Fear in the wake of a Trump presidency.

[Monk Of Reason]

Is it fun to have a one person discussion? I ask that because I'd like to have a simple response. The answer is yes. It is fun, because my view on this is better than yours and you can't speak in my post right now, so my voice is the only one that matters. Especially when I ask a question and demand a simple response. Therefore I win.

Then lets take it from the top.

If you intentionally pass a law or make attempts to overturn SOCUTS decision that removes rights from groups of people are you or are you not actively against said group?

As I said, it's gotta suck to be inconsistent with your principles.

Soon as you point out an inconsistency I'll address it.

What does racist have to do with it? IMO, you are assuming if the law regarding slavery was in place, it would only fall along racial lines. It could, but wouldn't necessarily. I actually highly doubt if that returned to being a state right that there is any state in current America that would go in that direction. I'm actually more confident that Creationists will become top notch professors in evolutionary biology and that atheists will start championing dissolution of a separation of church and state than I am of any state in the union returning to slavery.

But I actually think you are asking this as if it is serious inquiry. And given how you've framed it, racial presumption and all, I'd have to say... ask it a different way that makes you come off as more intelligent. Pretty please.

I'm attempting to help you understand your bias. I'm saying if this was currently true as a hypothetical, would it be racist? Because if you agree that it would be racist then you would logically have to agree that it is anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual to repeal the greatest victory these people have ever achieved.

With slavery, there is no consent, or if there is, then that would be an interesting law to consider. With marriage, it's about being a decision among consenting adults. And yet, very much different ways of framing that. Me, I go for consistency and try to stay to the principle that would govern all possible scenarios. Others focus on their own little discriminatory viewpoints, and wanna then claim "this is totally different than that other thing" and yet when orthodox Christian says, "man and woman" is totally different than "same sex," suddenly that's to be downplayed in favor of "consenting adult" type rhetoric. How quaint to play that card when you need it. Gotta suck to be so inconsistent with your principles.

Because I have seen men together just as happily in the same relationship as men and women. To think that the marriages between two men is different than the marriage between two women is an objective wrong and bigoted view.

You want to throw oranges into an apple discussion. If you would like to we can add that to the discussion. I don't have strong feelings on polyamorous relationships. Some do. Interestingly the only major group to have ever advocated it American history has been the Mormons and I staunchly disagree with their reasoning and practice.

When it comes to marriage equality as you are currently framing it, it is plausible (though debatable) to say those opposed are anti-LG. Adding in the other is disingenuous in my B opinion. Debatable, because on this issue, and with point I just made about more than 2 consenting adults, you reacted in way that I find to be anti-B, but apparently you don't see it that way, nor wish for it to be framed that way. I agree that this goes beyond B, but from B perspective, the traditional view isn't completely anti-B, and at very most is half anti-B, but that IMO would be assuming a few things about a B that I find challenging to reconcile, nor am I shy about discussing it. Still not clear how T fits in. May as well just include heterosexuals in there, if including T. Also debatable, because this is just one issue, and as our little debate shows, there are various ways to frame it, such that anti a whole group of people is just pithy rhetoric. Really is. Such that if Trump were to express something along lines in 2018 that says, "I'm glad Michigan has approved marriage equality for L and G citizens as a result of the SC overturning" .... somehow that would be spun by LW as "see! told you he was anti LG!"

It is not anti-bisexual to be anti-polygamous marriages because it is not intrinsic to the nature of bisexuality. It is a horrific misunderstanding of the bisexual community that they require sex with both. As a bisexual man I don't have any more of an intrinsic need to have more than one partner than someone who is both an *** man and tits man. It also isn't a bisexual issue at all. There are many strait and gay couples that have the propensity to want polyamorous relationships.

You see where your argument falls apart? Gay marriage equality is intrinsic to gays. A homsexual man is directly affected specificaly because of his homosexuality by marriage equality laws. Nothing bout bisexuality sets apart a need for multiple partners at the same time. Nothing stops non-bisexuals from wishing to have multiple partners. So there is no direct relationship between bisexuals and polyamerous relationships.

If he cared about homosexuals and bisexuals he wouldn't repeal the already in place SCOTUS decision that protects their rights.

Not a totally different issue. The whole argument / position rests on idea of decision between consenting adults (plural). It covers all these issues you are saying are different. To the degree you disagree is your being discriminatory. I'm not even saying that's horrible, but if I were to use your rhetoric, it would have to be spun as "why do you hate people?"

