The Polygamous Marriage argument (tying it to gay marriage) is bullshit!

The CA Supreme Court recognizes gays and lesbians as a special class of people deserving protected rights. This will NEVER happen to people who want to be polygamous, in fact, I believe that they specifically cite this is a group that is not deserving of such rights (no matter that many may be Mormon). If the media is trying to push this meme, then not only are they STUPID FOOLS, but they are probably being paid to do it.

whole argument about possible harm to other groups from expanding the right to marry to gays. The polygamy argument just falls apart if you look at the test the court used to argue in favor of gay marriage. Here is an eloquent argument that can and should be used against anyone who spouts the polygamy nonsense (not that ANY thinking person would argue it in the first place!).

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-lavy-davidson21-2008may21,0,4542785.story

Apparently some are trying to argue this from the point view of bisexual rights, where a bisexual is necessarilly predisposed to having partners of both sexes. Again, this is a false argument since most bisexuals would prefer to be in one relationship at a time, and if not, then they would prefer to be single. There is no biological basis for polygamy.

Not for polygamy specifically, but for having multiple partners, in general.

Some recent studies have shown a biological (genetic-level) predisposition toward monogamy or polyamory.

Not that it ought to be used as an argument in regards to marriage equality, I concur.

but as the law currently stands, one partner's actions based on a bias towards polyamory can be another partner's reason for getting a divorce. I would think you would need to attack the divorce issue first, before taking this further. As I said in another post, the government wants to promote social stability.

and the "argument" given in that article is disgusting. That's the word that comes to my mind: Disgusting.

It's disgusting because said argument reduces marriage to sex. It's disgusting because it perpetuates the fucked up, hateful, and bigoted idea that bisexual people are incapable of fully committing to one person, that we're prone to adultery, that we can't be trusted because we might dump the spouse for someone of the (spouse's) opposite gender...

Marriage is about a commitment to ONE OTHER PERSON. About making, sharing, living life with ONE OTHER PERSON.

Marriage is not simply about who you like to have sex with!

It seems bisexuality continues to be completely misunderstood. I thought the stupid, ignorant, and idiotic notion of "bisexuals aren't capable of committing to one partner, since they're attracted to both genders" crap went out with the '90s!

I'm really, REALLY pissed off at this! FUCK the L.A. Times for printing that garbage!

I thouht this was a no-brainer, and I find a lot of these arguments totally disgusting as well. There is a definite prejudice that gay and bisexual people simply aren't "moral" enough to handle a committed relationship with a partner of the same sex.

Isn't this all about the majority judging how people live their lives?

There are men who can only fall in love with men, and women who can only fall in love with women. They deserve the human right of marriage - forming a family unit with the person they love.

It isn't about judging how people live their lives. I judge people who beat up their kids. Not all judgment is wrong.

The best argument for polygamy is not human rights, as there is no person who is only able to fall in love with three people at a time or anything like that. It is religious freedom, as it is important to some religions. So there is an argument, but it is an entirely different argument.

I have loved three women at the same time and still do, though I have no woman, only love. Why should human rights be based on "only"? Gays and lesbians are often bisexual, as are also heteros, on some level. True love is not about possessing, it's about sharing and giving.

It's not at all different argument.

There is no human condition of only being able to love a group of people. Therefore there is no human right of only being able to be married to a group of people that needs to be protected.

It is different.

I am not asking if it is possible to love several people at a time, since of course it is. I am asking if it is necessary for YOU to have to love 3 women at a time? If one dies, will you find it necessary to get another love? When you first loved 1 person, were you so incomplete you "had" to love 2 more?

Being married to more than 1 person at a time is different than being unable to marry the 1 person you should be able to but can't because their chromosomes are the same as yours.

I'm not obligated to try to explain love to you. Love is a feeling, not an explanation or moral code.

As for social institutions for "marriage" among human cultures, there is more variation than you can imagine. But Euro-Americans cannot but think in universal moral codes and attempt to narrow down and homogenise everything into their cultural memes.

Civil rights is different from explaining love. "Marriage" has a social and a legal aspect, can be wide variations on both. What we are looking for though is to get rid of the "must have different xx/xy chromosomes" to be legally married.

Used to be that marriage wasn't legal between people of different skin xx/xy chromosomes, and it is a Civil Right.

Of course there is a wide variety of committed relationships, and of legal marriages. Some people get married to be able to use the other person's insurance, no other commitment, no sex, no nothing. Some people are married a pals. BUT only if 1 has xx and one xy. Why?

