So you would repeat the same historical cultural processes that were used against and resulted in the current gay rights situation, against these minority groups* you* disagree with? :dubious:
Wasn’t that one of the key arguments against gay marriage for a long time?
You want him to prove something doesn’t exist?
My proof is that the concept is logically incoherent. Sexual orientation refers to the sex to whom one is attracted. Polygamy and incest are not about sexual orientation.
One isn’t “attracted to being in a polygamous marriage” in the sense that one is attracted to men or women. You’re simply conflating two concepts.
I want to create something as a legal document, similar to a Do Not Resucitate order people sometimes sign in hospitals. Something that formally declares that if I ever, however briefly, however remotely, give a rats patoot about the selection of Miss USA, for any reason whatsoever, I want to be instantly injected with a lethal overdose of morphine.
Oops, I meant to address these too in my last post.
For the first: it doesn’t have to be innate attraction to someone who is “married”, but it could be an innate part of someone’s nature to desire being in something other than a single-partner relationship. So, why should such people be utterly prohibited from having their relationships legally recognized?
Second part: so what? Why should two adults who happen to be siblings/immediate family/etc. be forbidden from entering into a legally recognized relationship? A “statistical absurdity”, you call it - people with incestuous natures might call your opinion “intolerate” or “bigoted”.
Why not? We use neurological bases to judge these things as it is. Isn’t thought a function of brain structure? Maybe some people are not wired for monogamy, simple as that.
FWIW, this is why IMO genetics particularly as it relates to neurophysiological difference, is a terrible argument and has no real place in ethical discussions. I don’t know my neurology well enough, but I am certain there are studies that say there are neurological similarities between people prone to murderous rages, or between rapists. Just as it’s likely that we can find a pedophile gene. How do you know that there is not an ‘ethnocentrism’ gene or neural pathway?
People think the way they do because of how their brain is wired, so using brain wiring as an indicator of whether or not some behavior is acceptable is silly.
I agree that not everyone who has bigoted opinions is bad in all respects (though some may be) and that it is worthless to look backwards and blame people for views commonly accepted during the time they lived, but I seriously question why a member of a minority group has to pander to, smile at and placate a bigoted individual into accepting the existence of his or her inherent rights. I feel this way about universal suffrage, the abolishment of slavery, the fall of colonization and the recognition of gay marriage and I’m not particularly sorry that we didn’t/don’t wait around to hold people’s hands and plead with them to do the right thing. For one thing, I think it’s surrendermonkeyish and the burden of proof to demonstrate why a right should be withheld falls on the withholder, not the withholdee. Finally, I think it’s plumb unamerican.
All that said, I think it’s counterproductive to excessively contemplate upon and go on at length about how awful people who are racist/bigoted/want to abridge someone’s rights are. History doesn’t treat these folk kindly anyway, and spewing expletives about them and going on about their moral failings merely serves to push them further into their corners. They should be dealt with politely, but not from a “negotiating” standpoint.
How is it “unfair” that she was asked a question about something that happened in the state she was representing which happens to be a topic important to a large portion of the pagent industry’s audience?
Good grief, how could she not see something like that coming?
And then, she gives an answer that alienates that same large portion of the pagent industry’s audience. This is like auditioning as a tobacco industry spokesperson by giving a speech on how smoking causes cancer.
She didn’t lose for not being liberal enough, she lost for not being smart enough.
Will Fentanyl do in a pinch?
I’m talking about differences between innate sexual natures of individuals. Being gay is one innate sexual nature, being attracted to incestuous relationships is another. I never limited my argument to conventional standards of “sexual orientation”, I was specifically questioning the validity of those standards.
I was doing so because arguing for legal gay marriage is questioning the validity of the conventional standard argument used by anti-gay marriage folk. I’m just going a step further.
Well, incest is illegal, so I’m perfectly fine with that characterization (and, yes, if our cultural values eventually change such that incest becomes more widely accepted socially, then that’s an issue open to discussion, too).
And polygamy doesn’t address who you can or can’t marry. It addresses how many you want to at one time. That’s a separate issue that has both social and financial implications on our society (which is why it has also been made illegal). Like I said–why don’t we get to the point where everyone can marry the single person they want to before we begin the date on double and triple-dipping, ok? And in both cases, until we get some scientific evidence actually demonstrating a biological disposition toward the former, trying to equate it to gay marriage simply doesn’t fly.
Because the argument isn’t that if someone naturally likes doing something related to sex, it must therefore be legal. That’s a vast oversimplification. Instead, the argument is that if you want to prevent a certain class of people from experiencing sex and romantic love with the person to whom they are attracted, you need a damn good reason.
In the category of what kind of marriage should be recognized, if you deny gay marriage you deny marriage to an entire group of people altogether unless they get married to someone whom they do not romantically love. If you deny polygamy, you still allow people who prefer polygamous marriage to marry someone whom the romantically love.
And, as I pointed out before, since everyone is attracted to multiple sexual partners, restrictions on polygamy don’t run along fault lines of sexual attraction. They run along lines of preferences to structuring legal relationships. A much less protected preference.
She said choose twice. That implies that she does not think gays are born that way. Does that mean when she marries, she will have to make a decision whether she will marry a man or a woman? Perhaps picking it out of a hat will do. Sorry ,it was a dumb answer.
I think you are the one that is oversimplifying it. What about someone who cannot be satisfied by a single person? Do you deny that someone as such cannot exist? After all I know plenty of people who sleep around all over the place, and others who are serial monogamists. Even when they could be with many people because they are single, they date one person at a time.
And my argument is that incestuous people are a “certain class of people” who are prevented from legally “experiencing sex and romantic love with the person to whom they are attracted”. Similar arguments apply to other kinds of sexual relationships that go outside the bounds of conventional standards.
Yet, you gave arguments against it that are almost exactly the same as arguments used against gay marriage. I don’t get that kind of inconsistency.
Not everyone is interested in being married to multiple people, not everyone is attracted to multiple sexual partners at the same time, and it’s for damn sure that not everyone is inclined towards “experiencing sex and romantic love” with multiple people. Who are you to make such generalized claims?
What about bisexuals, why can they not enter into 3-way marriages to marry someone they love from both sexes?
Hi, bisexual checking in. Being bisexual has absolutely nothing to do with being polyamorous. Please don’t conflate the two.
I’m not conflating the two. I’m just arguing that you should have the choice to be in a legally recognized polyamorous relationship, like say if you were in love with a man and a woman at the same time (even more especially if all 3 loved each other the same way)- just because it’s different and goes against current conventional standards isn’t justification for prohibiting it.
It’s the same argument made for gay marriage, and I don’t see the principles I’m talking about as being any different from allowing gays to get married.
Yes, you’re conflating the two. You can choose to be in a polyamorous relationship whether you are straight, gay, or bisexual. Bringing up bisexuality at the same time as bringing up polyamorous relationships suggests the two are somehow related, conflating the two ideas.
Politics and religion should be left out of the workplace, I consider this a workplace, career, or whatever you call it for the contestants. I believe this question qualifies as both political and having to do with religious view points. There is no doubt this question has a larger impact than other questions. I mean this is one of the most contraversial questions of our society.
Much simpler than all that. If she said something offensive to Jews, she would not win. If she said someting offensive to black people, she would not win. She said something offensive to gay people, and she did not win.
Whats the prob, Bob?