It is not linked to sexual preference though. I haven't stated anything against multiple partners. You have simply thrown it into a discussion where it did not belong as some sort of jumbled failed attempt to defend Trump. You can't on one hand remove protections that people depend on and say you are not against their rights. Either you protect their rights or you are against their rights in this regard. If he were truly neutral then that would be fine too.

 

[ShivaFan]

That's another funny thing coming from the same centralists "liberals" (what an insult to the word) - suddenly the face of Supreme Court is something to fear.

Well maybe it is - but it was the same libtards who turned the Supreme Court into just another unelected bureaucracy who "decide" for the rest of us "what it's going to be".

These unelected Maoists in black robes now become law makers but that is not their role. They are not to write our state legislative laws, our local, state and federal laws. We elect representatives to the Congress to do that. The lower court is then to look at the law and what it says "is to be just what it says", then look at someone in front of the court and determine "did they do or not do what it says?" ... their role is not "let me write the law instead of Congress and the people's representatives".

Same with the Supreme Court. They are not to write new laws. The constitution isn't complicated. And it can be amended by the vote and representatives of the peopie.

Not by the Supreme Court.

These unelected robes do not have the right to write laws, write the constitution in their own way. That is not their role. They look at the paper and the words on it, which isn't very hard to understand and really doesn't take a genius to "get it" even though some libtards have a problem doing that - and then think, hmmm, "did they do or not do what it says?" ...

But the libtards turned the role of the Court into a role of unelected bureacrats who write the law. The same libtards turned the Court into a monster of central, unelected power.

I don't give a damn about "court precedent" - that too has become a sick game of despotism and huge populations now scoff at it and say openly, "I don't give a flying **** what the Supreme Sociopaths say, screw them". In one way, by means of their own power thumping arrogance and unelected pomp they have not only become a despotic symbol, they have turned themselves into a joke.

So that is what it has come to. Fine.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says there are 9 court justices. At times we had 6. Other times we had 10, then down to 7, other times less and then more ...

So I say Trump nominates 4 more as soon as possible and gets them approved through the majority Republican Congress as soon as possible to bring the number up to 12.

Libtards have a problem with that? After all, too bad, they were the ones giving these unelected robes way too much power to do things they never were supposed to do.

So lets play by their rules.

Folks like me are contacting Trump right now. Contacting our legislatures. We want 12. It's our constitutional right. It's right there, in the constitution. We want 12, we can.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Courts interpret the constitution and law, in the light of the world they now find themselves in.
This has always been so and was inherited from the British common law.
If society changes, so can these interpretations. not to change the law, but to make the law fit the new previously unthought of circumstances.

New laws are established by the legislature, and because they are almost always poorly defined, these laws have to be interpreted by the courts. The Courts have the power to throw out or amend law, in the light of the constitution and prior law. They never create New law.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The reason that the Supreme Court has the numbers it does is more down to precedent and fear.
If say the Republicans increased it to the limit of nine members, to ensure a safe majority for a number of years to come.
It also gives the same opportunity to the Democrats to do the same when they are in office.
No party would feel comfortable with the opposition being able to out score them for that length of time.
Especially if the age of the opposition judges was very low. ( it has been as low as 32, which give a potential of say 50 or 60 years service)

 

[David1967]

We've had that: FDR, old money; Bush I and Bush II, oil money.

Heck ,if Hillary won we would have had a rich woman as president.

 

[David1967]

After he took the oath he's going to send out his death squads to kill all Blacks, Latinos, LGBs, Ts, probably also kittens.

After that he'll get his portrait done, his face will be a "Comic Frog".

And then its nuclear war time!


If only America had elected the friend of Wall Street, radical Muslims and the Industry.

That is a problem here. During the campaigns , each side portrays their opponent as such horrible individuals that there is little chance of getting past the propaganda and giving them a chance.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why only 2 consenting adults? I ask seriously. When it becomes about more than 2 consenting adults, then we can start talking like L and G actually care about how a B might frame this discussion. Just cause some other B's might see it the way L and G does, don't mean we all do. And this utter nonsense that it is between (only) 2 just shows your cultural and historical ignorance.

I don't really have a problem with polyamory so long as everyone consents. Same way I feel about homosexuality really; not for me, but don't let me stop you from enjoying life.

Next question? And don't you dare bring bestiality into this. Animals can't consent. That's the magic word.

 

[Nietzsche]

I thought this was shameful as well

If she had done the decent thing, there might not be as much unrest, but to think that there is now a wailing and a gnashing of teeth on her behalf is incredible.

...What? Given how close this thing was, waiting for final results in states wasn't a terrible idea. Two, Trump said he would refuse to concede because it's "rigged".