You can be in whatever relationships you want. Be in love with as many or as few people as you want. I am challenging you on your statements as to why you believe the struggle for marriage between 2 people regardless of their sexual orientation is the same argument as being able to marry multiple partners at the same time.

I am asking if it is necessary for YOU to have to love 3 women at a time? If one dies, will you find it necessary to get another love? When you first loved 1 person, were you so incomplete you "had" to love 2 more?

NOT to explain love, NOT to explain how it is possible to love more than 1 at the same time. BUt how is this the same argument, or as you put it, "It's not at all different argument."

I've lived with a partner for yrs in a non-legally binding relationship. I've lived alone for yrs, sometimes with a partner sometimes not. I've been married a couple times. One was simply signing the legal document and filing it in court. One I've been in for 11 yrs had a social and legal and commitment part to it. No, don't explain love and don't lecture me about Euro-Americans attempting to narrow things down.

A person who cannot change their sexual orientation is banned from marrying whom they want ONLY if they have xx/xx or xy/xy genes. You can love more than 1 person at a time, and everyone, irregardless of their xx/xy makeup is banned from legally marrying more than 1 at a time. How is it the same?

is not trying to dictate what others do and how they do it as long as they pay the same respect. "Civil rights" are not rights but limits in that regard. If a community lives by its local customs, what ever they may be, and bothers no others, no problem. But when a "community" grows too big (e.g. modern state) and even globalizes ceasing to be a true community and turns into mere hierarchy, there is no more freedom of variety and localism, only universal totalitarianism.

My life and loves have no relation to the general subject so I don't see why I should answer your questions in that regard.

What is your intention and objective in joining the conversation?

The question for you is, do you maintain ownership with your three partners of any home? Do you have kids or want them? If so, how do/would you deal with the legalities of parenting?
You have a hugely juvenile outlook, to be frank about it. Arrogant, uninformed, and steeped in assumptions and prejudice, not to mention entry level rhetoric.
So why are you here if you don't wish to answer questions and have a dialouge? You seem to want to make declarations as fact, without question, in a rather imperialistic method of exchange. While you couch your jabber in lots of psuedo revolutionary jargon, your style is that of a dictator, of one who wishes to speak without other voices questioning your conclusions. You claim to have something to say about the subject, but when asked about it you claim to be above it. You judge entire cultures along text book lines, as you were taught to do. But you are in fact a person of huge prejudice, functioning under assumptions.
If you can not show the basis for your thinking, you have no thinking.

for the refreshing personal attack but I see no point in personalizing issues. I'm too poor to afford personhood, anyways... :)

Nor does it give you license to trammple the personhood of others. Which is what you are doing by refusing to have an exchange. You wish to deliver lectures. Find people who will listen to that, it is not me. I am a person, and so it is personal.
We are here talking about marriage equality. And you have been going on about love. Everything you have said thus far has been personal. About your three loves, about your contempt for Euro Americans, about your need to tell others they can not imagine a life like yours, while acting insulted when you are asked about your life. Those are personal issues. And when you call out an entire people as less than yourself, well, your ego is showing at the very least.
And again, if you think your personhood or mine is about money, you are wrong. And such thinking will lead to what you are doing here, hurling disrespect and contempt at others to make up for your feelings of inferiority.

makes projecting personhood on "the Other" understandable, but not justifiable.

How "person" is comprehended here, it means mask or layers of masks, like onion. How and what is comprehended here seeks not to make any universal claims though they may be interpreted that way regardless of intention.

No one is too poor to be a person. Even in their own minds. You exist, therefor you are.

by what ever reason, then that feeling is true. There is experience that persons tend to feel insulted very easily - e.g. from hearing that personhood is not necessarily the only mode of human experience.

If everyone did the right thing, there would be no need for laws. But they don't. Hence laws saying what possessions belong to whom, traffic signs to obey, who owns what possessions and debts (including being able to find out information if someone is in the hospital) with marriage laws.

A "community" of even a few people living together in a join household usually make rules to smooth things out. Are they a "modern state", have they lost all freedom of variety?

If your life and loves have no relation on the "general subject" of what this thread is about, why did you offer them up in a post?

Here some general thoughts. Taking care of children and raising them into decent human beings, or even giving them a fair chance to live a full satisfying human life is a tall task in modern society and especially now when the modern society is collapsing under its own impossibility. Especially difficult for single parent and two parents who are both forced to work in wage slavery and have little time, endurance and attention left to spare after fullfilling the social obligations of slavery of the modern man to the capitalistic profit making.

