Fear in the wake of a Trump presidency.

[Acim]

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?

Please let me know where that link is again. Must've missed it.

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.

I disagree. For public service, I'd say the unable to discriminate (against minority rights) makes sense. For private, it doesn't. That's where I see the battle occurring, and not sure why it would have great resistance other than some won't stop pushing on own version of equality regardless of who it offends.

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, but nice try in turning the tables on me.

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.

It's possible I have misunderstood you on occasion in this discussion. But if you just click the arrows that link back to what was previously said, you'll see that you are at times quoting me and then making a different point. Like the one right before this one where I said "This doesn't follow from what I wrote." By my count, that's twice I've stated that. The first time was you changing the point to another point than what you quoted me as saying, as if ignoring all that to make your new/updated point. This recent time you did it because I said "you don't understand" and then decided to just have me show up that way, based on you attempting to turn the tables.

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.

Denial of plural marriages is entirely about discrimination. Only in the case of say a bisexual who may wish to marry the two genders they are attracted to by definition of their orientation, would it discrimination against a minority of the population based on sexual orientation. No bisexual person needs to marry 2 people. That is accurate. But they may wish to and that would naturally follow from definition of bisexuality. Here's let's quote that orientations definition so we can be clear on this: sexually attracted to both men and women. That is 2 sets of people. They are free in a monogamous only culture to marry either-or. Just as homosexuals were free to marry person's of the opposite sex and have a fling on the side if they wanted to maintain their homosexual loving relationships. Keep the married one celibate, and achieve benefits of marriage. Yeah, I get that this is a big ignorant, but is to me how ignorant it shows up to me that a bisexual ought to be happy with monogamy as law of the land. If some bisexuals are perfectly satisfied under that arrangement, great, for them. If others are not, I very much can relate to them. I can't readily relate to the monogamous ones, and would love to discuss with them how truly satisfied they are. In fact I have. And it generally comes down to idea of "well, there never going to change that policy." Or it comes down to they have agreement with spouse to be open in their marriage, but they don't themselves feel need to make a push. Then there are some like me that see a need to make a push, especially given EXACT SAME principle at work in arguing for SSM. Not the same nuances. Not saying that is identical, for surely that is not identical to traditional marriage, nor should it be.

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.

There's really nothing disallowing plural marriage other than specific laws in some states that forbid it. Once SSM is changed, I imagine those laws will be challenged with idea of equality in marriage already allows for plural marriages to be had based on principles of what is said in previous rulings.

What changes fundamentally with SSM vs "traditional marriage"? Nothing.

Correct, nothing fundamentally changes. Same with plural marriage.

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, here is where we aren't actually disagreeing, but I feel you are not realizing that your views on functionally different are laced with discrimination claims (for sure) and bigotry type claims (at least a little bit). Things like it would be insurmountable to make those changes. It wouldn't. It'll happen. Once SSM is settled (which ought to be before end of Trump's first term, no later than term after his), it'll open a door for plural marriages to occur. When they do they will set precedent. How that all plays out remains to be seen. But nothing about the fundamental aspect of marriage will be tested, just the way some think marriages ought to function. It will certainly greatly challenge those stuck in the view that only monogamous marriages are righteous.

You haven't brought up a group that it discriminates against.

I have. Bisexuals.

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.

So, you're a bigoted bisexual. That's good to know.

 

[Acim]

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

I wasn't aware. Thanks for the update.

I don't feel it changes much of what I was getting across. But certainly means what I said can be either ignored or taken with grain of salt.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

But the part about the two-headed alien baby, that's true, right?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Please let me know where that link is again. Must've missed it.

