Fear in the wake of a Trump presidency.

[Shadow Wolf]

Politically, I'm sure states will not be back at square 1 if SCOTUS got overturned. I imagine CA and NY would have SSM rights in place the day of or no later than day after SCOTUS decision.

Indiana will not. Kentucky will not. Much of the South will not.

 

[Acim]

That's not debatable. It is a fact numerous states would strip homosexuals and bisexuals of the right to marry someone of the same sex if only given half a chance. Many Republicans are wanting this, and the Dems are going to have to suck it up and kiss up to Trump to keep this from happening.

It's definitely debatable. Your versions of facts are debatable, and for sure questionable.

How is it not bigotry to want to deny rights to a minority that is not causing any harm to anyone, except those who make a big fuss over it and want to see it as a sign of victimhood that they can't discriminate and tell people who they can marry?

By the way you are framing it. All disingenuous. I already covered this. The idea that you base things on questionable notions of facts makes this clear.

Then why bring it up?

Because of the principle. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion?

If I didn't support the right of interracial couples to marry, I would be a bigot as I would not be supporting equality under the law for all citizens. I don't see the difference.

No, you'd be discriminatory, not bigoted. There's plenty of examples of minority segments in American population that don't have equality under the law, and it is definitely discriminatory. I certainly can bring up some, but I imagine when I do, others (perhaps you) will justify the discrimination while distancing self from any notion of bigotry. And I'm sure I'll agree with that, but up to a point because once you go get into the weeds of what is at work for the denial, it does show up as having some bigotry.

Just look at the plural marriage debate on this thread. Not sure where you personally stand, but do you see that which is arguing against it in this thread as inherently bigoted? I don't. But I clearly see it as discriminatory. There's tinges of bigotry in there, but I'm sure if confronted, that stuff would be ignored or downplayed as if the principle suddenly matters more than those little side points (i.e. history of plural marriage in America, only Mormons did it, they did it wrong, therefore not worthy of being considered now).

 

[Acim]

Indiana will not. Kentucky will not. Much of the South will not.

That's your opinion, not fact. If you counter with historical facts, I won't disagree. But given that all of these states are now having SSM couples living in their borders, then that will matter going forward. There will be people in every state (including NY and CA) that don't like it, don't want it. But whatever state upholds denial to marry, will be met, I reckon in much the same way as NC was met with boycott galore by big business. If after all that, they still want it, then they still want it. Who, pray tell is going to live there?

And let's just be clear that however you answer this, it is speculation on our parts. Not fact. If you truly see it as fact, and want to have that intellectual debate, then please present how you are using the term, for the way you are currently using it, I either don't understand or is disingenuous on your part. A way to use the word as appeal to authority and yet carries very little weight because you are purely speculating, and not really backing it up with anything. Really, I've backed up your opinion with supporting weight more than you have, and I still see that opinion as disputable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Politically, I'm sure states will not be back at square 1 if SCOTUS got overturned. I imagine CA and NY would have SSM rights in place the day of or no later than day after SCOTUS decision.

The states that don't have it, and I currently think an overwhelming majority will, I think will have tough time maintaining position not to.

I just think the other side of the equation that we have touched upon but so far haven't discussed much is where steam will pick up via SCOTUS decision. That other side is essentially what Pence brings to the table. There's the LW spin on that, but I do see it as religious freedoms being intact. That if you have a business and same-sex couple are demanding service, you'd have right to refuse it based on religious belief. That'll have repercussions for your business, but still is other side of equation that I personally don't filter only through LW perspective. In fact, I loathe that perspective because of how disingenuous it appears to me in framing the issue.

Let me simply it further. Lets say whatever happens happens and somehow at somepoint in time the SCOTUS decision is overturned. I don't really think that it will but in the future anything is possible. So now SCOTUS is overturned. Anyone living in a state that did not have marriage equality pre-SCOTUS decision will go back to not having it. That is the point I am getting at. The battle is done. why throw it back to the states? Especailly if the argument for doing so is that they wouldn't revert back to pre-SCOTUS policies?

