[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, but first... why is a polygamous relationship necessarily more harmful than a monogamous relationship?

Originally Posted by subego

Polygamy is illegal because it often causes demonstrable harm to one or more of the involved parties. A criminal level of harm even.

My objection to legalizing plural marriage isn't because it necessarily causes harm to the practioners. I'm sure there are lots of people in successful plural relationships.

The problems are cumulative. Like pollution, it's not a problem if one person does it. If it becomes a social trend, it becomes a disaster. Sanctioning the hoarding of wives by the rich becomes a nightmare for everyone else.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wait, I have to actually live the scenario to opine? And drag my wife into it? Uh oh. I don't go looking for it, don't endorse it, couldn't bring myself to qualify if I had even found it, and I am otherwise free of Tourette's syndrome.

Let's consider the present failure rate of our current situation for perspective. You don't suppose at least some of these bizarre situations are consensual? What business is it of ours ultimately? What about the tuna, in dolphin-free tuna?

Why doesn't anyone champion the tuna?

What are "it" and "these"?

I hate indefinite subjects.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

My objection to legalizing plural marriage isn't because it necessarily causes harm to the practioners. I'm sure there are lots of people in successful plural relationships.

The problems are cumulative. Like pollution, it's not a problem if one person does it. If it becomes a social trend, it becomes a disaster. Sanctioning the hoarding of wives by the rich becomes a nightmare for everyone else.

1) I didn't use the word "necessarily".

2) I'm more concerned by it being a nightmare for the wives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'd have to ask him. So far he post-poned the inquiry by subego.


Sure there is – part of the reason people fight even against civil unions is because recognizing those same-sex partnerships is seen as legitimizing and accepting that lifestyle.

As for the rest, we're still talking govt. unions even for straights, and religious marriages for gays if the church will allow it, right? Because those lines get real blurry to me.

Post-poning inquiries? Eesh. I'm not paid to be here.

The marriage is wherever or however people want to get married up to and including drive thru Elvis chapels. From the perspective of the State, It's a log in their system. This log is no more profound than the wills of the two who make the agreement behind it, whoever they are. I don't want a sandbox at all. When I say civil unions for any two people who wish to enter into the contractual relationship, I mean any two people. Not marriage under one condition and civil unions under another. IMO, there's just no compelling need for government involvement over merely logging the relationship. Yet, it has defined marriage. The SCOTUS will be required to consider the definition of marriage and the Constitutionality of DOMA. They will either take the chicken exit and somehow kick it back to the States, redefine marriage, or divorce themselves from the need to define it at all. It makes sense to me that they could take this opportunity to acknowledge that from the perspective of the State; it's truly nothing more than a log in their system. If gay marriage legislation were to present itself to me, my vote for or against the legislation would depend on the legislation itself and how it's written. Yes, there are those on the right and left of this issue that hate civil unions, but I'm not beholden to either one and I've seen no compelling reason I should be.

There seems to be this "you're either for us or against us" mentality as if the word homophobia is even appropriate in the same sentence with a description of someone who is trying to express a genuinely equal condition. If you knew me, you'd know me to be among the most tolerant and open people on the planet. No one can define their marriage better than the two who enter the agreement and if there's a secret agenda to my view on civil unions at all, it would be a wake up call to those who've been defining marriage all along. It's all you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What are "it" and "these"?

I hate indefinite subjects.

I'm sorry you hate them, but if you truly don't know what "it" and "these" were in my post -- you're not really invested enough in our conversation... if you'll excuse me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) I didn't use the word "necessarily".

2) I'm more concerned by it being a nightmare for the wives.

Absolutely. If it isn't a communal relationship, it can't work to everyone's benefit. Then you end up with "a master and servants" instead of "husbands and wives". I was worried about my daughter at first, if there could be issues, but we all love her. It truly is a situation of 3 equal parents, and she receives all the care and affection that any child could want. Is she getting spoiled because of all the attention? Well, that's a different matter, entirely.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Relevant to your assertion that sexual orientation is more of a continuum than race is? Since incest is not race, and incest is not sexual orientation, it doesn't explain any difference perceived between race and sexual orientation.

You began with octoroon; a better example of less race and would be less of a consideration on any racial matter. I don't accept that premise and maintain that sexual orientation is more fluid than race and gender. I think just the dichotomy in our level of knowledge between the two alone sets them apart in the most obvious way. Of course this is all IMO.

