Firx, Homebrew, I see you both have said essentially the same thing; so my comments are to both.
It doesn’t matter whether people are systematically discriminated against because of what they are (gay) or what they choose to do (practice polygamy), does it? The fact of systematic discrimination still would exist. Am I correct here?
And when I was talking about a historical point of view of our society’s view of gay marriages, I was including the future.
“So from a historical point of view, when enough time has elapsed that gay partnerships are generally viewed as acceptable by the majority of the states citizens, then they will as a matter of course be allowed to have the same legal rights as heterosexual partners.”
When enough time has elapsed (so, at an undetermined point in the future)…
I realize that was probably a little unclear, so I apologize for that. (Geez, an apology in the Pit…the universe trembles…)
(pardon me…I don’t know how to do that funky thing)
“Straight men are afraid of gay men because they think that gay men will treat them the way they treat women.”"
Believe it or not, I have never had that thought before in all my pondering on this issue. But I would have to agree with this, at least to the point of my getting the willies; I’m not afraid of gay men. I can be around them and associate with them socially; I just don’t like being hit on by them. It’s kind of like (using the example of my son again) I can be around hip-hop music, but I will never buy one of those CD’s.
Firx, for what it’s worth and because you asked, there are a fair number of polyfolk who consider that to be an intrinsic aspect of their orientation (in several different ways). Not all of those orientations are equivalent to what I’d consider an orientation towards polygamous results; that would require a mental setup that demands multiple marriagelike relationships, which is . . . from my observations, comparatively rare (I have seen only one or two people other than myself who have expressed that they have that wiring).
Of people who actually have multiple marriagelike relationships (a superset containing those with it as an orientation component), I’d call it mmmmmaybe a third of the population practicing relationship-oriented ethical non-monogamy where I can observe the demographics.
I appreciate your response, Lilairen. I’ll take it at face value. I’ll also amend my position to say this: if polygamous people are ‘wired’ that way - which is to say that it’s not a choice, but simply an element that defines who they are, then they are being systematically disenfranchised as well, and the law should be changed. (I take it that not all the people you’re referring to are in actually polygamous, just that they may have an orientation towards multiple long-term relationships.)
I don’t follow Toaster’s line of reasoning. Would he argue that a ban on murder disenfranchises murderers? I doubt it, because even he would probably agree that people do not have a right to murder, and so resticting this behavior does not deprive them of any of their rights. Not so with gays and marraige, because in this case you aren’t just restricting behavior, you’re effectively restricting what kind of person they are allowed to be. In other words, you are denying that gays are people worthy of such rights. In essence, this isn’t any different than racial segregation - in both cases you deny the rights of people based not on what they have chosen to do, but on who they are. Maybe your opinion is different, but I don’t think this is defensible.
Yeah, more or less. (In practice it’s more complicated, and I just spent some large amount of time trying to explain that briefly and coming up with gigantic paragraphs, so I’ll only bother to go into the detail if someone asks. )
Some of the people with an orientation towards multiple long-term relationships have a specific orientation to multiple marriagelike relationships in specific, like myself (I sometimes describe myself as ‘duogamous’ when I’m whimsical). Also, some people with an orientation to multiple long-term relationships find themselves in a situation where they have multiple marriagelike relationships, despite not having an urge to that in specific. And then there are people like my husband, who doesn’t have an opinion on how many relationships he has (can be happy in a monogamous or polyamorous situation) and has two marriagelike relationships and a girlfriend.
Lilairen…I think you would have gigantic paragraphs. I read and re-read your note and I can’t seem to grasp how many people are involved in the relationships you and your husband have.
Firx, well, I think we might be going further afield in this line of argument than I had intended. In trying to reconstruct the ins and outs, I have this:
First, you mentioned that I was denying gays access to an institution that “everybody else had access to”. I then replied to that with the thought that there are other groups of people that also didn’t have (legal) access to that institution, such as polygamists and those wanting to marry their cousin, niece, etc. Your reply to that was my analogy falls apart there because gays are different…that it is something they are, while polygamists choose to be polygamists.
Well, true…and of course no analogy is perfect when carried through to it’s nth…it is, after all, just an analogy. All I was doing was making the point that there are other groups of people who are denied by society and law access to marriage; whether they are a member of a group by choice or by genetics is irrelevant.
And to then argue that we should let gays marry simply because they are discriminated against now is to then argue that other groups should be allowed to marry simply because they are being discriminated against now.
Regardless of however those other groups are defined.
This would be where your analogy falls apart. You can say that not allowing gays to marry denies them the rights associated with marriage (ie, beneficiary rights, etc) and you would be right. You can say that denying murderers the right to participate in murder would deny them their rights (such as freedom, the right to vote, etc) and you would also be right. In the second case, this is a good thing, I think. What people are arguing about is whether the first case is a good thing or not. Some people argue that gays should be allowed to marry in all cases…some people argue that gays should never be allowed to marry in all cases…some people argue that gays sorta kinda should be allowed to marry/have civil unions/whatever.