 

[Notanumber]

...What?

I watched her loyal supporters patiently wait for her appearance on the night, but it was left to her lapdog to come out and tell the crowd that it was not over and they should go home now.

Shamefully, they could not boot them fast enough!

If that is how she treats her supporters, how would she have treated the deplorables?

 

[Revoltingest]

Heck ,if Hillary won we would have had a rich woman as president.

Would this be "selling access money"?
Now, "oil money" doesn't sounds so tainted.

 

[Acim]

Then lets take it from the top.

If you intentionally pass a law or make attempts to overturn SOCUTS decision that removes rights from groups of people are you or are you not actively against said group?

I think you know it depends. If the SCOTUS decision is that these rights need to be determined by federal statute vs. state's rights, then I think it isn't really against, but more about who ought to be making such decisions that impact these people and how that fits in with all other people's rights / perspective.

I'm attempting to help you understand your bias. I'm saying if this was currently true as a hypothetical, would it be racist? Because if you agree that it would be racist then you would logically have to agree that it is anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual to repeal the greatest victory these people have ever achieved.

It would not be racist. Not with what you've provided so far. Would take an explanation that brings in racial parameters and then policy that seeks to establish that one race is superior (or inferior) to another, whereby this is how slavery will work going forward.

The other stuff is false equivocation and/or you'd have to make the case better. I certainly don't agree it is anti-B, and I'm B.

Because I have seen men together just as happily in the same relationship as men and women. To think that the marriages between two men is different than the marriage between two women is an objective wrong and bigoted view.

Just to note any differences makes for wrong/bigoted view? I really don't think you stand by that based on your words. If I throw in marriage between three people, you'll note that as 'vastly different' but if I make case for them as happily married and you are bigoted and wrong to just say it is different, then what? What's your response to that? Realize I'll likely use same rationale to justify how not wrong and non-bigoted it is to note difference in the marriage arrangements you are speaking to.

You want to throw oranges into an apple discussion. If you would like to we can add that to the discussion. I don't have strong feelings on polyamorous relationships. Some do. Interestingly the only major group to have ever advocated it American history has been the Mormons and I staunchly disagree with their reasoning and practice.

I'm not throwing oranges into apple discussion. The principle is consenting adults can enter into contract of marriage as if that is fundamental right for all adults. That's the principle. Staying consistent with this principle covers: heterosexual monogamist marriage, interracial monogamist marriage, bisexual plural marriage, homosexual marriages. Speaking as if plural marriage is the apple in the discussion on oranges is not really having a principle but at best dealing with political reality where it may be hard to get all things done under the principle at once. Why is that hard? Because people are throwing own apples into the orange discussion and not sticking to principles. Orthodox Christian types have principle that marriage is only to be understood as heterosexual monogamist arrangement. Reluctantly some of those types accepted, historically, that this includes interracial relationships, while others probably saw that as great thing, that they'd honor the tradition rather than burn with passion and be promiscuous.

So, feel free to remind me at any point that you desire what is the principle at work with why homosexuals ought to be able to marry in light of the fact that in America, heterosexuals have been allowed to marry.

It is not anti-bisexual to be anti-polygamous marriages because it is not intrinsic to the nature of bisexuality. It is a horrific misunderstanding of the bisexual community that they require sex with both. As a bisexual man I don't have any more of an intrinsic need to have more than one partner than someone who is both an *** man and tits man. It also isn't a bisexual issue at all. There are many strait and gay couples that have the propensity to want polyamorous relationships.

It is definitely a bisexual issue, but not only. Bisexuals clearly have an intrinsic need to have more than one partner in their lifetime, whereas non-bisexuals don't necessarily. So, we can have that debate further as may be desired, but I disagree with your take on this.

Yet, the principle of the whole marriage thing stands. You either favor a right among all consenting adults regardless of how that contract works for them, or you draw lines based on own discriminatory viewpoints.

You see where your argument falls apart? Gay marriage equality is intrinsic to gays. A homsexual man is directly affected specificaly because of his homosexuality by marriage equality laws. Nothing bout bisexuality sets apart a need for multiple partners at the same time. Nothing stops non-bisexuals from wishing to have multiple partners. So there is no direct relationship between bisexuals and polyamerous relationships.

There clearly is with bisexuals. Not that all bisexuals must have same viewpoint, but some will and it is intrinsic to bisexuality. The whole marriage thing is not intrinsic to any of the sexual orientations, including heterosexual. There's no reason really for marriage other than customs and legal benefits. But no one needs to have that in order for their relationship to be realized. Yet, if one group does have it, then all groups ought to have it. And if just dealing with the principle, then the polyandrous arrangements are there for bisexuals and all other groups.