I'm sure you'll find it. In the mean time here are 3 more. Any minor amount of research however will show he is litterally famous for being one of the most active republicans against marriage equality and abortion. He is also famous as one of the few republicans that have openly supported conversation camps in recent years.

http://www.ibtimes.com/indiana-anti...ence-funded-him-he-fought-lgbt-rights-1867874
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...gov-mike-pences-position-gay-rights/78257192/
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ts-about-mike-pencerecord-reproductive-rights

I disagree. For public service, I'd say the unable to discriminate (against minority rights) makes sense. For private, it doesn't. That's where I see the battle occurring, and not sure why it would have great resistance other than some won't stop pushing on own version of equality regardless of who it offends.

Then we will stand on different sides of the fence. A good example is the cake incident back in Orlando Florida. That one was close to home for me and I followed it closely. As a general question did you side with the state or the shop owners in this case?

This doesn't follow from what I wrote, but nice try in turning the tables on me.

Sure thing buddy.

It's possible I have misunderstood you on occasion in this discussion. But if you just click the arrows that link back to what was previously said, you'll see that you are at times quoting me and then making a different point. Like the one right before this one where I said "This doesn't follow from what I wrote." By my count, that's twice I've stated that. The first time was you changing the point to another point than what you quoted me as saying, as if ignoring all that to make your new/updated point. This recent time you did it because I said "you don't understand" and then decided to just have me show up that way, based on you attempting to turn the tables.

I'm getting tired of the pissing contest. Lets get real specific and tell me where I have moved some goalposts.

Denial of plural marriages is entirely about discrimination. Only in the case of say a bisexual who may wish to marry the two genders they are attracted to by definition of their orientation, would it discrimination against a minority of the population based on sexual orientation. No bisexual person needs to marry 2 people. That is accurate. But they may wish to and that would naturally follow from definition of bisexuality. Here's let's quote that orientations definition so we can be clear on this: sexually attracted to both men and women. That is 2 sets of people. They are free in a monogamous only culture to marry either-or. Just as homosexuals were free to marry person's of the opposite sex and have a fling on the side if they wanted to maintain their homosexual loving relationships. Keep the married one celibate, and achieve benefits of marriage. Yeah, I get that this is a big ignorant, but is to me how ignorant it shows up to me that a bisexual ought to be happy with monogamy as law of the land. If some bisexuals are perfectly satisfied under that arrangement, great, for them. If others are not, I very much can relate to them. I can't readily relate to the monogamous ones, and would love to discuss with them how truly satisfied they are. In fact I have. And it generally comes down to idea of "well, there never going to change that policy." Or it comes down to they have agreement with spouse to be open in their marriage, but they don't themselves feel need to make a push. Then there are some like me that see a need to make a push, especially given EXACT SAME principle at work in arguing for SSM. Not the same nuances. Not saying that is identical, for surely that is not identical to traditional marriage, nor should it be.

Why do you see bisexual disparity at monogamy any different than homosexual or heterosexual disparity? If a heterosexual male wants a plural relationship based on the fact he is attracted to both white and asian women does that follow? Does it mean that he would be discriminated against if he can't marry an asian girl and a white girl to fully satisfy him? Yes or no?

There's really nothing disallowing plural marriage other than specific laws in some states that forbid it. Once SSM is changed, I imagine those laws will be challenged with idea of equality in marriage already allows for plural marriages to be had based on principles of what is said in previous rulings.



Correct, nothing fundamentally changes. Same with plural marriage.

Except for all of the issues that I already pointed out. I am most interested in hearing your explanation of how joint ownership of properties work as well as the network of who is married to who? Do you propose an ever growing group that just gets bigger by one every new inclusion or is it a net where only certain people are married to other certain people? Person A is married to person B and C while person C and B are not married to each other but B is married to D who is also married to C but not married to A? And what happens if only one person leaves? Can A leave and take half of B and C's stuff even though half of B's stuff also belongs to D? There are no laws in existence to deal with definitions of property, child custody and divorce. If there is to be a push it needs to be done from the legislative side not the judicial side.

I have. Bisexuals.

And I disagree. Bring evidence. Show up or shut up with your claim.

So, you're a bigoted bisexual. That's good to know.