I realize there's complications with plural marriage, but still think principle outweighs that. I really do.



All fair questions. But with custody of children as an issue, I see that monogamous marriages have ongoing, very volatile, problems on this one. Like all things marriage, gotta also realize that some in such an arrangement may not have kids, so in those cases, this one would be a non-issue.



I would say answer to questions you are asking, is general position of each state. Might be different answers depending on which state you are in. I wouldn't advocate for a federal policy on all this, though I'm sure feds will weigh in, and at some point on certain items SCOTUS will be brought in.

But again, all these items are problems even for monogamy arrangements. More complex with plural marriage, but I'm thinking we are smart enough to at least address them, with full realization that there will likely be ongoing disputes about policies that are a matter of state laws to address such items.



Historically, how plural marriages (in America) have worked has been, I think, questionable of whether this is really truly among adults who all fully consent. I do think it mostly has, but still is questionable. But that old way of understanding it, would be off the table, as it would be that and more.

I disagree that monogomus marriages have any comparable level of issues as poly marriages in any of those cases. We have custody laws, we have divorce laws. It is all totally figured out under the current law we have. We need to create a framwork of refrence that is totally different for plural marriages. Actual changes in the law as it is written not a SCOTUS decision. No changes in law as written was required for same sex marriages.

Not sure what you mean by "addressed in full" but if you really just mean addressed and not answered, then I agree. Still I think it could be addressed with idea that surely monogamous arrangements haven't found perfect answers for this and still need lawyers, pre-nups, etc. involved and even then still have very visible (volatile) problems.

And yes, with all that being stated, I still think the principle outweighs the concerns. Not that the concerns hold zero weight, but they don't hold enough weight to go against the principle. The same principle that upholds SSM and interracial marriage. The EXACT SAME principle.

I mean that all of these questions will have to be answered. To be addressed in full means that we can't just say "yep...plural marriges are legal." and then go home. All of the questions I posted have no current legal answer. There are no laws to dictate how it would be mandated. Anything goes at that point. I can understand the desire to have the principle followed through with but you need legal framework to deal with these currently insurmountable issues. We already have the legal framwork for same sex marriage as it is identical to former versions of marriage. Plural marriages function differently. IF man-woman marriages were a teaspoon then marriage equality changes that spoon to a tablespoon. It is the same concept but holds more. You throw in plural marriages and its like eating with chopsticks. The function will be differnet. You need new rules. The old rules of 1) scoop 2) dump in mouth don't apply. It becomes infintely more complicated.

I'm not against setting up those kind of laws but it has to be done with laws not a SCOTUS decision for function reasons and is why it isn't comparable with same sex marriages.

I will also say again that if plural marriages are never legalized it will not step on people's fundamental rights in the same way banning same sex marriage does.

 

[Acim]

Let me simply it further. Lets say whatever happens happens and somehow at somepoint in time the SCOTUS decision is overturned. I don't really think that it will but in the future anything is possible. So now SCOTUS is overturned. Anyone living in a state that did not have marriage equality pre-SCOTUS decision will go back to not having it. That is the point I am getting at. The battle is done. why throw it back to the states? Especailly if the argument for doing so is that they wouldn't revert back to pre-SCOTUS policies?

Because of the religious freedom aspect. And because of the ongoing American debate of who ought to hold ultimate power (Feds or States).

To me, the alternative and you gotta know this stands a chance, is the idea that the religious freedom aspect that Pence (and millions like him) bring to the table is that then becomes Federal statute/mandate.

I disagree that monogomus marriages have any comparable level of issues as poly marriages in any of those cases. We have custody laws, we have divorce laws. It is all totally figured out under the current law we have. We need to create a framwork of refrence that is totally different for plural marriages. Actual changes in the law as it is written not a SCOTUS decision. No changes in law as written was required for same sex marriages.

