Marriage on the rocks in Britain
possibly caused by:
On further thought, it seems to me that Diogenes is implying that people have a choice in being polyamorous, whereas they don’t have a choice about being gay or straight. And something that I and a number of other people, gay and straight, have brought up around here is that gay marriage shouldn’t only be justified in biology. It doesn’t matter whether I could, somehow, become straight if I tried really hard and found JAY-SUS!! My right to be married, and to live my life in peace, is not based upon the fact that us poor little queers just can’t help the way we are. I don’t need some biological justification for being gay, because there’s nothing wrong with it. I have to wonder, given his argument above, whether Diogenes honestly agrees with me on that point.
Ehh…well, I think a lot of people, myself included, have agreed with you that it doesn’t belong in this discussion. It sounded like you meant ‘I don’t care about that in any discussion’, was all. But you’ve since clarified that you did not mean that, so I’m not sure why you’re being called out on it again.
I agree completely. However, I think the “not a choice” argument comes up in the kind of horrible math of suffering we unfortunately have to do as non-omnipotent entities with finite lifespans. We have to decide where to allocate resources, and naturally people want to start with those who really don’t have any other options. Unfortunately, it feeds into this idea that gayness is only acceptable if it’s not a choice, as you say, and it’s not that useful as an index of true need anyway.
Polyamory is a different issue than polygamy but what on earth makes you think monagomus people aren’t attracted to other people or never want to bang anyone other than their spouses? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not behavior. Everybody (all men, at least) are “polyamorous” in what they’re attracted to. Monogamy is not an orientation. Nobody is only attracted to one person in their whole lives. It isn’t a biological necessity. It’s chosen for other reasons not related to sexual attraction. I have no choice about being attracted to lots women, but I DO have a choice about choosing to only sleep with one of them. You don’t HAVE to bang everyone you’re attracted to, you know. Do plyamourists HAVE to sleep with multiple partners? Is it impossible for them to have a relationship with only one? If so…cite?
I have no problem with the concept of being poly. My BF and I have actually discussed the possibility and it might happen at some point in the future. At this point though it’s best with just the two of us. Though it’s only been 5 years, so who knows what may happen.
Yes.
Of course I do. My position is that someone has to show a rational basis for NOT allowing it. I don’t think anyone has to justify who they want to marry. The government has to show some justification as to why they should PREVENTED.
I do think the fact that sexual orientation is so fixed and immutable add to the cruelty of anti-SSM laws, though.
Hey, Diogenes. It’s possible for me not to live as a gay man. I might even be able to do one of those loveless marriages - but if not, I could certainly live celibate. There’s nothing that compels me to follow my desires and try to find and marry the person I love. I could go along and not make waves in society. I fail to see why I should, though, and that means I fail to see why polyamorous people should.
I don’t see what it matters whether polyamorous people have to have multiple partners. None of us has to have anyone.
Incidentally, the fact that everyone is attracted to multiple people is not a particularly convincing argument that certain people aren’t better suited to a “polyamorous lifestyle”. It’s not something I really understand either, but at least I have the sense to recognize that and not make irrational appeals to the status quo in an attempt to explain why it’s not valid.
But I suppose you don’t care about what the arguments you’re making here entail for us gay people.
I spent a long time trying very hard not to be gay. I spent a long time trying very hard not to be poly – which, of course, has nothing to do with our desires for others, and everything to do with the desire for a specific kind of structuring of one’s personal relationships, and an inability to be healthy and happy without that. Perhaps Dio thinks that makes it pathological; that would make sense, since his thinking about polyamory is oddly similar to outdated thoughts about homosexuality.
You want a cite? My cite is my life. My cite is me. Call me a liar. Tell me I am mistaken. Tell me you know better than I do, that I’m deluding myself into thinking it’s not a choice. Tell me I need scientific studies to prove I’m really queer, that you require evidence to believe me.* Wait – you do believe me about that, right? You believe that’s not a choice for me, and so do I. Why do you think my judgment is right in one area but wrong in another, I wonder? How do you explain the fact that the process of trying to sublimate and destroy my gayness and my polyness
was emotionally identical, and took, at different times in my life, an identical toll on my health?
Whether it’s always a choice is not relevent to the discussion of whether it should be a right. Do you agree with this, Dio?
*Provided we could find a volunteer in the audience, of course. 
I think there are, these days, a lot of people who might say they’ve considered the possibility of experimenting with gay encounters (okay, more women, but we’re getting there), or that they have. That doesn’t make them gay or even bi, of course. But if when they do experiment, they find that it works really well for them, works better than what they’re used to, in fact, then they may very well realize that they are queer.
So too there are people who consider the possibility of polyamory open, without actually considering themselves poly; with more experience, they may find it was what they were looking for all along, or they may decide they are mostly monogamous with some poly leanings, as there are ‘heteroflexible’ folks.
Anyway, it doesn’t disprove my notion that most monogamous people feel strongly about monogamy as something that is non-negotiable (and hence not a choice).
- I haven’t said shit about what polyamorous people “should” do. I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do.
- Sexual orientation is not altered or defined by behavior. A gay man who chooses not to have sex with men does not stop being gay.