No. Just one who understands that being attracted to more than one person does not consititute as having to have sex with more than one person. At least not to any more of an extensive degree than any other sexuality. Care to provide evidence to the contrary? I have been waiting since the first time you made the claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But the part about the two-headed alien baby, that's true, right?

Yes. No need to worry there. That was was legit.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes. No need to worry there. That was was legit.

Cool, cuz that's who I'm voting for in the next election.

 

[Acim]

I'm sure you'll find it. In the mean time here are 3 more. Any minor amount of research however will show he is litterally famous for being one of the most active republicans against marriage equality and abortion. He is also famous as one of the few republicans that have openly supported conversation camps in recent years.

http://www.ibtimes.com/indiana-anti...ence-funded-him-he-fought-lgbt-rights-1867874
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...gov-mike-pences-position-gay-rights/78257192/
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ts-about-mike-pencerecord-reproductive-rights

So, after reviewing these links, I'm going to need you (or anyone) to quote from this to make the case as strong as you like about the points you like, though do think abortion stuff ought to be off the table. Not that I'd mind that, but feel that would take away from the other discussion, as I'm about as Pro-Life as they get, so not going to let that stuff go by unchallenged if somehow that's what needs to be discussed, ya know, to move the goalposts. Given the entirety of these articles (really just 2 of them), I have even more of a tough time understanding why he's considered anti-LGBT. For sure why he'd be considered anti-BT, but you know where I stand on B and marriage equality. In fact, I honestly believe I'm more pro-marriage equality than many (arguably most) L and G persons, but then again, I just frame it differently (though my version certainly includes SSM). Anyway, feel free to use stuff from this article that helps make the case clear that he's anti-LGBT.

Now, perhaps that's me moving the goalposts. If the claim is strictly that he's somehow anti-marriage equality and not necessarily anti-LGBT, then I'd probably have less of a disagreement, though I don't exactly think he's anti-marriage equality. And given how pro-marriage equality I am, kinda feels like I'm often surrounded by people who are less pro-equality across the board. Thus, if what makes Pence anti, is because he's not pro-SSM, then it would follow that there's arguably a whole heckuvalot of people that are anti-marriage equality, but frame it differently so as to justify their own discrimination.

Then we will stand on different sides of the fence. A good example is the cake incident back in Orlando Florida. That one was close to home for me and I followed it closely. As a general question did you side with the state or the shop owners in this case?

Not sure which cake incident you are referring to. I'm aware of two, I think. Are you referencing the one where owner refused to put anti-gay message on the cake?

Honestly, regardless of which one you are talking about, I think my response for both is the same, that the owner ought to have right to refuse the request, and if it matches with religious beliefs that can in some way be verified (as existing before the request), then they ought to not be held liable for discrimination. Either way, being the pro-free market person I am (and that I see Pence as), it would mean to me that whatever backlash such a business entails in terms of social media is probably going to hurt their business. I don't necessarily advocate for that, but do think a "buy-cott" ought to be promoted in which businesses known not to engage in prejudice ought to be promoted socially. I could say more, but do think I'd show up as mostly consistent on this, but perhaps not perfectly consistent.

I'm getting tired of the pissing contest. Lets get real specific and tell me where I have moved some goalposts.

In post #207, you said: "The difference i'm pointing out is that SCOTUS should stand." As stated before, this doesn't follow from what I wrote, nor from you wrote in post before this that you wrote and I quoted from. I acknowledge it is part of overall points you are making, but given where things were right there in then, it is you changing what was being discussed to this point. And I said I'd go with that. I still do. I do see SCOTUS ruling as opening the door to plural marriage, different (alleged) functioning and all. There are numerous ways that traditional marriage and SSM are said to be different, even legally and one of those is the influence that religions have on marriage institution and ceremonial rights. Which is the other part of the discussion I keep addressing. But because 'marriage is marriage' then fundamentally, they are not different, and thus your ongoing point whereby you conclude that the functioning is so vastly different is not something you're going to have me going along with. I see the SCOTUS ruling as opening up that door. There will be no turning back unless there are active laws on the books (really in all 50 states) that deny that type of arrangement. Which because of bigamy there are currently laws, and is how courts treat it, but is dicey, and I would say that is partially (to mostly) because bigamy usually involves deception whereby 2 of the spouses do not know that the other spouse exists (thus not consenting) and partially because of how orthodox/traditional religions view marriage. Which is similar to the whole SSM debate. Once that is settled legally (such that the religious thing is either downplayed to no right, at all to discriminate against, or appeased in some fashion), then it'll really just be about overcoming the bigamy hurdle. I see that as occurring easily once the religious stuff is done away with, and the consent thing is fully addressed. Such that bigamy could still be a crime, while polygamy is not.