From what you've written, then you are clearly stating that bisexual marriage equality is not related to rights of gays, for you said "Gay marriage equality is intrinsic to gays." So, doesn't include heterosexuals, right? Nor does it include bisexuals who are not attracted to only gay people, nor one gender at any given moment. At every given moment, and an actual bisexual is attracted to both genders. That's two people. To say that a bisexual is entirely satisfied with marriage arrangement under same sex arrangement is really not different than saying bisexuals are entirely satisfied by the marriage arrangement that exists under heterosexual arrangements. If they want to have gay fling on the side, that exists. They still get all the benefits of the legal marriage that exists, and so nothing needs to change. Yet, if they are equally attracted to a male and female at same time, or 2 females at same time, or 2 males, whatever, the point is that the principle would easily cover this. The bigoted nonsense around monogamy as only righteous view for marriage does not accommodate this. Thus, the intrinsic nature of bisexuality is being discriminated against.

If he cared about homosexuals and bisexuals he wouldn't repeal the already in place SCOTUS decision that protects their rights.

Bisexual need not apply to your assertion above and is the matter of debate between us. The other I already spoke to because it is "more about who ought to be making such decisions that impact these people and how that fits in with all other people's rights / perspective." The other people's perspective is the whole religious freedoms aspect of all this. Such that if I had say a marital relationship with myself and 57 other wives and my family (all 58 of us) walked into a place of service, openly showing our love for each other, however that may look but let's just assume it isn't legally indecent, then it is possible that this might not jive up with all other patron's sensibilities, and that they'd not want to be around 'that.' So, the business might wish to make a decision that is going to be discriminatory either way it goes down. But if their honest position before the 58 of us walked in is that they see plural marriage as a sin/unrighteous, then to discriminate based on that (alone) ought to at least be considered. Not necessarily followed or upheld by all possible perspectives, but the plausible alternatives are that at least some of the patrons may not think it fair/cool to them that my family is treated with equal respect to their family arrangement, so much so that they let the manager of the establishment know that their business has been lost forever due to such an allowance. But all this is just one possible variation of how this could go down. Either way discrimination of some sort is possible UNLESS everyone was totally accepting of the principle (among consenting adults) at work. Short of that, then discrimination will occur and perspectives of others are what governing decision makers have to weigh in on.

It is not linked to sexual preference though. I haven't stated anything against multiple partners. You have simply thrown it into a discussion where it did not belong as some sort of jumbled failed attempt to defend Trump. You can't on one hand remove protections that people depend on and say you are not against their rights. Either you protect their rights or you are against their rights in this regard. If he were truly neutral then that would be fine too.

You've also failed to mention how SSM affects, actually affects B people. I've heard a bit of what you've said that would infer there's an impact on B, but nothing clear, and I'm pretty sure why that is. In fact, I addressed that in this post. As it stands, the old traditional view on marriage between man and woman, works very well for B, such that nothing else is actually necessary if marriage is the end all and be all of the discussion. Wanna make sure B is fairly included, then I think we have more discussion to be had on how B's sexual orientation does pertain to plural relationships which very much does relate to plural marriages.

Again, to me, the fact is no one needs to be married. Thus, I just assume if disallowing plural marriage, then disallow all of it and keep everyone on par with the same legal benefit that single people have.

 

[Acim]

I don't really have a problem with polyamory so long as everyone consents. Same way I feel about homosexuality really; not for me, but don't let me stop you from enjoying life.

Next question? And don't you dare bring bestiality into this. Animals can't consent. That's the magic word.

Next question then would be that do you see this as the principle of the matter - that all adults in the relationship consent to the totality of the marriage arrangement?

If so, do you agree that this would cover SSM and essentially anything else up for discussion, again 'so long as everyone consents?'
If not, then I'd like to see your arguments for what is the principle at work. Or if you care to weigh in on how exactly B is discriminated against with denial of SSM, even while we currently live in a country where SSM exists and no one in executive branch is saying it ought to be denied as a matter of policy.

 

[Acim]

...What? Given how close this thing was, waiting for final results in states wasn't a terrible idea. Two, Trump said he would refuse to concede because it's "rigged".

Where did Trump say this? Care to quote it? I'd like to see how much of what he actually said lines up with what you are saying he said.

