Prohibiting incest might prohibit someone from being with a particular person whom they like, it does not prevent that person from ever being with any person they like. And even if it did, there might be compelling reasons to prohibit it anyway that don’t exist in the same-sex context.
You continue to conflate interest with being married to multiple partners and sexual interest in multiple partners. There are a number of important distinctions between the two.
This girl got an unfair break. As has been pointed out, her answer would have demonized her one way or the other. It’s a friggin BEAUTY pageant!. We’re not looking for a congresswoman. Perez Hilton is a complete asshole. And a dishonest piece of shit to boot. He characterizes her as getting booed. While there very well have been some people booing, many more seemed to be applauding. And again, as someone else pointed out, why the fuck is anyone gay judging a beauty pageant. “Oh yeah, I like the one with the boyish body and the square jaw.”:rolleyes:
But there is beauty in this. Because of the actions of the asshole queen, this women is going to be given a larger platform for her opinions while being given the cover of being a victim of the leftist ideology. That’s some mother fucking justice for you, Scrunchface Perez.
So. I’m not the only one here thinking in terms of Sarah Palin’s running mate come 2012 then?
Awesome!
Well, you’re the only one to admit it.
Yes, actually, you are. You brought up bisexuality as if it were especially pertinent to the subject of polyamory. It’s not. Being bisexual does not make one any more or less likely to want to be involved in more than one romantic relationship at a time. Any argument for or against polyamory works equally well if the subject is hetero-, homo-, or bisexual.
It’s one of the arguments made for gay marriage. There are other arguments for gay marriage that do not apply to polyamorous marriage, and that are arguments against polyamorous marriage that do not apply to gay marriage.
Note that I’m not taking a position in this thread for or against polygamy. It is, however, a separate issue from gay marriage.
That doesn’t seem very fair. I’m not attracted to paintings or sculptures, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognise beauty in them. I realise i’m not exactly the best person to say it, but sexual orientation doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate attractive members of an orientation you aren’t attracted to.
Surely you yourself can see a difference in attractiveness between, say, Hugh Jackman and Wilfred Brimley?
I only mentioned bisexuality and polyamorous relationships together as an example. So no, I’m not conflating anything, you’re just not understanding what I’m trying to say (for whatever reason, whether my fault or yours).
To suit your pedantic responses, if multiple people are in love with each other, why should they be denied legal marriage with each other? Please, give me an answer that doesn’t rely on the same logic that anti-gay marriage people use to argue against gay marriage.
So far you’ve only used really poor arguments to counter my point, and have instead spent your time nitpicking my wording rather than answer my questions.
Prohibiting gay marriage might prohibit someone from being with a particular person whom they like, it does not prevent that person from ever being with any person they like.
You’re using very poor arguments to try and counter the point I’m making.
Absolutely not. I’m merely extending the same logic and arguments used to support gay marriage, to other situations outside of long-standing cultural standards in regards to sexual relationships and the legal recognition of them.
And you guys are countering by nitpicking words, and even using the same bogus arguments that anti-gay marriage people use to justify being against gay marriage. You don’t want the government to prohibit one class from having their particular relationships be legally recognized , but you’re ok with the government prohibiting others that you don’t find ok. That makes zero sense to me, as it strikes me as a blatant double-standard.
The way the question was phrased did leave room for a fairly moderate answer. She wasn’t asked “Gay marriage: yay or nay?” but rather if the 46 states that do not allow gay marriage should follow the example of the four that do. She could have answered with something like “That should be a matter for each state to decide, with the people of each state voting as they think is right”.
I would (perhaps unfairly) assume that anyone who gave that answer was personally opposed to legalizing gay marriage, but at least it leaves the door open for the possibility. It also allows for gay marriage to be explicitly banned at the state level, which is exactly what has happened in most states, so I’d think such an answer would be acceptable to most gay marriage opponents.
Exactly, she didn’t even answer the question they gave her. She was asked what other states should do, and she was babbling about what her family believes, but stopped short of saying everyone should do what her family thinks. That wasn’t the question.
It prevents a gay person from ever marrying a person they like.