No of course not! We just share the same interest in the specificity of language

Fair enough.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm sorry you hate them, but if you truly don't know what "it" and "these" were in my post -- you're not really invested enough in our conversation... if you'll excuse me.

You are most mistaken in interpreting a request for clarity as a lack of investment.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think just the dichotomy in our level of knowledge between the two alone sets them apart in the most obvious way. Of course this is all IMO.

What dichotomy is that?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You can call it whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and in the confines of your own church/temple/popsicle stand.

"Yeah, Sheila and me were baconated 2 years ago. All i had to do was sign the civil union certificate from the courthouse"

Or

"Yeah, Ron and John got hitched at the new church that just opened up, all they had to do was sign the civil union certificate they got from the courthouse"

Or even

"Yeah, Jim and Bob got married at their church. All they had to do was sign a civil union certificate they got from the courthouse"

Alright, but what if everyone calls it marriage because that's way easier? (Outside of their home and popsicle stand)

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Alright, but what if everyone calls it marriage because that's way easier? (Outside of their home and popsicle stand)

The 1st amendment protects that, and I'm all for it!

The government, however, would only recognize the civil union between the two people.

If the religious right has a problem they can exercise that right to say "well we don't think you're really married". You can then exercise yours and say "**** off."

The point is the government isn't allowing/disallowing marriage.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Post-poning inquiries? Eesh. I'm not paid to be here.

No one is. You said "Okay, but first..." That's a postponement of what seems like a yes or no question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The marriage is wherever or however people want to get married up to and including drive thru Elvis chapels. From the perspective of the State, It's a log in their system. This log is no more profound than the wills of the two who make the agreement behind it, whoever they are. I don't want a sandbox at all. When I say civil unions for any two people who wish to enter into the contractual relationship, I mean any two people. Not marriage under one condition and civil unions under another. IMO, there's just no compelling need for government involvement over merely logging the relationship. Yet, it has defined marriage. The SCOTUS will be required to consider the definition of marriage and the Constitutionality of DOMA. They will either take the chicken exit and somehow kick it back to the States, redefine marriage, or divorce themselves from the need to define it at all. It makes sense to me that they could take this opportunity to acknowledge that from the perspective of the State; it's truly nothing more than a log in their system. If gay marriage legislation were to present itself to me, my vote for or against the legislation would depend on the legislation itself and how it's written. Yes, there are those on the right and left of this issue that hate civil unions, but I'm not beholden to either one and I've seen no compelling reason I should be.

There seems to be this "you're either for us or against us" mentality as if the word homophobia is even appropriate in the same sentence with a description of someone who is trying to express a genuinely equal condition. If you knew me, you'd know me to be among the most tolerant and open people on the planet. No one can define their marriage better than the two who enter the agreement and if there's a secret agenda to my view on civil unions at all, it would be a wake up call to those who've been defining marriage all along. It's all you.

Nowhere was the word homophobia uttered, so let's get a grip here.

This "No one can define their marriage better than the two who enter the agreement" is romantic bullshit that ignores the legal reality of the situation.

As for my misguided perceptions, I suppose Skeleton did what he could to clarify that for me with "sandbox the non-traditional relationships away from 'real' marriage". Does that describe what you're going for?

I guess my issue with that is I was under the impression civil unions were an attempt to create 'separate but equal' but what he's describing is more of a 'chinese knock-off' of marriage that no one will respect. I think I find that more insulting.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The 1st amendment protects that, and I'm all for it!

Cool. Your wording made it sound like people were only "allowed" to call it whatever in private.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The government, however, would only recognize the civil union between the two people.

If the religious right has a problem they can exercise that right to say "well we don't think you're really married". You can then exercise yours and say "**** off."

I'm under the impression gay couples can get married at certain churches, so the religious right would be incorrect there, too.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Cool. Your wording made it sound like people were only "allowed" to call it whatever in private.

No, we can call ourselves whatever we want. Dakar, will you baconate me?

I'm under the impression gay couples can get married at certain churches, so the religious right would be incorrect there, too.

They can recognize whatever they like - it has no bearing on how the state views a couple. It's their freedom of religion and of speech. It also furthers our constitution's "separation of church and state" which, IMO is a good thing to be had in the letter of the law.

"Incorrect" and "unlawful" are too very distinct things. One is necessary and the other forbidden.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It also furthers our constitution's "separation of church and state" which, IMO is a good thing to be had in the letter of the law.