 

[Nietzsche]

Where did Trump say this? Care to quote it? I'd like to see how much of what he actually said lines up with what you are saying he said.

"I will look at it, at the time"

"I will keep you in suspense"

Those are not what Presidential candidates should say when asked "If you lose, will you concede?". You say "Yes, of course". You don't claim the system is rigged, threatening to take your ball and go home.

 

[Acim]

"I will look at it, at the time"

"I will keep you in suspense"

Those are not what Presidential candidates should say when asked "If you lose, will you concede?". You say "Yes, of course". You don't claim the system is rigged, threatening to take your ball and go home.

But he didn't threaten what you are saying he did, nor what you earlier had in bold for what you claimed he said.

Which really does pertain to how this thread is set up, not just on RF but currently in American politics/culture. It's not what Trump said that people fear, it's the LW spin on what they THINK he implied. The spin is what is the 'real fear.' IMO, it's on par with 'until Obama produces his birth certificate, we have real reason to fear that he is a Muslim born in another country, because that's what RW media has told us.'

Btw, after it was announced that Hillary lost the election, she didn't publicly concede. Trump gave his victory speech before she gave her concession speech because in the moment, as Podesta had explained, they were willing to pick up their ball and go home, restrategize about how to go forward. IOW, gotta love the hypocrisy of how that all played out.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think you know it depends. If the SCOTUS decision is that these rights need to be determined by federal statute vs. state's rights, then I think it isn't really against, but more about who ought to be making such decisions that impact these people and how that fits in with all other people's rights / perspective.



It would not be racist. Not with what you've provided so far. Would take an explanation that brings in racial parameters and then policy that seeks to establish that one race is superior (or inferior) to another, whereby this is how slavery will work going forward.

The other stuff is false equivocation and/or you'd have to make the case better. I certainly don't agree it is anti-B, and I'm B.



Just to note any differences makes for wrong/bigoted view? I really don't think you stand by that based on your words. If I throw in marriage between three people, you'll note that as 'vastly different' but if I make case for them as happily married and you are bigoted and wrong to just say it is different, then what? What's your response to that? Realize I'll likely use same rationale to justify how not wrong and non-bigoted it is to note difference in the marriage arrangements you are speaking to.



I'm not throwing oranges into apple discussion. The principle is consenting adults can enter into contract of marriage as if that is fundamental right for all adults. That's the principle. Staying consistent with this principle covers: heterosexual monogamist marriage, interracial monogamist marriage, bisexual plural marriage, homosexual marriages. Speaking as if plural marriage is the apple in the discussion on oranges is not really having a principle but at best dealing with political reality where it may be hard to get all things done under the principle at once. Why is that hard? Because people are throwing own apples into the orange discussion and not sticking to principles. Orthodox Christian types have principle that marriage is only to be understood as heterosexual monogamist arrangement. Reluctantly some of those types accepted, historically, that this includes interracial relationships, while others probably saw that as great thing, that they'd honor the tradition rather than burn with passion and be promiscuous.

So, feel free to remind me at any point that you desire what is the principle at work with why homosexuals ought to be able to marry in light of the fact that in America, heterosexuals have been allowed to marry.



It is definitely a bisexual issue, but not only. Bisexuals clearly have an intrinsic need to have more than one partner in their lifetime, whereas non-bisexuals don't necessarily. So, we can have that debate further as may be desired, but I disagree with your take on this.

Yet, the principle of the whole marriage thing stands. You either favor a right among all consenting adults regardless of how that contract works for them, or you draw lines based on own discriminatory viewpoints.



There clearly is with bisexuals. Not that all bisexuals must have same viewpoint, but some will and it is intrinsic to bisexuality. The whole marriage thing is not intrinsic to any of the sexual orientations, including heterosexual. There's no reason really for marriage other than customs and legal benefits. But no one needs to have that in order for their relationship to be realized. Yet, if one group does have it, then all groups ought to have it. And if just dealing with the principle, then the polyandrous arrangements are there for bisexuals and all other groups.

From what you've written, then you are clearly stating that bisexual marriage equality is not related to rights of gays, for you said "Gay marriage equality is intrinsic to gays." So, doesn't include heterosexuals, right? Nor does it include bisexuals who are not attracted to only gay people, nor one gender at any given moment. At every given moment, and an actual bisexual is attracted to both genders. That's two people. To say that a bisexual is entirely satisfied with marriage arrangement under same sex arrangement is really not different than saying bisexuals are entirely satisfied by the marriage arrangement that exists under heterosexual arrangements. If they want to have gay fling on the side, that exists. They still get all the benefits of the legal marriage that exists, and so nothing needs to change. Yet, if they are equally attracted to a male and female at same time, or 2 females at same time, or 2 males, whatever, the point is that the principle would easily cover this. The bigoted nonsense around monogamy as only righteous view for marriage does not accommodate this. Thus, the intrinsic nature of bisexuality is being discriminated against.