Then you disagree. That's fine. I see them as not totally figured out and witness almost every single day of my adult life as them being ongoing problems for existing marriages (waiting to happen) and in almost every divorce I've ever witnessed or heard about. Very very few exceptions. So, I think there could be plural marriages where it all goes swimmingly at divorce time and no one is left dissatisfied (including children), and I see it as likely that a majority of cases at times of divorce or death as having lots of ongoing disputes. But all of that could be addressed up front in a way that amounts to figuring it all out to plausible solutions that the State determines is applicable to such marriages.

I mean that all of these questions will have to be answered. To be addressed in full means that we can't just say "yep...plural marriges are legal." and then go home. All of the questions I posted have no current legal answer.

Nor a reason to have them answered right now.

There are no laws to dictate how it would be mandated.

I'm sure it'll borrow heavily from monogamous marital laws. And then have unique policies that pertain to plural marriages. It's not like America in 2016 is the first time in human history a civilized society has conceived of such a marital arrangement.

Anything goes at that point. I can understand the desire to have the principle followed through with but you need legal framework to deal with these currently insurmountable issues. We already have the legal framwork for same sex marriage as it is identical to former versions of marriage. Plural marriages function differently. IF man-woman marriages were a teaspoon then marriage equality changes that spoon to a tablespoon. It is the same concept but holds more. You throw in plural marriages and its like eating with chopsticks. The function will be differnet. You need new rules. The old rules of 1) scoop 2) dump in mouth don't apply. It becomes infintely more complicated.

Your opinions. I disagree it will be insurmountable. Feel free to present a very specific case for as much as you wish to say about it, and if I can provide answer to it, then that will show, not insurmountable. Won't show that everyone in all cases will be satisfied with whatever answer I provide, but that does not exist with monogamous arrangement. Not even close. Not even remotely close. So, this would be more disingenuous crap from your position to frame it as all worked out on current set up and insurmountable due to own discrimination on this issue from your position. But again, feel free to test me on this cause I'd love to put such discrimination to the test, and have you play defense after I provide answer.

I will also say again that if plural marriages are never legalized it will not step on people's fundamental rights in the same way banning same sex marriage does.

Your opinion. You're downplaying principle of the matter to fit own version of discrimination. So be it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because of the religious freedom aspect. And because of the ongoing American debate of who ought to hold ultimate power (Feds or States).

To me, the alternative and you gotta know this stands a chance, is the idea that the religious freedom aspect that Pence (and millions like him) bring to the table is that then becomes Federal statute/mandate.

Thankfully its a SCOTUS thing not a presidential mandate. Pence I fear quite a bit. I didn't like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him but the fact his running mate is Pence threw out any chance of me ever voting for him. I think anyone who cares about marriage equality and voted for Trump had to have either been ignorant about Pence or is lying about being concerned with marriage equality.

I also don't think religous freedom has a thing to do with marriage equality. Religious freedom should mean that the Christian religion doesn't dictate and mandate federal or state law. It often does but that goes against the core of their very own reasoning. I don't think it will happen but if America ever turned to theocracy I'd take up arms.

Then you disagree. That's fine. I see them as not totally figured out and witness almost every single day of my adult life as them being ongoing problems for existing marriages (waiting to happen) and in almost every divorce I've ever witnessed or heard about. Very very few exceptions. So, I think there could be plural marriages where it all goes swimmingly at divorce time and no one is left dissatisfied (including children), and I see it as likely that a majority of cases at times of divorce or death as having lots of ongoing disputes. But all of that could be addressed up front in a way that amounts to figuring it all out to plausible solutions that the State determines is applicable to such marriages.

Its not perfect but legal framework exists for it to function. I objectively don't see the laws that exist for a SCOTUS decision of plural marriages. If a law with these legal frameworks were passed then maybe.

Nor a reason to have them answered right now.