So, from purely practical point of view, a "village" of shared responsibilities and mutual aid in child raising would be better in many ways than the prevailing model of nuclear family (=divide and conquer). Life as such is contradictory eternal conflict, so there are no ideal perfect solutions - and perfect is the worst enemy of good - so I'm not proposing anything but that if a group of people (regardless of sex and sexual orientation) find it satisfactory and practical to live together sharing responsibilities instead of each trying to cope alone in parenthood, I don't see why society and legislation should have anything to say on how such group of people agree by themselves to live.

And of course it shows that you were not being honest when you said you had no relation to the subject. You were merely attempting to avoid the specific questions you have been asked.

To be very clear, as a citizen of Woodstock Nation, I tell you that ignoring a question you have been asked is an act of passive verbal violence, a full blown display of contempt, and proof of an imperialistic mindset. To jump into a conversation, but refuse an honest exchange is a blatant display of disrespect for your fellows. It is a dismissal of the humanity of others. Make no mistake, while you lecture here in non sequiter form, many of us do not see the free thinker you are trying to portray, and see instead a smirky person demanding this and that, while giving nothing. You declare, and you question, but you refuse respectful exchange.
Your general thoughts are tired and rehashed. That is why you are being asked specific questions. If you held respect for others as equal human beings, you would not ingore what is being asked. Rude, and also rather boojie. What we used to call 'emotional imperialism'. Yep.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

To follow up on subjects you raised? Such oddly middle class notions, that a question could be 'impolite'. Boojie. Those of us who are free thinkers have nothing to hide, and if we don't wish to discuss something, we don't bring it up.
You claim to have a point to make. You came here to make it. If you want to communicate, questions and answers are how that works. It is imperious to make statments and expect to go unquestioned. Do you expect others to simply cow before your wisdom or what?
Again, be specific. What did I ask you that you found to be too impolite for a message board on which you will say 'go fuck yourself'. Show me what you think was intrusive. Specifically.

So take a breath and explain what you mean. Specifically.

is too long and complex to tell. And me and my wife telling soon (tonight) our children that we are separating does not do the telling any more easier. So very sorry, but cannot satisfy your curiosity now any more than this. So you are free to make any assumptions you wish to make, however wrong they all will be.

If you didn't want anyone to know anything personal about you, perhaps you shouldn't have talked about your personal life.

Thanks

for the refreshing personal attack

That is only based on the axiom that all humans are by necessity persons.

It's not the same thing as gay marriage.

At all.

Changed my sig line.

The "civil marriage" is entered into in order to create a stable family unit with equality assured for both partners, and certain benefits extended to children as members of the family unit. Apart from any religious or spiritual argument (which are also very important, but should be kept separate from the State as much as possible where there are differences of opinion) the government wants to promote stability.

ordering "stable family unit" is nothing but another manifestation of divide and conquer, to keep people separated and ruled by the system. And what is that thing you call "equality"?

I know that there are people who have strong opinions in favor of being able to love multiple partners, and they aren't necessarilly Mormons (at least the people I have encountered).

My point is that marriage embodies a loving, committed relationship between two people, and that carries all of the jealousy and selfishness that comes with such a relationship. Jealousy and selfishness may not be positive emotions, but they are present in most marriages. The right to being married also gives one partner the right to divorce if they feel wronged enough by the other partner. This dynamic in a 3 (or more) way relationship seems like it would be radically different enough that you would need to define it as another type of relationship other than marriage.

To me, this argument is about society's ability to dictate how people live their lives.

I just think that it is intellectually consistent to open marriage up to people creating family units based on love and caring of each other.

No one is only able to love a group of people. That doesn't exist as a human condition, so there is no human right involved.

Like I said, there is an argument as far as constitutional rights go, but that argument is religion.

And there's still the hurdle of creating a legal system where everyone's rights are adequately protected.

But like I said, I'm not opposed to it if that legal hurdle can be overcome. My only concern is that all people's rights be protected. But it's still a different issue than same-sex marriage.

What if as a bisexual male or female you truly want to have a member of each sex you want to legally spend your life with.

just being bisexual doesn't make one polyamorous. Many if not most bisexuals want to focus on one relationship at a time, and those who plan to get married may want to plan on only one partner, regardless of their sex. There are also plenty of straight people with polyamorous tendencies, so there is no reason to identify bisexuality with polyamorism.