Bisexual need not apply to your assertion above and is the matter of debate between us. The other I already spoke to because it is "more about who ought to be making such decisions that impact these people and how that fits in with all other people's rights / perspective." The other people's perspective is the whole religious freedoms aspect of all this. Such that if I had say a marital relationship with myself and 57 other wives and my family (all 58 of us) walked into a place of service, openly showing our love for each other, however that may look but let's just assume it isn't legally indecent, then it is possible that this might not jive up with all other patron's sensibilities, and that they'd not want to be around 'that.' So, the business might wish to make a decision that is going to be discriminatory either way it goes down. But if their honest position before the 58 of us walked in is that they see plural marriage as a sin/unrighteous, then to discriminate based on that (alone) ought to at least be considered. Not necessarily followed or upheld by all possible perspectives, but the plausible alternatives are that at least some of the patrons may not think it fair/cool to them that my family is treated with equal respect to their family arrangement, so much so that they let the manager of the establishment know that their business has been lost forever due to such an allowance. But all this is just one possible variation of how this could go down. Either way discrimination of some sort is possible UNLESS everyone was totally accepting of the principle (among consenting adults) at work. Short of that, then discrimination will occur and perspectives of others are what governing decision makers have to weigh in on.



You've also failed to mention how SSM affects, actually affects B people. I've heard a bit of what you've said that would infer there's an impact on B, but nothing clear, and I'm pretty sure why that is. In fact, I addressed that in this post. As it stands, the old traditional view on marriage between man and woman, works very well for B, such that nothing else is actually necessary if marriage is the end all and be all of the discussion. Wanna make sure B is fairly included, then I think we have more discussion to be had on how B's sexual orientation does pertain to plural relationships which very much does relate to plural marriages.

Again, to me, the fact is no one needs to be married. Thus, I just assume if disallowing plural marriage, then disallow all of it and keep everyone on par with the same legal benefit that single people have.

I just made a really long drawn out response to this and the forum deleted it because it too long and it timed me out. I doubt I can reason with you any further than what I've attempted. I'll just re-cap the main issues I have with your proposals.

1) If you advocate for state decision on the rights of its minority citizens knowing full well that they will choose to repeal those rights then you are against their rights. You are then a proponent of states being able to take away rights and to me that is wrong.
2) Being against same sex marriage in the context of the national discussion is bigoted. There is no way around it.
3) Bisexuals do not require polyamorous relationships. Bisexuals have no direct connection to plural relationships. This I stated at least 10 times. Get it through your head or provide me with evidence that bisexuals are less monogamous than any other demographic. It is false. It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of bisexuality. People may want to have plural relationships but it has no direct connection to bisexuality.
4) Bisexuals should be able to date and marry the same sex as easily as the opposite sex. This is how anti-marriage equality affects them.
5) If you are for removal of marriage all together from the legal frame and letting people do what they want then we need to come up for coverage of all of the issues that it currently assists with. Issues such as healthcare coverage of spouses, custody of children, end of life decisions allocated to next of kin, tax benefits on both state and federal levels and divorce policies.

 

[Acim]

I just made a really long drawn out response to this and the forum deleted it because it too long and it timed me out. I doubt I can reason with you any further than what I've attempted. I'll just re-cap the main issues I have with your proposals.

1) If you advocate for state decision on the rights of its minority citizens knowing full well that they will choose to repeal those rights then you are against their rights. You are then a proponent of states being able to take away rights and to me that is wrong.

The point here that is debatable is "knowing full well that they will choose to repeal those rights." The first part of that quote is easily debatable, and the second part is matter of ongoing debate. Not just with this minority.

2) Being against same sex marriage in the context of the national discussion is bigoted. There is no way around it.

There is a way around it being bigoted, and is incredibly disingenuous to frame it under such terms. Again, is no different than saying if you disagree with political idea of fitting plural marriage into principle of "what consenting adults are allowed to do" then that is bigoted.

3) Bisexuals do not require polyamorous relationships. Bisexuals have no direct connection to plural relationships. This I stated at least 10 times. Get it through your head or provide me with evidence that bisexuals are less monogamous than any other demographic. It is false. It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of bisexuality. People may want to have plural relationships but it has no direct connection to bisexuality.