Now, how I see this and how it all plays out, remains to be seen, but I really (really) do see it coming about through bisexual polyandrous relationships that seek to engage in legal marriage among, with full consent given among all adults involved. Yes, there will be other issues (functional ones) to work out, but as stated before, I see that borrowing significantly from existing legal framework.

Where I think we may strongly disagree is where you said: "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." I see them as only needing to be addressed, and that will occur through the SCOTUS decision on SSM. Cause in reality, all the answers for SSM are not currently answered, such that we have the religious freedom thing holding things up. There is very visible disagreement on this point, and while some might argue the religious freedoms are best ignored, others would argue they are best appeased (seek a compromise that doesn't go against a person's religious sensibilities when it comes to their private business transactions). The fight for SSM addressed this beforehand, but because it didn't satisfactorily answer it, then there is a problem here. If that problem is settled, then I would be very surprised if anyone but orthodox religious types fought against plural marriages. I wouldn't be surprised if people had questions on how will that work out, or questions on what are legitimate obstacles that could pose a societal problem with these type of arrangements. But those questions are not insurmountable, anymore than religious freedoms are currently insurmountable with regards to SSM.

Why do you see bisexual disparity at monogamy any different than homosexual or heterosexual disparity? If a heterosexual male wants a plural relationship based on the fact he is attracted to both white and asian women does that follow? Does it mean that he would be discriminated against if he can't marry an asian girl and a white girl to fully satisfy him? Yes or no?

Yes to the last question. Because I am pro-marriage equality and believe right now that plural marriage ought to be fully allowed, then a society that disallows it (in any case among fully consenting adults) is discriminating against this. Yet, because of what I stated above, I don't see the easy political avenue for anyone else, other than bisexuals. Once it goes through for bisexuals, it'll open the door for everyone that may want such a marriage. I predict most will not, though I'd stipulate that with not for awhile. I think it would eventually grow more popular, but could take a generation or two (read as up to 80 years) before it is more prominent.

Except for all of the issues that I already pointed out. I am most interested in hearing your explanation of how joint ownership of properties work as well as the network of who is married to who? Do you propose an ever growing group that just gets bigger by one every new inclusion or is it a net where only certain people are married to other certain people? Person A is married to person B and C while person C and B are not married to each other but B is married to D who is also married to C but not married to A? And what happens if only one person leaves? Can A leave and take half of B and C's stuff even though half of B's stuff also belongs to D? There are no laws in existence to deal with definitions of property, child custody and divorce. If there is to be a push it needs to be done from the legislative side not the judicial side.

Ask me these questions again, but one at a time. I'll be glad to address as many as you want, but rather not tackle all such scenarios in one post.

And I disagree. Bring evidence. Show up or shut up with your claim.

