. That’s why it’s not the same kind of injustice. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.” I don’t see any sort of request for _any_ sort of evidence. > [@](#): > > And what do poly rights have to do with anything? I’m not opposing any rights. Are you asking this seriously? Or are you quoting me out of context to make my argument seem nonsensical? Without any sort of a mainstream poly rights movement, it’s unlikely that enough awareness of the “poly identity” (or whatever you like to call it) exists to make such clinical research likely. > [@](#): > > It would have been easy. Proving that some people are sexually attracted to their own gender has always been a trivially easy thing to do. Then do it. Use only “clinical evidence” from prior to 19 June 1966. Because it’s _not_ an easy task to use “clinical evidence” to prove something that hasn’t been well-studied clinically, and I don’t think the research was there at the time. If you don’t want to use “clinical evidence” then you’ll have to explain why it’s needed to argue polyamory but not homosexuality. > [@](#): > > I made no such assertion. I just asked for proof that they ARE different from monogamists. This is YOUR assertion and YOUR burden. Why are you acting like a noob? You know how it works here. No, you didn’t, and that’s why this whole argument started. You made an assertion - and it’s not even as though you can pretend you misspoke, since you argued vociferously (though unconvincingly.) > [@](#): > > Same-sex attractions occur in every culture, do they not? Can you name a culture where it doesn’t exist? There are many cultures whose sexual behavior is _radically_ different from our own; if you’re arguing otherwise, then I don’t see the point in continuing, because it’s clearly an area in which you simply don’t know much, and I’m no expert, so I have no business trying to teach you remedial anthropology. I eagerly await the cites I requested in my last post, but I will not otherwise argue this matter further, as your own behavior in moving the goalposts in this argument is ample demonstration that you’re not arguing this matter honestly and there’s no point in my continuing it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/239 "2006-06-20T01:41:31Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Actually, you said, “Polygamy laws do not discriminate against a single group. It applies to homos and heteros alike. That’s why it’s not the same kind of injustice. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.” > > I don’t see any sort of request for _any_ sort of evidence. How does that amount to an assertion that “polyamorists can be happy in monogomous relationships” (which is what you claimed I said). I did say intitially (and forgot) that polyamory is not a sexual orientation but as far as I can tell, I haven’t been proven wrong on that score. There is no clinical definition as such. > [@](#): > > Then do it. Use only “clinical evidence” from prior to 19 June 1966. Because it’s _not_ an easy task to use “clinical evidence” to prove something that hasn’t been well-studied clinically, and I don’t think the research was there at the time. This is nonsense. The phenomenon of same-sex attraction was well-known. What had yet to be established was whether sexual orientation was a disorder, whether it was changeable, etc. The attraction itself was not in doubt, though. There was a tangible _phenomenon_ there to be investigated. In the case of polyamory, I have yet to see that there IS a phenomenon at all. Never mind cause, disorder or mutability, I’m waiting to see that there’s anything to even _investigate_. > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to use “clinical evidence” then you’ll have to explain why it’s needed to argue polyamory but not homosexuality. Because you want to change the criteria by which orientation is defined. If you don’t want to use the normal criterion of attraction, then it’s up to you to provide something to replace it with. > [@](#): > > There are many cultures whose sexual behavior is _radically_ different from our own; if you’re arguing otherwise, then I don’t see the point in continuing, because it’s clearly an area in which you simply don’t know much, and I’m no expert, so I have no business trying to teach you remedial anthropology. Spare me the condescension, dude. I took Anthro 101. I know about the weird sexual habits in Africa and New Guinea, what seems to be escaping you is that sexual orientation is still defined completely independently of culture and behavior. [qupte]I eagerly await the cites I requested in my last post, but I will not otherwise argue this matter further, as your own behavior in moving the goalposts in this argument is ample demonstration that you’re not arguing this matter honestly and there’s no point in my continuing it. [/QUOTE] I haven’t moved any goal posts. You really should just admit when you’re wrong sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/240 "2006-06-20T01:51:13Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > The first maybe has been removed since I posted my links. The second is useless, of course. Maybe we’re all lying about everything. If you really think I am lying, there’s no reason to talk to me or have this conversation. I have provided evidence that other poly people say they feel this way, and I say I feel this way. If you think we are all lying, or even that the chance we’re lying is great enough to be worth considering, then there’s nothing else I can say to you. I’m not saying you’re lying. I’m explaining why a personal anecdote is not sufficient data for proving a point in a debate like this. Stop taking it personally. The fact is, people, in general, are not reliable reporters of their own internal states. If we trying to establish any sort of fact about something as nebulous as attraction, one data point is useless. You need thousands and thousands of them. Jesus, if you’d asked me five years ago if I were into guys, I’ve had looked you in the eye and told you “No way.” And if you’d asked me if I was happy, I’d have said, “Yes.” Neither statement would have been true. That doesn’t make me delusional, or dishonest. And allowing the same margin for human error in considering your statement isn’t saying that about you, either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=13)