I don't care to provide such evidence because of how much of a farce I see monogamy being. But I do still think there is direct connection between plural relationships/marriage and bisexuality. If a bisexual person is in marriage that is not plural (ergo appears to be monogamous) then there is really no way, superficially, to determine if such a person is actually bisexual. That's not necessarily a brilliant point, but is part of why things for bisexuals do not need to change - as in don't need SSM for bisexuals to be happy with marriage laws of the land. If in a SSM, it is labeled as "gay marriage" which is a little bit on the bigotry side.

For me, righteousness around monogamy as way marriage needs to be defined is at heart of the larger debate on marriage equality. I just see this as impacting bisexuals more than other minorities, but agree it isn't a requirement for bisexuals. Again, legal marriage is not a requirement for any relationship. Zero.

4) Bisexuals should be able to date and marry the same sex as easily as the opposite sex. This is how anti-marriage equality affects them.

Guess what, I agree with this. But it is only half the equation. And thus if monogamy only is the way to go, then the bisexuals who are happily married under heterosexual relating (only, given marriage laws) ought not to be made to feel they are bigoted if they don't support SSM, anymore than all individuals ought to be made to feel bigoted for not supporting consenting adult rights to engage in plural marriages.

Again, for the 10th time, it's about the principle. The fundamental one. That you keep ignoring/downplaying.

5) If you are for removal of marriage all together from the legal frame and letting people do what they want then we need to come up for coverage of all of the issues that it currently assists with. Issues such as healthcare coverage of spouses, custody of children, end of life decisions allocated to next of kin, tax benefits on both state and federal levels and divorce policies.

I'm sure we could work all of that out if marriage was (magically) removed from the table. That won't happen. But if advocating against the principle of "what consenting adults be allowed to do," then I maintain that no one needs to be married for society to work. I think it helps, but is not a requirement. And if we are all going to be on different pages whereby we disagree on the fundamental principle, then perhaps best to have a few years where no one is allowed to enter into such an arrangement because of how unable many are towards acceptance of the fundamental principle. Again, this will never happen, but is something to consider, I think, in such intellectual debate. But because it won't happen, then it comes down to either sticking by the fundamental principle and engaging in all such discussions with that at work, or discriminating in certain cases because of own sensibilities/beliefs.

This notion of equating discrimination with bigotry is outlandish. How do I know this? Cause when I point out own versions of discrimination whereby the principle is ignored, and bigotry is denied, it is clear to me that you don't actually believe it is bigotry at work. If you do, then take the damn plank out of your own eye.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The point here that is debatable is "knowing full well that they will choose to repeal those rights." The first part of that quote is easily debatable, and the second part is matter of ongoing debate. Not just with this minority.

Its not a matter of states repealing the right. States would already fail to uphold that right if they repealed the SCOTUS decision. It would go directly back to sqaure 1 in many states.

There is a way around it being bigoted, and is incredibly disingenuous to frame it under such terms. Again, is no different than saying if you disagree with political idea of fitting plural marriage into principle of "what consenting adults are allowed to do" then that is bigoted.

Perhaps so. I am not fundamentally against anyone who does whatever it is they want to do. There are complications with plural marriages. Not plural relationships but plural marriages. And none of it has to dow ith bisexuality.

I don't care to provide such evidence because of how much of a farce I see monogamy being. But I do still think there is direct connection between plural relationships/marriage and bisexuality. If a bisexual person is in marriage that is not plural (ergo appears to be monogamous) then there is really no way, superficially, to determine if such a person is actually bisexual. That's not necessarily a brilliant point, but is part of why things for bisexuals do not need to change - as in don't need SSM for bisexuals to be happy with marriage laws of the land. If in a SSM, it is labeled as "gay marriage" which is a little bit on the bigotry side.

For me, righteousness around monogamy as way marriage needs to be defined is at heart of the larger debate on marriage equality. I just see this as impacting bisexuals more than other minorities, but agree it isn't a requirement for bisexuals. Again, legal marriage is not a requirement for any relationship. Zero.



Guess what, I agree with this. But it is only half the equation. And thus if monogamy only is the way to go, then the bisexuals who are happily married under heterosexual relating (only, given marriage laws) ought not to be made to feel they are bigoted if they don't support SSM, anymore than all individuals ought to be made to feel bigoted for not supporting consenting adult rights to engage in plural marriages.

Again, for the 10th time, it's about the principle. The fundamental one. That you keep ignoring/downplaying.