I did google search (not for my first time) on "link between bisexuality and polyamory." First link (from Psychology Today) in first sentence says, "There is a strong link between polyamory and bisexuality." Not the only link I saw noting this. This article, like many others and even my own position says not only bisexual persons hold a polyandrous view. But, if you really wish for me to provide the links that back up the connection I am saying exists, I will. Part of me can't believe you dispute this.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, after reviewing these links, I'm going to need you (or anyone) to quote from this to make the case as strong as you like about the points you like, though do think abortion stuff ought to be off the table. Not that I'd mind that, but feel that would take away from the other discussion, as I'm about as Pro-Life as they get, so not going to let that stuff go by unchallenged if somehow that's what needs to be discussed, ya know, to move the goalposts. Given the entirety of these articles (really just 2 of them), I have even more of a tough time understanding why he's considered anti-LGBT. For sure why he'd be considered anti-BT, but you know where I stand on B and marriage equality. In fact, I honestly believe I'm more pro-marriage equality than many (arguably most) L and G persons, but then again, I just frame it differently (though my version certainly includes SSM). Anyway, feel free to use stuff from this article that helps make the case clear that he's anti-LGBT.

Now, perhaps that's me moving the goalposts. If the claim is strictly that he's somehow anti-marriage equality and not necessarily anti-LGBT, then I'd probably have less of a disagreement, though I don't exactly think he's anti-marriage equality. And given how pro-marriage equality I am, kinda feels like I'm often surrounded by people who are less pro-equality across the board. Thus, if what makes Pence anti, is because he's not pro-SSM, then it would follow that there's arguably a whole heckuvalot of people that are anti-marriage equality, but frame it differently so as to justify their own discrimination.

If you do not see anti-human rights actions in his record after taking a serious go at those links then there is nothing I can debate with you further on the topic.

Not sure which cake incident you are referring to. I'm aware of two, I think. Are you referencing the one where owner refused to put anti-gay message on the cake?

Honestly, regardless of which one you are talking about, I think my response for both is the same, that the owner ought to have right to refuse the request, and if it matches with religious beliefs that can in some way be verified (as existing before the request), then they ought to not be held liable for discrimination. Either way, being the pro-free market person I am (and that I see Pence as), it would mean to me that whatever backlash such a business entails in terms of social media is probably going to hurt their business. I don't necessarily advocate for that, but do think a "buy-cott" ought to be promoted in which businesses known not to engage in prejudice ought to be promoted socially. I could say more, but do think I'd show up as mostly consistent on this, but perhaps not perfectly consistent.

The reason I don't agree with that is because they are the minority. If you live in a town that is hyper conservative and the number of people who support gay marraige is significantly less than those that oppose it, you could see any kind of buisiness (technically almost all kinds of buisiness) refusing to provide services based on religious grievances. "I won't sell groceries to gays" "I won't rent to gays" "I won't sell a car to gays" ect ect ect. If the community is conservative enough there will be no backlash unless there is legal recourse. I believe that a shop should be able to refuse to make a cake that says "**** the police". Why? Because they can refuse what they make but not who they sell it too. I think that they should not refuse service to even KKK members unless it became a problem. You can discriminate ideas but no people.

In post #207, you said: "The difference i'm pointing out is that SCOTUS should stand." As stated before, this doesn't follow from what I wrote, nor from you wrote in post before this that you wrote and I quoted from. I acknowledge it is part of overall points you are making, but given where things were right there in then, it is you changing what was being discussed to this point. And I said I'd go with that. I still do. I do see SCOTUS ruling as opening the door to plural marriage, different (alleged) functioning and all. There are numerous ways that traditional marriage and SSM are said to be different, even legally and one of those is the influence that religions have on marriage institution and ceremonial rights. Which is the other part of the discussion I keep addressing. But because 'marriage is marriage' then fundamentally, they are not different, and thus your ongoing point whereby you conclude that the functioning is so vastly different is not something you're going to have me going along with. I see the SCOTUS ruling as opening up that door. There will be no turning back unless there are active laws on the books (really in all 50 states) that deny that type of arrangement. Which because of bigamy there are currently laws, and is how courts treat it, but is dicey, and I would say that is partially (to mostly) because bigamy usually involves deception whereby 2 of the spouses do not know that the other spouse exists (thus not consenting) and partially because of how orthodox/traditional religions view marriage. Which is similar to the whole SSM debate. Once that is settled legally (such that the religious thing is either downplayed to no right, at all to discriminate against, or appeased in some fashion), then it'll really just be about overcoming the bigamy hurdle. I see that as occurring easily once the religious stuff is done away with, and the consent thing is fully addressed. Such that bigamy could still be a crime, while polygamy is not.