This is the second time I've seen this mentioned in the thread. You know it's a fun topic when conservatives are pro separation of church and state, when usually they'll be the first to tell you it's not even in the constitution.

Damn, gay marriage, you scary.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is the second time I've seen this mentioned in the thread. You know it's a fun topic when conservatives are pro separation of church and state, when usually they'll be the first to tell you it's not even in the constitution.

Damn, gay marriage, you scary.

Yeah, don't you love it? Did you also know that we cause earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes? And when we can also cause the conservatives to acknowledge separation of church and state- now that's some magical powers right there.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is the second time I've seen this mentioned in the thread. You know it's a fun topic when conservatives are pro separation of church and state, when usually they'll be the first to tell you it's not even in the constitution.

Damn, gay marriage, you scary.

I've always been pro separation of church and state.

I think there is a big distinction between that separation of church and state and "freedom from religion" but thats just IMO.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've always been pro separation of church and state.

I think there is a big distinction between that separation of church and state and "freedom from religion" but thats just IMO.

That post wasn't to point an accusing finger at you personally.

[andi*pandi]

Baconate each other all you want, but people, baconaising is just wrong.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That post wasn't to point an accusing finger at you personally.

I understand but as I identify as a conservative I thought I'd put a face to the strawman I say this in jest. Please don't take offense

Also you never answered me, will you be my baconife?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No one is. You said "Okay, but first..." That's a postponement of what seems like a yes or no question.

It was contingent upon him answering a direct question that I had asked in the post preceding his question. i.e. It wasn't postponement, it was quid pro quo.

Nowhere was the word homophobia uttered, so let's get a grip here.

Uncle suggested that civil unions were predicated on sandboxing non-traditional from traditional marriages and those supporting the endeavor (despite being homophobic) could still advocate a more equitable, positive outcome. I rejected the inclusion of homophobic in the comment as unnecessary and in my case as one advocating civil unions for all; inaccurate. I could've directed the complaint to him, but I separated it to simply make the case against it generally. No one's losing their grip, Freud.

This "No one can define their marriage better than the two who enter the agreement" is romantic bullshit that ignores the legal reality of the situation.

The legal reality of the situation is that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and legislation has been passed at the Federal level protecting the sanctity of this definition of marriage. I made the statement in context of challenging the legal reality of the situation. You have a problem with that? Something I said not true?

As for my misguided perceptions, I suppose Skeleton did what he could to clarify that for me with "sandbox the non-traditional relationships away from 'real' marriage". Does that describe what you're going for?

No. In fact, I took issue with this specific idea in my post to you.

I guess my issue with that is I was under the impression civil unions were an attempt to create 'separate but equal' but what he's describing is more of a 'chinese knock-off' of marriage that no one will respect. I think I find that more insulting.

This is melodramatic bullshit that ignores the legal reality of the situation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What dichotomy is that?

What dichotomy do you suppose that is?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What dichotomy do you suppose that is?

Based on your previous posts, it could refer to the dichotomy between race and sexuality, or between the two sexes (or between two of the many races), or between the various different sexualities, or between sexuality and sexual deviancy (like incest or pedophilia). None are applicable, but I don't want to put words in your mouth before explaining why, that would be a straw-man

It might actually be none of those things, but something I hadn't thought of, which actually makes me change my mind

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I rejected the inclusion of homophobic in the comment as unnecessary and in my case as one advocating civil unions for all; inaccurate.

Yeah, I owe you an apology for that, I had initially meant to start by reminding him you might actually support the inclusion of plural marriage union, but while typing my post evolved into "even if you assume the worst, it's still consistent." I was not assuming the worst about you, I just didn't make that clear.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Also you never answered me, will you be my baconife?

I don't know what a baconife is, but since I don't know you... no?

[The Final Dakar]

I have officially entered the "this conversation has gone on so long I've lost all points of reference" portion of the thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was contingent upon him answering a direct question that I had asked in the post preceding his question. i.e. It wasn't postponement, it was quid pro quo.

Fair enough. Was the quid pro quo satisfied? The vibe I'm getting is 'no' but Uncle Skeleton hasn't delivered on his vibe's so I shouldn't trust mine, either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Uncle suggested that civil unions were predicated on sandboxing non-traditional from traditional marriages and those supporting the endeavor (despite being homophobic) could still advocate a more equitable, positive outcome. I rejected the inclusion of homophobic in the comment as unnecessary and in my case as one advocating civil unions for all; inaccurate. I could've directed the complaint to him, but I separated it to simply make the case against it generally. No one's losing their grip, Freud.