I'm sure it'll borrow heavily from monogamous marital laws. And then have unique policies that pertain to plural marriages. It's not like America in 2016 is the first time in human history a civilized society has conceived of such a marital arrangement.



Your opinions. I disagree it will be insurmountable. Feel free to present a very specific case for as much as you wish to say about it, and if I can provide answer to it, then that will show, not insurmountable. Won't show that everyone in all cases will be satisfied with whatever answer I provide, but that does not exist with monogamous arrangement. Not even close. Not even remotely close. So, this would be more disingenuous crap from your position to frame it as all worked out on current set up and insurmountable due to own discrimination on this issue from your position. But again, feel free to test me on this cause I'd love to put such discrimination to the test, and have you play defense after I provide answer.

The difference i'm pointing out is that SCOTUS should stand. There is no reason the SCOTUS decision should extend to plural marriages as what it changes is very different. Evidence of that is the changes in the law that would have to be made to accomidate the complications of plural marriages. You can advocate all you want on the ethical narritive of plural marraiges and equate it to marriage equality and hope for marriage laws to be changed.

I'm not saying the desire for plural marriages is less nobel or less moral than the desire for same sex marriages. I'm saying the requirments to change them are differnet because what they change are fundamentally and functionally different.

Your opinion. You're downplaying principle of the matter to fit own version of discrimination. So be it.

To what demograhpic does it discriminate? And what is the basis of the discrimination? Obviously it discriminates against people who want to have plural marriages. We are actively discriminating against people who want to marry animals, dead people and innanimate objects. We also are discriminataing against people who think drugs should be legal. Those are all very different than discriminating against someone for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. With the singular exception of religion, whom this country gives special rights for these protections as per the 1st amnedment, they are intrinsic to who they are. You can't help being black, gay or female.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's your opinion, not fact. If you counter with historical facts, I won't disagree.

I post facts and you still disagree, and pretend I'm misrepresenting them, and that I'm buying into "media bias." If direct quotes from Pence isn't enough, then apparently nothing is.

 

[Lighthouse]

If something happens to Trump and Pence becomes President, there is a very real chance, a very likely chance, they are going away. He's already tried it multiple times in Indiana, and had it not been for the Supreme Court shooting him down and legions of angry nerds, sports fans, and corporations threatening to take their money elsewhere, it would have happened.

Very LGBT friendly VP has evolved nicely.

Don't get your information from the media. Their job is to tick you off, make you angry, make you fear, twist people's words.

“This debate today is not about discrimination. I believe that if someone chooses another lifestyle than I have chosen, that is their right in a free society.”

I think that you'll be very surprised at how LGBT friendly this Republican ticket will be. If I'm wrong, well I'll fight with you for those rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Very LGBT friendly VP has evolved nicely.

I'm just going to ignore you from here, because clearly you're trolling. You aren't even wanting to consider what he has said, his positions he has supported, or the legislation he has passed.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm just going to ignore you from here, because clearly you're trolling. You aren't even wanting to consider what he has said, his positions he has supported, or the legislation he has passed.

It'd be in your better interest to ignore the media in my opinion. If you wish to ignore, feel free to.

As said a few times, just about all of them have supported those positions, both parties not long ago. Pence is evolving nicely. I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt before being fearful and making assumptions before a single policy has even been made at these "present" times.

 

[idav]

I think that you'll be very surprised at how LGBT friendly this Republican ticket will be. If I'm wrong, well I'll fight with you for those rights.

Pence agrees with conversion therapy.
https://www.ncscooper.com/mike-pence-gay-conversion-therapy-saved-my-marriage/

 

[Lighthouse]

Pence agrees with conversion therapy.
https://www.ncscooper.com/mike-pence-gay-conversion-therapy-saved-my-marriage/

Do you believe just about everything that you read over the net?

 

[idav]

Do you believe just about everything that you read over the net?

No.

 

[Quagmire]

....sneaks up behind Quagmire.....raises hand......

I can't tell what this means so I've decided to be offended.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't tell what this means so I've decided to be offended.