Now, how I see this and how it all plays out, remains to be seen, but I really (really) do see it coming about through bisexual polyandrous relationships that seek to engage in legal marriage among, with full consent given among all adults involved. Yes, there will be other issues (functional ones) to work out, but as stated before, I see that borrowing significantly from existing legal framework.

Where I think we may strongly disagree is where you said: "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." I see them as only needing to be addressed, and that will occur through the SCOTUS decision on SSM. Cause in reality, all the answers for SSM are not currently answered, such that we have the religious freedom thing holding things up. There is very visible disagreement on this point, and while some might argue the religious freedoms are best ignored, others would argue they are best appeased (seek a compromise that doesn't go against a person's religious sensibilities when it comes to their private business transactions). The fight for SSM addressed this beforehand, but because it didn't satisfactorily answer it, then there is a problem here. If that problem is settled, then I would be very surprised if anyone but orthodox religious types fought against plural marriages. I wouldn't be surprised if people had questions on how will that work out, or questions on what are legitimate obstacles that could pose a societal problem with these type of arrangements. But those questions are not insurmountable, anymore than religious freedoms are currently insurmountable with regards to SSM.

I think you overestimate the creative powers of the Judicial branch.

Yes to the last question. Because I am pro-marriage equality and believe right now that plural marriage ought to be fully allowed, then a society that disallows it (in any case among fully consenting adults) is discriminating against this. Yet, because of what I stated above, I don't see the easy political avenue for anyone else, other than bisexuals. Once it goes through for bisexuals, it'll open the door for everyone that may want such a marriage. I predict most will not, though I'd stipulate that with not for awhile. I think it would eventually grow more popular, but could take a generation or two (read as up to 80 years) before it is more prominent.

You're argument is self defeating in the case of bisexuals. It seems to me, correct me if I"m wrong, that you rather support the idea of legal poly marriages not based on people being bisexual but because it is consenting adults and they should be able to do what they want. I just want it to be clear that it is not discriminatory to bisexuals as a group but rather you feel it is an extension of the rights of consenting adults. That was what your argument seemed to hinge on earlier. If so we can agree but disagree to the degree of where laws need to be made.

I did google search (not for my first time) on "link between bisexuality and polyamory." First link (from Psychology Today) in first sentence says, "There is a strong link between polyamory and bisexuality." Not the only link I saw noting this. This article, like many others and even my own position says not only bisexual persons hold a polyandrous view. But, if you really wish for me to provide the links that back up the connection I am saying exists, I will. Part of me can't believe you dispute this.

I've done a lot of research in this department over the last few years. What I have come across is that a significantly larger portion of the population of people who are in poly-relationships tended to have at least one bisexual.

The reasoning for this isn't because the majority of bisexuals are poly (as in fact the vast majority are monogomus) but that they are more open to the concept of another partner. IF a man and a woman are in a heterosexual relationship and both are heterosexual themselves there is no way to incorporate an additional person and it be a truely plural relatinship. IT would be then just a man with two women or a woman with two men. Not a three way relationship but one person with two relationships.

While it is possible for homosexuals to have truely plural relatinoships it is typically rare. Though more common in lesbians than gay men.

Nothing inhernit to the bisexuals brings about a need for a poly relatinship but their sexual dynamics allow it to be far easier to be in a poly relatinship sexually.

 

[Acim]

If you do not see anti-human rights actions in his record after taking a serious go at those links then there is nothing I can debate with you further on the topic.

I accept your concession.

Oh wait, there's more.