Obviously there are still people who will always desire monogamy no matter if their sexual appetites go both ways equally. Maybe that is a rarity as well. I'm just trying to allow for the exceptions to the rules, because shouldn't they be spoken for too?

then they would have to become politically active and put together strong legal arguments for their cause. Apparently the ACLU is willing to represent polygamists.

A wiser man than I once said "All you need is love" and we should do all we can to make sure as much can be made as possible, no?


"And in the end, the love you take
is equal to the love you make"
-The Beatles

The bisexuals I've known who have brought this up have said they are happy with someone of either sex, not that they need both, but I'd have to defer to them as I am no authority.

How nice and superior of you to know perfectly and enlighten the rest of the stupid masses what is "human condition". It is what you say it is, no matter what others elsewhere might experience (wrongly).

But I have a pretty good idea of what they'll say.

I don't hold any Court of Men superior to what voices of reason and conscience tell me. I am not a subject, I'm just a human.

so a "court of men" is pretty relevant.

but as all discussions go, they spread. And the real point being, I don't see why in the first place, state or any other authority should delegalise or criminalize any kind of marriage.

Wow! Here is you on this very thread:

"As for social institutions for "marriage" among human cultures, there is more variation than you can imagine. But Euro-Americans cannot but think in universal moral codes and attempt to narrow down and homogenise everything into their cultural memes."

Talk about smug and superior! This from a person who can not answer one specific question in free form, but can only barf up generalities.

You keep making the universalist claim that all humans must be "persons" because that is how you feel and experience. There is no respect for variation and differenence in such claims.

I think all humans are persons born with a set of absolute rights. Perhaps I am wrong. So please explain what you mean. Person means human being, and nothing else. I am not sure what you think person means. We are people, humans, individual persons. We form groups and tribes and families with other persons, humans, people.
What do you see as the variation from being a person? I really don't get what you mean at all. YOu see yourself as a non person? Not human? Not individual? Trying to understand your meaning here.
If you do not see yourself as a person, how do you see yourself?

has been characterized by Europeans as having "poorly developed sense/concept of personhood", which obivously justifies the well meaning manifest destiny of Europeans to civilize our people - with sword and fire.

A philosopher who tries to explain this local non-Indo-European experience to English speakers has said, to quote, that "asubjective experience is indifferent to both subject and non-subject". The question in form of either-or does not need to rise at all. This does not mean there would be no sense of me-ness, coming and going. But the point, if there is one, is that this local experience is genuinely untranslatable, defying the doctrine of universal translatability.

So again you characterize others according to your presumptions while claiming the same is being done to you. Amazing.
I see you have a huge respect for your own culture, and very little knowlege or regard for that of others. As I have no idea where you are from, I am at a tad of a disadvantage. It also does not help that you become offended when you are aked an honest question, and claim that ingnorant members of other cultures could never comprehend your own. Yet you think you understand my culture clearly and fully. That is amzazingly self centric.
I never said your sense of anything was poorly developed, and it shows low morality to try to make that connection when you are being asked to explain and say that I'm too stupid to understand. I offer to you that this is why people are asking you specific questions, to attempt to understand what you are unable to state clearly, or unwilling.
I think that in order to procede, you should share one bit of your own opinion, or the collective opinion you represent, or however you'd like that said.

The key to understanding here is this: do you think that a woman should be able to take as many husbands as they wish, or only that men should be allowed multiple wives?

and practiced in many cultures. Why should I be judgemental of anything? "Do not judge lest you be judged" said Jeesus.

As for my accomodation with prevalent Euro-American culture, I've been conditioned into that in many ways and also studied it deeply (Greek roots of e.g.), and also through European self criticism (Heidegger etc.). That is not the difficult thing, what is difficult is to brake the mold and see it not only from inside but also from outside - to find my own roots in language and land you call Finnish. Being a borderline case. :)

What language are you talking about as you seem to be writing English here? What "local non-Indo-European experience" are you talking about? Why do you assume that just because we speak English here that we all fit into your category of not understanding?

would be the first step towards any possibility of genuine comprehension, don't you think? And not trying to categorize anything, that is what Greeks do ;-).

In Finnish, e.g., we have grammatical structures that are in a way so much "less structured" that they cannot be translated into Indo-European languages but remain untranslatable peculiarities. There is possibility that they can be explained, at least on some level, but that is different from being translated.

What is peculiar, is that it seems insulting to even suggest to English speakers that not everything is translatable or understandable in the confines of English language and experience molded by growing up into this language and thought patterns inherent in it.

if the person I want to marry has the same XX/XY chromosomes as I do? Adults have the legal right to marry another person. Limiting it by chromosomes is unequal.