That is a wise default.

 

[Acim]

Thankfully its a SCOTUS thing not a presidential mandate. Pence I fear quite a bit. I didn't like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him but the fact his running mate is Pence threw out any chance of me ever voting for him. I think anyone who cares about marriage equality and voted for Trump had to have either been ignorant about Pence or is lying about being concerned with marriage equality.

You don't explain anything about Pence. I know LW spin on this. But it's just that LW spin. Given how you started this paragraph, kinda hard to reconcile the concern being expressed.

I also don't think religous freedom has a thing to do with marriage equality.

Then, you're being ignorant. I don't agree with the religious position on this, but I understand it as part of religious freedoms. I understand it as one of the reasons why it really ought to go back to the States.

Religious freedom should mean that the Christian religion doesn't dictate and mandate federal or state law. It often does but that goes against the core of their very own reasoning. I don't think it will happen but if America ever turned to theocracy I'd take up arms.

Everything you wrote here tells me you don't understand the issue as it relates to SSM. Perhaps before SSM, but not post-SSM.

The difference i'm pointing out is that SCOTUS should stand.

This doesn't follow from what I wrote. So, you're moving the goalposts. Let's go with that.

There is no reason the SCOTUS decision should extend to plural marriages as what it changes is very different.

Disagree there is no reason. I can provide reasoning based on points made from the Majority opinion in the SCOTUS decision. Like one of those points is: "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." That applies to plural marriage as much as any other marital arrangement among consenting adults. They made 4 points in the majority decision. I've already provided one reason it does extend to plural marriages, thus defeating your point. I've also made this point in prior posts. So, this comes down to your being discriminatory. Yet, if we go with your language, it comes down to you being bigoted to not see the rationale at work, and to resist it. Let's go with another reason cited in majority decision: "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." This one would be tougher until one realizes that the language of "two-person union" is discriminatory. It's discriminatory toward the majority, or the norm. Same type of stuff could be said prior to SSM, and the discrimination would've been pointed out by those favoring SSM. But the point would read just as accurately if it said: "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two or more person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." That literally changes nothing about the actual point being made, and thus shows the number is rather arbitrary. If you want, I could do similar thing with the other 2 points. Let me know.

You can advocate all you want on the ethical narritive of plural marraiges and equate it to marriage equality and hope for marriage laws to be changed.

I'm not saying the desire for plural marriages is less nobel or less moral than the desire for same sex marriages. I'm saying the requirments to change them are differnet because what they change are fundamentally and functionally different.

It's not fundamentally different. It's arbitrarily different that would have plausible impact on the function, but so does same sex. That would be more minimal, but point is that it is not fundamentally different. Marriage is marriage. It is that simple. That fundamental.

To what demograhpic does it discriminate? And what is the basis of the discrimination? Obviously it discriminates against people who want to have plural marriages. We are actively discriminating against people who want to marry animals, dead people and innanimate objects.

So, after asking your questions, you answered one of them, and then proceeded to bring up 3 instances of things it also discriminates against that do not have to do with (living) consenting adults. And you don't see this as borderline bigotry on your part?

We also are discriminataing against people who think drugs should be legal. Those are all very different than discriminating against someone for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

And I'm saying there is direct connection between plural marriage and bisexuality. Not the first post I've said this in. You disagree. I'm very confident this will come about fairly soon, but admittedly we are still sorting through SSM issues and how society is going to manage that going forward. If SSM were all very much settled, then I see plural marriage becoming prominent issue within a decade, probably less. I also see it having political chance via bisexuality, more so than say because some heterosexual male wants 8 wives. If bisexual female (or male) had 2 partners (one male, one female) and the issue was being pushed, then I would imagine LGBT community would support this, after SSM has been settled. If they didn't support it, it wouldn't terribly surprise me given the bias against bisexuality that I've experienced (personally) from L and G types, but given politics, and how things appear on the surface, I see the community having almost no choice but to support it. Some bisexuals would say they want nothing to do with this issue, others would rejoice. Those speaking up would really be putting L and G to the test. A great many B's already feel alienated by the alleged community, and if this were somehow downplayed as "too complicated" or other BS nonsense like that, then I imagine at least some B's would seek to have nothing to do with L and G ever again when it comes to politics.

