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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I haven’t said that anybody “should be expected” to live in any way at all, so that’s kind of a bogus angle.
His post is his cite, huh? Am I really out of line if I ask for something a little more scientific?
That’s not a definition I picked out of the air. It’s the clinical criterion.
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.
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?
Maybe you are but I’m not. I don’t even know what the hell you mean by “valid.” valid in what sense?
Who the hell said I was happy
All I’m doing is asking for some clinical evidence that any such thing as poly and mono orientations exist at all.
I haven’t said they lack control. It seems to me to be what THEY’RE saying.
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?
Yes, I’ve seen that. That’s nothing to do with the bit you just quoted from me, though.
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where did you answer that? I must have missed it? What is the clinical difference?
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
As a wise man once said, “No one’s said that to him. Not remotely.”
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 afterEnsign 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.
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.
Never claimed that all poly people feel that way. I said that it is not a choice for some of us.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
Same-sex attractions occur in every culture, do they not? Can you name a culture where it doesn’t exist?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