The reason I don't agree with that is because they are the minority. If you live in a town that is hyper conservative and the number of people who support gay marraige is significantly less than those that oppose it, you could see any kind of buisiness (technically almost all kinds of buisiness) refusing to provide services based on religious grievances. "I won't sell groceries to gays" "I won't rent to gays" "I won't sell a car to gays" ect ect ect. If the community is conservative enough there will be no backlash unless there is legal recourse. I believe that a shop should be able to refuse to make a cake that says "**** the police". Why? Because they can refuse what they make but not who they sell it too. I think that they should not refuse service to even KKK members unless it became a problem. You can discriminate ideas but no people.

I hear your disagreement and personally agree with it. But I think free market works as such that the right to refuse who you sell it to is part of that freedom. In some ways, I think this really ought to be put to the test, as to who does better in that market - the cake maker that sells to everyone, or the one that sells to some but not others?

Apart from that theoretical, I see your point as based on theoretical claims currently not in play, such that businesses of all sorts will not sell to people because 'they are gay.' That is different than not selling because 'this product will be used for homosexual marriage.' If ignoring nuances, I can see how they appear to be so similar to be deemed 'the same thing,' but in reality, they are not. And we don't live in a current reality where (many) businesses are not selling their goods and services to people because they are gay.

You're argument is self defeating in the case of bisexuals. It seems to me, correct me if I"m wrong, that you rather support the idea of legal poly marriages not based on people being bisexual but because it is consenting adults and they should be able to do what they want. I just want it to be clear that it is not discriminatory to bisexuals as a group but rather you feel it is an extension of the rights of consenting adults. That was what your argument seemed to hinge on earlier. If so we can agree but disagree to the degree of where laws need to be made.

It's discriminatory because of the principle. And I see it as having direct link to bisexuality, thus discriminatory to that group. But yes, not only that group. The argument hinges on the principle but does impact a group. I feel I've been both clear on this and explained my position extensively.

I've done a lot of research in this department over the last few years. What I have come across is that a significantly larger portion of the population of people who are in poly-relationships tended to have at least one bisexual.

The reasoning for this isn't because the majority of bisexuals are poly (as in fact the vast majority are monogomus) but that they are more open to the concept of another partner. IF a man and a woman are in a heterosexual relationship and both are heterosexual themselves there is no way to incorporate an additional person and it be a truely plural relatinship. IT would be then just a man with two women or a woman with two men. Not a three way relationship but one person with two relationships.

While it is possible for homosexuals to have truely plural relatinoships it is typically rare. Though more common in lesbians than gay men.

Nothing inhernit to the bisexuals brings about a need for a poly relatinship but their sexual dynamics allow it to be far easier to be in a poly relatinship sexually.

We disagree on your last point. The inherent nature of bisexuality is attraction to both genders, hence more than one person. If somehow, magically, a bisexual was able to marry a single person that is both genders, and all bisexuals were able to do this, then I think it would be a rather short debate from my end. Yet, with monogamy as overwhelming favored arrangement for marriage, it is almost as if it is society saying you cannot be committed in marriage unless you are doing that with just one other person. Hence the exclusivity. Thus bisexuals would have to determine which of the two genders they wish to spend the rest of the lives with, and (if sticking to monogamy) never stray outside of that marriage, regardless of what their sexual orientation, by definition, claims. In this way, it is really no different than saying that homosexuals ought to be happy with heterosexual marriages as way for them to marry. Sure, you can maintain your inherent attraction to person's of the same gender as you, but with marriage, and monogamy being the way things work (have always worked), you just realize that this isn't what marriage is (traditionally) for.

The whole argument is really about understanding what marriage is for. You are stuck in the same traditional trap as heterosexual monogamists who say this is how it has always worked, and there's no reason to expand it simply because someone has attractions / orientations that go against what marriage is (currently) set up to handle.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's discriminatory because of the principle. And I see it as having direct link to bisexuality, thus discriminatory to that group. But yes, not only that group. The argument hinges on the principle but does impact a group. I feel I've been both clear on this and explained my position extensively.