Comparing polygamy to Equal Rights is like saying "Why shouldn't I be able to marry my goat?" 2 people can marry. Why should it be limited to chromosomally different?

A more comparable comparison would be why not say marriage is only between people of reproducing age, and only if they reproduce. If the "majority" of people said this is ok, would it be ok?

How about if the "majority" of people said women should wear burqas? Once you get into "majority" legislating Civil Rights, it gets wrong.

being denied the right to the same contractual agreement.

If we are arguing that laws should be blind to sex then this is a broader argument.

version of the marriage contract, to accommodate multiple simultaneous spouses, I don't object. But it is a different contract than the existing 2 person type, regardless of gender of spouses.

Why aren't the women's groups backing this? Wouldn't they be the natural ally in this argument?

Why don't we wipe out male/female in law?

I don't seem to be hearing this argument though. The argument seems to be all about love. To me, validating emotions as the reason to vote yes/no also validates people's choice of whether or not they approve of homosexuality.

California Women Lawyers has joined with the Beverly Hills Bar Association in filing an amicus brief with arguments against Prop 8:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/letter-support-s1680xx-multi.pdf

requires a different set of statutes.

I don't think there is an legal or civil right standing for "validating emotions".

It just seems to me that certain arguments are being made to the populace on an emotional level, which then provokes emotional judgement from all sides.

to have any contract with any other adult or group of adults as long as it doesn't restrict the rights and freedoms of any other adults. Don't you?

I feel the same way. If people want to marry multiple other people and live as a triad or larger group, I say let them. Keeping the state out of people's bedrooms means keeping the state out of everybody's bedroom. I support the right of people to live their lives in whatever way works best for them as long as it's {safe, sane, consentual} and isn't hurting anybody else.

3

Please see Post #4 above, which is very well stated. The argument for sexual freedom is not based on "Minority Rights". It is based on extending one's freedoms rather than addressing one's basic needs. No one is preventing people from being in multiple relationships, in fact, they could probably create legal contracts with their multiple partners. The issue is that, there is no rational argument that this group deserves special protections. Gays and lesbians (at least 3% of the population) do not have the freedom to choose whether they can be in a satisfying heterosexual relationship.

If a woman is in love with more than one man, preventing her from marrying one of them is a denial of her right to enter freely into a contract. The basic principle of liberalism, as defined by John Stuart Mill, is that no one can deprive anyone else of any rights and freedoms as long as those rights and freedoms don't adversely affect anyone else. It's the same argument, except that gays and lesbians have had a history of being oppressed.

and the right to religious freedom is very clearly defined in the Constitution, while the right to enter any contract you want isn't, so the strongest legal argument for polygamy is still religious freedom.

Without contracts there is no business at all.

In your view, can government completely ban the entering of contracts by the citizens and not violate anyone's rights?

I can't enter into a contract with someone to kill someone else. The fact that a contract is involved does not make something a human right or any kind of right.

The basic principle of liberalism has not been adopted by the CA Supreme Court. They have recognized gays and lesbians as a "suspect classification" which requires more strict scrutiny with respect to equal protection. They have specifically stated that polygamists, as a group, do not deserve such classification. We have several Civil Rights groups arguing our case for us, which now includes other groups representing racial minorities that are arguing our case in order to protect their own rights. It's easy enough to argue principles of liberalism, but you also need to get some strong legal backing for your cause.

In that case, I agree with you. I don't know much about what the legal argument's based on. I'm talking about philosophical principles more than questions of legality.

In most every other respect, sure why not.

The tax benefit is a show stopper though. It is necessary to allow a partner to qualify as a dependent, but more than one? Can't say I agree with that.

They are two entirely different things. The only way they are related is that it's a "consenting adults" thing. But they are different in far more ways. The issue of same-sex marriage is tied to a human rights issue - people should have the right to marry the person they love. But nobody is only able to love three people, so that isn't a human rights issue.

There is a rights issue for polygamy but it's a religious rights issue. People for whom it is important to their religion perhaps should have that right, however our legislature would have to find a way to allow it and make sure that all people involved have their rights thoroughly protected.

Anyway, two entirely different issue. I am not currently in favor of polygamy because it hasn't usually been done in a way that is fair to all people involved so far, however I see that it theoretically could be if set up right, so I keep my mind open to it should it ever be made truly fair. I am very in favor of same-sex marriage, but for different reasons.

some posters are arguing that it is a sexual freedom issue, which in many cases runs counter to the desires of those who want stronger "religious rights".