Often when one fails to understand one’s opponent’s arguments, it seems like they are nit-picking words. This is because you don’t understand the distinctions they are drawing.
Shifting goalposts. Yes it would prevent them being with a specific person they like, but not with any person they like. Just like a brother and sister who want to be married, or other such combinations - they’re prevented from ever marrying the person they like.
How is the argument any different for an incestual relationships, and other unconventional relationships that are legally prohibited? Stop dancing around my questions and answer them, or stop wasting my time with your empty responses.
I understand perfectly well, unfortunately your nitpicks have been overly pedantic and unnecessary, and it seems to me you’re doing it to avoid giving me a straight answer. And please knock it off with your underhand insinuation as to my intelligence and ability to understand what you’re posting, I’m not an idiot and you shouldn’t insinuate such while you’re in the process of evading my questions and points.
That’s a fair point, to a degree. While I can see the difference, I’d hardly expect to be the authority on the subject. I’d have heterosexual women do it. Or even lesbians maybe (non-dyke strain). Someone who is predisposed to find the sex in question attractive.
Yes, it’s hard for me to see, but I’m not sure what you mean by “innate part of one’s nature.” Let’s talk about polygamy versus homosexuality, since both are fairly widespread and condoned in many areas.
In your view, what evidence is competent to show that the urge among some men to have sexual relations with other men is an “innate part” of their “nature?”
It seems to me that there is likely to be similar evidence with respect to the urge some men have to have sexual relations with multiple women during the same time period.
Instead of defending the illegalization of polygamy and incest, why not just say that maybe those things shouldn’t be illegal either? Solves the whole “is it analogous to gays or not?” thing.
I don’t personally believe you can make the comparison, but if convinced, then I’d go for allowing all 3.
No, it would categorically prevent them from marrying any person they could potentially love romantically. Given that that number runs into the tens of millions within this country alone, that is categorically different than the incest situation, where the number of people excluded from the marriage pool is…two dozen? Three? Not to mention the fact that there are serious biological concerns about the dangers of inbreeding with incestuous couples, as well as a noted association of substance abuse, depression, eating disorders, and suicide within incestuous relationships. Society does not benefit from sanctioning incestuous couples, while it does from promoting millions of monogamous relationships within the gay community. That you continue to quite intentionally ignore these qualitiative and quantitative differences (while reductively conflating everything to Desire) shows either an intentional obtuseness or a casual intellectual dishonesty.
And as we’ve discussed, polyagimists aren’t prevented from marrying any other single individual they want. They’re simply prevented from marrying as many as they want. If for the purpose of this debate you want to say that polygamists and homosexuals are similar in orientation, than you’re going to have to demonstrate some evidence that supports this. Do you have some scientific studies to defends this assertion? Or do you simply fall back on this cushy Desire-is-Desire-It’s-All-the-Same position? Because if you’re going to be so thinskinned about your debating acumen, you’re going to have to come up with something more substantial than that.
You’re not at all familiar with the fashion industry, are you?
There was no reason to use them together as an example. Your argument is equally valid with gay or straight relationships. Particularly because people who actively date members of both sex are rare relative to gay and straight people, your example strongly suggested that polyamory and bisexuality were somehow combined. Everyone understood your point just fine, we just realized you were suggesting the two went together.
It’s fine by me if they’re really in love. It just doesn’t have anything to do with being bisexual.
How about this: the American Psychiatric Assocation recognizes that homosexuality falls under a larger sexual orientation schema–a continuum that runs from heterosexuality on one end to homosexuality on the other, with gradations (degrees of bisexuality) inbetween.
Good. As soon as you find an equally respected institution that can make the same claim of monogamy and polygamy being part of an equally recognized continuum rooted in the same level of scientific inquiry toward this subject, than you go ahead and bring that back here and we’ll proceed.
I disagree. There are plenty of people (mainly women) who prefer to be with just one guy; who will not have relations with other men even if their boyfriend or husband doesn’t mind; who will not have sexual relations with other men even if their boyfriend or husband wants them to do so.
Again, that’s just not so.
Can you give me a cite for that? I’m having trouble finding it with an internet search. Thank you.
And is it your position that any desire which varies on a continuum from person to person is an innate part of human nature?