With the singular exception of religion, whom this country gives special rights for these protections as per the 1st amnedment, they are intrinsic to who they are. You can't help being black, gay or female.

Correct, but none of these groups need to be married. There is zero reason to support marriage as a requirement. So if allowing it because it is right of being a consenting adult, then (for like my 14th time in this thread) I sure hope you are able to stay consistent with that position. Otherwise, may wish to check your accusations of bigotry at the door.

 

[Acim]

I post facts and you still disagree, and pretend I'm misrepresenting them, and that I'm buying into "media bias." If direct quotes from Pence isn't enough, then apparently nothing is.

You haven't posted facts in what I've quoted from you. I'll be glad to review what you posted and what you are calling facts. You are literally saying things you think will happen are facts. Who does that? Would be like me saying Trump will win a 2nd term and that is a fact.

 

[Acim]

Pence agrees with conversion therapy.
https://www.ncscooper.com/mike-pence-gay-conversion-therapy-saved-my-marriage/

I find this article fascinating.

I wish to make clear I disagree with conversion therapy. While I've had my fair share of conversion type language by G types from my B orientation, ya know, cause I just haven't made up my mind yet. Just haven't had the courage to be who I really am.

But as I see the bias in the article, it is assumption Pence was at one time gay. Perhaps even he sees it that way. Not, he was once bisexual, and likely still is, but chooses to identify and express his sexual side solely through a heterosexual way of life now. Nope, can't frame it that way. Gotta make it about him be homosexual, and filter it through that prism. Cause ya know, he was born that way. Face palm.

“Oh Mike was always a well-groomed sharp dresser,” said University of Chicago Professor James Badwater who was a dorm roommate of Mr. Pence in 1983. “He was private and kept to himself. He had a large collection of Men’s fitness magazines and listened to Wham! continually. He got into the conversion thing the next year, and then immediately married Karen [Mike Pence’s wife] the following year. It’s going to be great to have our first gay Vice President.”

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You don't explain anything about Pence. I know LW spin on this. But it's just that LW spin. Given how you started this paragraph, kinda hard to reconcile the concern being expressed.

I linked you in another thread a list of his statements and actions on bills over the past few years. Are any of them lies?

Then, you're being ignorant. I don't agree with the religious position on this, but I understand it as part of religious freedoms. I understand it as one of the reasons why it really ought to go back to the States.

I think you misunderstand me. I understand the argument proposed by people who use religious freedom as a license to discriminate I simply reject their argument as it isn't sound. You can have full religious freedom while still being unable to discriminate. Nothing about allowing marriage equality inhibits a single iota of religious freedom.

Everything you wrote here tells me you don't understand the issue as it relates to SSM. Perhaps before SSM, but not post-SSM.

Everything you stated here makes me think you don't understand what it means to overturn a SCOTUS without changing the laws. The laws would go exactly back to what they were before SSM decision by SCOTUS.

This doesn't follow from what I wrote. So, you're moving the goalposts. Let's go with that.

Where did I move goalposts? I think you have misunderstood me in numerous occasions thoughout this back and forth. AT least on a few occasions I have misunderstood you I know for a fact.