So you wouldn’t give gays and lesbians the opportunity to participate in the blessed union of marriage because your precious fucking ego can’t take the compliment of being hit on?
And tell me, have you ever actually been hit on by another man? Or is this all just in your head?
At least you’re admitting the problem is yours. :rolleyes:
No, I don’t think so. You see, if I choose to do something, then I have implicitly accepted the consequences of that action. If I commit murder, knowing the laws forbids it, then I have implicitly accepted that the law may punish me. On the other hand, if I am held to a particular set of behavior through no choich of my own, then I am simply a victim of circumstance. In other words, why should I be punished for something I can’t control?
I can see that we’ve been miscommunicating. I haven’t said that gays should be given the right to marry simply because they
are being discriminated against; what I’ve said is that they are being discriminated against *ionly]/i] because of who they are, and that that’s not acceptible. As I’ve said before, why should they be punished for something they have no control over?
I don’t understand your interpretation of the murder example. I wasn’t saying that murderers have a right to murder. Rather, I was saying the opposite. I was contrasting this with marraige, which is a right (remember the supreme court case?). So, in the case of murder, you can enact restrictive legislation without infringing on anyone’s rights (remember, no right to murder). With marraige, this can’t be done.
In essence, my argument is that you can’t infringe on someone’s civil liberties just because they’re gay. If people have a right to marraige, and gays are not voluntarily gay, then to deny them marraige is discriminatory and disenfranchises them. do you follow me now? Where do you disagree?
Firx …very interesting. I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to comment…I’m outta here, going home.
Esprix, glad to see someone is adhering to the spirit of the Pit.
Actually, I HAVE been hit on…and am still getting hit on; and in a manner that leaves no wondering. (That is, it isn’t a case of “Hmmm, did he mean what I thought he meant?”) When a guy asks you to dance, asks you if you want to go out together, puts his hand on your arm , leans into you and asks you if you want to go home together…well, maybe you can call me naive, but I think that the meaning is clear there. And this has been ongoing since, oh…1984. I think a definite trend is there.
Do I think that “I’m all that?” DamnifIknow…you can look at my cheap little website for a pic of mine, but that wouldn’t really help, would it? I don’t get the insult with the name Marie; could you clarify?
“So you wouldn’t give gays and lesbians the opportunity to participate in the blessed union of marriage because your precious fucking ego can’t take the compliment of being hit on?”
Actually, although I have gone through both arguments, I don’t recall ever linking them directly. Are you saying then that I would be capable of supporting gay marriages if I was to take an approach by a gay man as a compliment? Although I guess that would be obvious…if I liked getting hit on by gay men, I guess that would mean I was gay, which would at least imply that I would favor gay marriage.
So I guess you’re right. Simply because of my weak, frail ego, I am against against equal rights for substantial numbers of people.
Oh, wait…I did support civil unions for gays with those rights; just not calling it marriage.
???
Where the hell are you hanging out that men are constantly hitting on you (since 1984, no less)? And why does it bother you so much? I’d still say it’s your fragile little ego, and more’s the pity for you that it can’t handle it. Do you see me freaking out when women hit on me? They might be rude, and they might be idiots, but I don’t harbor any sexist feelings towards them for it - if anything, I thank them for the compliment I assume it’s intended to be. (And no, I’m not saying that everyone has the right to hit on everyone else, and rudeness in either action or word is just plain rudeness, but someone asking you to dance or giving you a compliment is normal human behavior.)
No, what I’m pointing out is that your reluctance to grant gay couples the right to marry (“marry,” mind you, not “civil union,” which is what we’ve been talking about all along) is - and you’ve said this yourself - because it makes you feel all oogie. Now you’re bitching because gay men have hit on you, which makes you feel all oogie.
Again, I’m glad you’re admitting that you’re the one with the problem. Perhaps you should consider getting over it?
Or at least get rid of that gay-bait moustache. And those homosexual-shaped glasses. I’d have thought you were gay if I saw you without knowing who you were. But I wouldn’t have hit on you.
Firx, the risk I see in arguing that it’s only valid to argue for something like marriage rights if one doesn’t have any volition in the matter is that it leads to people arguing that bisexuals can only marry opposite-sex partners because they don’t have to fall in love with people who are the same sex as they are.
Just to clarify my position about that, I’m in favor of allowing everyone to marry anyone they want. Same sex? Fine. Opposite sex? Fine. I don’t think it should make a bit of difference. Whether or not you’re gay is irrelevent (although I’d imagine that the vast majority of straight people would stick to opposite sex marraiges). I also didn’t mean to give the impression that I consider the argument I’ve framed above the only valid argument for same-sex marraiges. There may be others that are equally as valid using, say, a moral approach. Or something else entirely. I think this one works well because it concerns the defense of basic civil rights. YMMV, I suppose.
Incidentally, I’d be willing to bet that the natural disposition of one’s sexuality and sexual preference isn’t simply polarized into ‘gay’ and ‘straight’. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that there is a continuum, and that bisexuals are disposed that way in as naturally valid a manner as are gays and straights.
)