We disagree on your last point. The inherent nature of bisexuality is attraction to both genders, hence more than one person. If somehow, magically, a bisexual was able to marry a single person that is both genders, and all bisexuals were able to do this, then I think it would be a rather short debate from my end. Yet, with monogamy as overwhelming favored arrangement for marriage, it is almost as if it is society saying you cannot be committed in marriage unless you are doing that with just one other person. Hence the exclusivity. Thus bisexuals would have to determine which of the two genders they wish to spend the rest of the lives with, and (if sticking to monogamy) never stray outside of that marriage, regardless of what their sexual orientation, by definition, claims. In this way, it is really no different than saying that homosexuals ought to be happy with heterosexual marriages as way for them to marry. Sure, you can maintain your inherent attraction to person's of the same gender as you, but with marriage, and monogamy being the way things work (have always worked), you just realize that this isn't what marriage is (traditionally) for.

The whole argument is really about understanding what marriage is for. You are stuck in the same traditional trap as heterosexual monogamists who say this is how it has always worked, and there's no reason to expand it simply because someone has attractions / orientations that go against what marriage is (currently) set up to handle.

You have yet to bring about any evidence that bisexuals have a need to have more than one partner. What you have is an incredibly loose correlation based on statistics that already have alternative answers. Bisexuals are far more likely to be monogomus than plural in their relationships.

Specifically on the bolded part. There is no difference between bisexuals and any other of the orientations (aside from asexual) that requires them to have more than one partner. Wanting to have sex with a man and a woman is no differnet than a strait person's desire to have sex with an asian and an african. We all have people we would like to have sex with and being bisexual doesn't enhance that further. Monogamy is a choice not based on the fact that a starait couple is totally sexualyl satisifed (far from it) but from other mechanisms that monogamy provides. Plural relationships don't affect bisexuals in any sort of special way except that it makes the dynamics easierif everyone involved was attracted to everyone.

I accept pretty much every other portion of your argument. If people want to be in plural marriages and the laws are stamped out or changed in a way that makes it possible then fine. It is up to whoever/whatever and their own discression. What I have a problem with is your claim that bisexuals somehow NEED to have sex with both genders in a marriage. Which is simply false.

 

[Acim]

You have yet to bring about any evidence that bisexuals have a need to have more than one partner.

Because I see that as a false assertion. Nobody has a 'need' for any partner. Not in my understanding. No homosexual or heterosexual person has a need for a partner.

I have stated that the definition, defining characteristic of bisexuality is attraction to both genders. And explained how this, as it relates to marriage would lead some bisexuals (not all of them) to a desire to be married to more than one person.

Specifically on the bolded part. There is no difference between bisexuals and any other of the orientations (aside from asexual) that requires them to have more than one partner. Wanting to have sex with a man and a woman is no differnet than a strait person's desire to have sex with an asian and an african.

Agreed. But you are framing things around "requirement." Such a thing doesn't exist for homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to a single partner. Meaning no one is required, based on their orientation. to have sex with any (single) partner.

Plural relationships don't affect bisexuals in any sort of special way except that it makes the dynamics easierif everyone involved was attracted to everyone.

Here we disagree, and I've explained (many times) how.

I accept pretty much every other portion of your argument. If people want to be in plural marriages and the laws are stamped out or changed in a way that makes it possible then fine. It is up to whoever/whatever and their own discression. What I have a problem with is your claim that bisexuals somehow NEED to have sex with both genders in a marriage. Which is simply false.

Perhaps because I haven't said that. I realize you don't know me all that well, but if I use the word "need" or "requirement" or "should" I'm usually triple checking if I truly think it is appropriate to the context. So, feel free to dig through all my posts in this thread where you find me using the word "need." With your emphasis on that word (all caps) and the context, I believe you'll find zero instances of my use of that. Such that, you've essentially set up a straw man (that Acim says bisexuals need to have sex with both genders) and decided that claim is false. When in reality, it is your own assertions (of what you think I'm saying) that are false.