Disagree there is no reason. I can provide reasoning based on points made from the Majority opinion in the SCOTUS decision. Like one of those points is: "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." That applies to plural marriage as much as any other marital arrangement among consenting adults. They made 4 points in the majority decision. I've already provided one reason it does extend to plural marriages, thus defeating your point. I've also made this point in prior posts. So, this comes down to your being discriminatory. Yet, if we go with your language, it comes down to you being bigoted to not see the rationale at work, and to resist it. Let's go with another reason cited in majority decision: "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." This one would be tougher until one realizes that the language of "two-person union" is discriminatory. It's discriminatory toward the majority, or the norm. Same type of stuff could be said prior to SSM, and the discrimination would've been pointed out by those favoring SSM. But the point would read just as accurately if it said: "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two or more person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." That literally changes nothing about the actual point being made, and thus shows the number is rather arbitrary. If you want, I could do similar thing with the other 2 points. Let me know.

The reason is that marriage and right to marry should not be inhibited based on sexual orientation. Same as it didn't logically follow to allow plural marriages or gay marraiges when we allowed interacial marriages. It is about ending discrimination.

It's not fundamentally different. It's arbitrarily different that would have plausible impact on the function, but so does same sex. That would be more minimal, but point is that it is not fundamentally different. Marriage is marriage. It is that simple. That fundamental.

No. Laws must be put in place first before we can allow plural marriages. There is no legal framework for it to exist. A SCOTUS decision cannot rule on something that has no legal foothold.

What changes fundamentally with SSM vs "traditional marriage"? Nothing. The marriage process and legalites are the same. The only difference is that those same legalities can be done betwen 2 men or 2 women. Proposing plural marriages requires significant change to the function of the laws that DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST! It isn't about right or wrong here. Its about being able to function vs not having a basis in law to function.

So, after asking your questions, you answered one of them, and then proceeded to bring up 3 instances of things it also discriminates against that do not have to do with (living) consenting adults. And you don't see this as borderline bigotry on your part?

You haven't brought up a group that it discriminates against. Unless you count "people who want plural marriages" as a group. And in which case I ask why is that differnet than "people who want to do cocaine"? Same bodily autonomy with consenting adults right? That isn't bigotry or discrimination to state that it is a different than SSM.

And I'm saying there is direct connection between plural marriage and bisexuality.

And you are wrong. End of story on this. Bring evidence to back this up. I have seen the studies on this. I am bisexual. You claim to be bisexual. For the most part it is simply a sterotype that comes out of the myth that bisexuals are sex crazed sluts. There is no biological or psychological reason for bisexuals to require more than one partner. No more or less than heterosexuals or homosexuals. Its like saying you need to have an asian wife, black whife and white wife. Bisexuals are attracted to a wider range of people. IT has nothing to do with their ability or desire to stay monogomus.

Correct, but none of these groups need to be married. There is zero reason to support marriage as a requirement. So if allowing it because it is right of being a consenting adult, then (for like my 14th time in this thread) I sure hope you are able to stay consistent with that position. Otherwise, may wish to check your accusations of bigotry at the door.

Some view marriage as a requirment for pursuite of happiness. It is also discrimination even if it wasn't necessary. IT isn't necessary that someone has candy. But if you say that gays can't have candy then it isn't any less discrimination.

 

[fantome profane]

Pence agrees with conversion therapy.
https://www.ncscooper.com/mike-pence-gay-conversion-therapy-saved-my-marriage/

I find this article fascinating.

I wish to make clear I disagree with conversion therapy. While I've had my fair share of conversion type language by G types from my B orientation, ya know, cause I just haven't made up my mind yet. Just haven't had the courage to be who I really am.

But as I see the bias in the article, it is assumption Pence was at one time gay. Perhaps even he sees it that way. Not, he was once bisexual, and likely still is, but chooses to identify and express his sexual side solely through a heterosexual way of life now. Nope, can't frame it that way. Gotta make it about him be homosexual, and filter it through that prism. Cause ya know, he was born that way. Face palm.

Is everybody aware that this article is from a parody site?

Mike Pence: Gay Conversion Therapy Saved My Marriage

Bill Clinton Confirmed as Bristol Palin’s “Baby Daddy”

Transgender Dog Unsure Which Tree To Pee On

Sorry guys, I don't mean to be a dick, but we gotta start paying attention.