I'm sure we could work all of that out if marriage was (magically) removed from the table. That won't happen. But if advocating against the principle of "what consenting adults be allowed to do," then I maintain that no one needs to be married for society to work. I think it helps, but is not a requirement. And if we are all going to be on different pages whereby we disagree on the fundamental principle, then perhaps best to have a few years where no one is allowed to enter into such an arrangement because of how unable many are towards acceptance of the fundamental principle. Again, this will never happen, but is something to consider, I think, in such intellectual debate. But because it won't happen, then it comes down to either sticking by the fundamental principle and engaging in all such discussions with that at work, or discriminating in certain cases because of own sensibilities/beliefs.

This notion of equating discrimination with bigotry is outlandish. How do I know this? Cause when I point out own versions of discrimination whereby the principle is ignored, and bigotry is denied, it is clear to me that you don't actually believe it is bigotry at work. If you do, then take the damn plank out of your own eye.

The reasons for being against poly marriages isn't purely based in some reasoned up social corretness. There are fundmental issues with plural marriages as marriage is currently utilized. Who has custody of children for example is a big one. If, and just for example, you have 2 men and 2 women in a plural marriage who has custody of the children? Just the biological parents? All four? What of custody battles in the possibility of a divorce? What if only one member wishes teo divorce? Do they still have claims to the child?

What of allocating assets in the occasion of a divorce? Same issues as with children. What would the legal framework be? Is there a limit on the number of partners in a plural marriage? How do we determine if a marriage is legitimate and not fraudulent? Can a blood relative be in a marriage with one of the members of a marriage but not the others? Could person a be married to perons B and C and person B is not married to person C? Can person B be married to a person G whom is not in any sort of relationship with any other member of person A's plural marriage? Who is to say whose assets are shared and where?

There are legitiamte problems with the concept of plural marriages that would need to be addressed in full that couldn't simply be taken care of with a SCOTUS decision. They have fundamental issues with the concepts not shared by monogomus same sex marriages. The only issue ever brought up with same sex marriages ist hat christians didn't like it. In the past any kind of plural marriage was 1 man and multiple women. The concept of divorce was pretty non-existant and it was less a plural relationship as it was simply 1 man with many singular marriages.

 

[Acim]

Its not a matter of states repealing the right. States would already fail to uphold that right if they repealed the SCOTUS decision. It would go directly back to sqaure 1 in many states.

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.

Perhaps so. I am not fundamentally against anyone who does whatever it is they want to do. There are complications with plural marriages. Not plural relationships but plural marriages. And none of it has to dow ith bisexuality.

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

The reasons for being against poly marriages isn't purely based in some reasoned up social corretness. There are fundmental issues with plural marriages as marriage is currently utilized. Who has custody of children for example is a big one. If, and just for example, you have 2 men and 2 women in a plural marriage who has custody of the children? Just the biological parents? All four? What of custody battles in the possibility of a divorce? What if only one member wishes teo divorce? Do they still have claims to the child?

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.

What of allocating assets in the occasion of a divorce? Same issues as with children. What would the legal framework be? Is there a limit on the number of partners in a plural marriage? How do we determine if a marriage is legitimate and not fraudulent? Can a blood relative be in a marriage with one of the members of a marriage but not the others? Could person a be married to perons B and C and person B is not married to person C? Can person B be married to a person G whom is not in any sort of relationship with any other member of person A's plural marriage? Who is to say whose assets are shared and where?

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.

There are legitiamte problems with the concept of plural marriages that would need to be addressed in full that couldn't simply be taken care of with a SCOTUS decision. They have fundamental issues with the concepts not shared by monogomus same sex marriages. The only issue ever brought up with same sex marriages ist hat christians didn't like it. In the past any kind of plural marriage was 1 man and multiple women. The concept of divorce was pretty non-existant and it was less a plural relationship as it was simply 1 man with many singular marriages.

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.

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point here that is debatable is "knowing full well that they will choose to repeal those rights."

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.

There is a way around it being bigoted, and is incredibly disingenuous to frame it under such terms.

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?

I don't care to provide such evidence

Then why bring it up?

And thus if monogamy only is the way to go, then the bisexuals who are happily married under heterosexual relating (only, given marriage laws) ought not to be made to feel they are bigoted if they don't support SSM

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.

maintain that no one needs to be married for society to work. I think it helps, but is not a requirement.

Every society has had some concept (similar or loosely defined) that we could call marriage, or, rather, a formal acknowledgement of the social pairing/bonding between/among the individuals entering this arrangement. How society goes about this has a great deal of variation, far too much to include in a forum post, but we've all had it.