They have the sexual freedom to have multiple partners without marriage. Marriage is about forming a family unit as far as legalities go. And then you have to look at why someone wants to form a family unit with someone else, or with other people. The reasons they want to form that family unit are the reasons which the legislature would look at, not the desire to have sex with multiple partners.

It's the same dynamic exactly. Two people meet, they fall in love, they choose to bond exclusively to each other, emotionally and physically. That is the norm, and gays do it exactly the same way straights do it.

Polygamy may be normal, but it's not similar to the dynamic that appears to be most natural for our citizens in our culture.

Therefore, gay marriage is fundamentally indistinguishable from straight marriage, while polygamous marriage is not.

Gollygee (post 15) and Texas Observer (post 13) get it!

And the point regarding Prop 8 and same-sex marriage: This is about CIVIL rights, LEGAL rights. Marriage is a legal, civil CONTRACT.

This is NOT about love! It's NOT about sex! It's NOT about sexual freedom! It's NOT about religion, spirituality, or faith! It's NOT about morals! It's NOT about how many people you have sex with, procreate with, love, are attracted to, etc etc etc!

There are over 1,000 laws on the books pertaining to the legal, civil contract identified and defined as MARRIAGE. Laws pertaining to custody, property, separation, divorce, full-faith-and-credit, joint ventures, assets, blah blah blah. What an unbelievable legal (and otherwise) MESS that would be created, were groups of people permitted to enter in such a contract. Damn, it's complicated enough with just two involved!

People (usually right-wingers) who include polygamy and incest in their "arguments" are framing the debate around the ridiculous notion that marriage is defined as who you're having sex with--or want to have sex with.

Anyone in our society who hasn't spent his or her entire life alone in a cave knows that marriage does not necessarily involve love, sex, attraction, and/or procreation.

This garbage about polygamy and incest is simply clutter. The right-wing's feeble attempt to make an uncomplicated issue appear complex and complicated.

Please stop taking the bait--and least when it comes to Prop 8 discussions/same-sex marriage rights discussions.

I'm PRO-choice. Whoever wants to be married should.

Mind blowing when "progressives" argue the opposite. :eyes: The hypocrisy is disgusting.

but I find it disgusting when people try to place gays and lesbians on par with polygamists, and then use it as a wedge issue that helps to defeat our cause.

Mormons can get married, if they want to marry multiple wives at once then they should take it up with the legislature of their state, imo Polygamy is a special right, gay marriage is not, it's an equal right.

There are people jacking off, trying to get a high reply count to their threads.

I thought the media might be up to something, but I could be wrong because I haven't been watching that much teevee. Don Lemon had an excellent report on CNN about Prop 8 just now, btw.

a return to this recycled BS by a few DUers.

Why, I wonder, are some DUers intent on creating a false dichotomy? Things that make one go "hmmmmmm."

'nother question.

Interesting, yes?

seriously...

Homosexuality is not a choice. This is NOT up for debate.

Whether people are naturally monogamous or not IS up for debate.

They're trying to make homosexuality and choice an issue for debate by bringing in the polygamy comparison. They've taken this tack time and time again, rejecting science and presenting bogus stories of praying the gay away. Sure, you may successfully make a willing participant go against their nature, but the process is tantamount to brainwashing.

A more apt comparison is regarding interrracial relationships, but few would argue (convincingly) that they should be outlawed, or that attraction to people of other races should be corrected via behavior modification.

Take away the debate over choice, and we can get to the heart of the issue.

and you could never brainwash me enough to go against my nature.

I just want to say: my initial post was blasting the media, but I have to say that CNN is doing a great job of coverage of the Saturday protests and issues. On the other hand, the NBC Nightly News gave it all of 15 seconds and stated there were protests in "several cities" leaving it at that. :shrug:

"Homosexuality is not a choice. This is NOT up for debate.

Whether people are naturally monogamous or not IS up for debate."

I know at least one DUer who is a polyamorous, involved with a man and a woman at the same time. They manage the relationship fine. I would support any consenting adult marriage including polygamy, but that's IS BESIDE THE POINT when it comes to comparing polygamy to homosexuality/bisexuality.

For instance, mormon polygamy is heterosexual and is therefore, "privileged."

Also, yes, I am a bisexual woman, but I am monogamous.

In, the end it's apples and oranges, not much relationship...