- “Polyamorous” people, by contrast, are defined ONLY by behavor. A monogamous polyamorist is a monogamist, by definition. I have yet to see evidence that a “polyamorous person” is anything MORE than a person who chooses to have relationships with more than one person at the same time or that there is anything innate or inherent in these people which distinguishes them from NON-polyamorous people. Orientation is defined by attraction, not behavior, and EVERYONE is ATTRACTED to multiple people at once so what is the inherent difference between a poly person and a mono person other than the choice of how many to sleep with?
I don’t think it matters either. When did I say it mattered?
This phrasing reverses the burden for what is being asserted. I’ve expressed no opinion at all about what people are or are not “better suited” for. All I’ve done is ask for evidence that any innate distinction can be made for poly and mono people other than behavior. Hetero and homosexuality are easily distinguished and defined by attraction. There is no distinction that I can see in what poly and mono people are attracted to. If the distinction is not defined by attraction, what DOES define it?
How have I said it’s not valid? What do you even mean by “valid?” How have I “appealed to the status quo?”
Explain it to me. Please note that I’ve already said I have no problem with legalizing polygamy.
Diogenes, what you’re doing is saying “Pretend reality matches up to my ignorance, then argue with me!”
The difference is that while most people are sexually attracted to multiple people, most people are not drawn to have romantic, lifelong committments with multiple people, and most people are perfectly happy if they don’t.
And you are so obviously are talking from a lack of information I’m kind of embarassed for you.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
Diogenes, what you’re doing is saying “Pretend reality matches up to my ignorance, then argue with me!”[.quote]
I’m asking you to prove your assertions.
I think this is a cultural phenomenon more than a biological one. There are cultures where polygamy is the norm, after all. I’d like to see some clinical evidence that poly and mono orientations are actually recognized distinctions by psychologists or psychiatrists.
I keep ASKING for the information and I keep not getting it.
You have been given information. You were acting as if you had plenty to begin with, though, weren’t you? 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? Does your browser not do tabs? I can wait while you research your own pre-formed opinion, no problem.
Why aren’t you demanding that I show you proof that I’m not gay by choice?
Is it because you believe the prevailing science demonstrates this to be true, and is that the only reason?
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 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?
Actually, you have. You’ve seen Ensign Edison’s reference to her own (his own?) life above. You have been doing a lot of argument from definition here. You say that a person’s sexual orientation is defined by their attractions - 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.
I don’t see what that need is. I can’t relate to it at all. I think Ensign Edison would agree with me that I’m pretty much a monogamist. But I also don’t see any reason why I should accept that my feelings are the same as everyone else’s. And as a gay person, I’m quite familiar with claims that I must not be feeling how I am. Fundamentalist Christians will gladly claim that my attraction to men is some juvenile rebellion, or a sign that I must have suffered some trauma, or that I’ve given my life over to Satan. Knowing that - and recognizing exactly how ridiculous the arguments are that claim my feelings aren’t what they plainly are - I’m reluctant to arrogantly decide that I can tell what someone else is feeling based upon my own experience.
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!
The mind boggles.
Except by your own definition, you can only trust my word that I’m gay! There is simply no other evidence at all. So under your definition, the only evidence possible is people’s own claims. And yet, simultaneously, you’ve implicitly declared people’s claims about their polyamorous sexual orientation false, by refusing to accept the claims that Ensign Edison and other people like him (her?) have made about their own sexual orientation.
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.
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. 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.”
Feel the love, folks.
The trouble is that you’re sorting people into groups regarding whose sexual orientation is “real” or “valid”, and whose isn’t. You’re presuming that you’re capable of judging whether someone else’s claims about their feelings are valid. That type of judgment is exactly the sort that has been applied against gay people by homophobes and fundies for decades. Ultimately, you’re implicitly advancing an argument: that it’s reasonable or rational to declare someone else’s sexual orientation invalid based upon definitions of terms and your own experiences. It’s exactly the sort of argument used to justify all sorts of discrimination against gay people.
I’d like to see evidence for this, actually. Polygamy as practiced in most cultures I’m aware of is very limited in degree; generally, for instance, even though traditional Arab society permitted polygamy, only a few people - those who were extremely financially privileged - actually practiced it. I’d like to see some evidence of a culture in which polygamy is the norm for all sectors of the populace. I’d be particularly interested since “polygamy” - usually taken to mean one man, multiple wives - is not really workable on a wide scale, as we’ve seen from Fundamentalist Mormon communities out west.
Thank you for that, Excalibre. (I am male, btw, but I’m not picky about pronouns, so long as the letter z is in no way involved). I get a little annoyed on this topic and appreciate it when others articulate what I can only turn into a series of grunts obscene gestures.
See? Can’t even type anymore. Wedge an ‘and’ in there some place where it looks right.
I lived in a polygamous culture for a couple of years. It was Liberia in West Africa. The law was that a man could have as many wives as wanted as long as he could prove he could support them. It was pretty normal for guys to have two or three wives, especially upcountry (away from Monrovia where poverty got in the way) where people still lived in tribal communities. It wasn’t an elitist thing. Not every guy could do it but it wasn’t unusual. Socially, it was comparable to having more than one car – a sign of status, but not untouchable status.
So the poor didn’t practice it; Liberia is a very poor country - one wonders what percentage of men had more than one wife, and whether my assessment of polygamy as frequently the domain of only the comparable well-off is accurate.
When I feel the inclination and have the time, I’m going to point out that exactly the same argument - that it’s a “cultural thing” can be applied precisely to what you’re referring to as “sexual orientation”.