The way you phrased your response the accusation appeared levied at me. That's what I took issue with.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The legal reality of the situation is that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and legislation has been passed at the Federal level protecting the sanctity of this definition of marriage. I made the statement in context of challenging the legal reality of the situation. You have a problem with that? Something I said not true?

Marriage is a legal gray area, which is why many states rushed to amend the definition to "man and a woman". The legal reality of the situation is that many states can/could have to recognize gay marriage under the letter of the law. (See: California, Iowa, Connecticut)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. In fact, I took issue with this specific idea in my post to you.

Okay, thanks. US arguing in your stead has done nothing to make this conversation more legible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is melodramatic bullshit that ignores the legal reality of the situation.

Does it? Because the legal reality I see is that no one is looking to change marriage to civil unions, but are pro-active about limiting gays to such. Like straights going "Go sit at that table, we'll catch up to you in a bit." Suuuuuuuuurrrre.


(And by no one I mean anyone with clout or power)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Fair enough. Was the quid pro quo satisfied?

Not really, but I don't want to goad people into responding if they don't want to. It's all good.

The vibe I'm getting is 'no' but Uncle Skeleton hasn't delivered on his vibe's so I shouldn't trust mine, either.

Uncle explained himself satisfactorily, for whatever that means to him.

The way you phrased your response the accusation appeared levied at me. That's what I took issue with.

It was sloppy. I apologize.

Marriage is a legal gray area, which is why many states rushed to amend the definition to "man and a woman". The legal reality of the situation is that many states can/could have to recognize gay marriage under the letter of the law. (See: California, Iowa, Connecticut)

I agree philosophically that marriage is a legal gray area, but the SCOTUS will absolutely have to address the present definition of marriage which is one man and one woman. I don't agree about "rushing to amend the definition to "man and woman" though. It was more like, over the past 15 years, States have been amending their Constitutions to ban anything other than man and woman. I dare say in most cases, the language for marriage was already clear and the amendment was the result of nothing more than politics. Certainly, many states are living by some letter of law and may very well have to recognize gay marriage under the letter of the law.

Okay, thanks. US arguing in your stead has done nothing to make this conversation more legible.

I don't think it's fair to say he's arguing in my stead. Maybe my vibe-dar is off too, but I don't think he's agreeing with me or civil unions at all. Occasionally, he does seem to be curious about others' misunderstanding of moderate/right-wing views.

Does it? Because the legal reality I see is that no one is looking to change marriage to civil unions, but are pro-active about limiting gays to such. Like straights going "Go sit at that table, we'll catch up to you in a bit." Suuuuuuuuurrrre.

Their laws against gay marriage might be rendered unenforceable as you mentioned earlier; they'd have to recognize gay marriage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Based on your previous posts, it could refer to the dichotomy between race and sexuality, or between the two sexes (or between two of the many races), or between the various different sexualities, or between sexuality and sexual deviancy (like incest or pedophilia). None are applicable, but I don't want to put words in your mouth before explaining why, that would be a straw-man

The whole premise of our discussion was my statement on the fluidity of sexual orientation vs gender and race.

It might actually be none of those things, but something I hadn't thought of, which actually makes me change my mind

Uh oh. Now I must know. Is it gross?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, I owe you an apology for that, I had initially meant to start by reminding him you might actually support the inclusion of plural marriage union, but while typing my post evolved into "even if you assume the worst, it's still consistent." I was not assuming the worst about you, I just didn't make that clear.

It's all good. I was sloppy in that I was trying to take a less combative approach to your non-combative use of the word homophobic by addressing it more generally, but it came out directed at Dakar. See how destructive you are? And you're not even trying.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The whole premise of our discussion was my statement on the fluidity of sexual orientation vs gender and race.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think just the dichotomy in our level of knowledge between the two alone sets them apart in the most obvious way. Of course this is all IMO.

What is the dichotomy in our level of knowledge? I don't think we really knew anything about the nature of race, back when interracial marriage was being decided. All we knew was that it (race) existed. Someone back then couldn't tell you how many distinct races there were or what caused them, or what new racial distinctions would be formed as the old races intertwined. They couldn't know that hispanic, asian or indian would become as common in the US as they have since then, they basically just thought of things in terms of the "big 2," blacks and whites.
By comparison, now I couldn't tell you how many distinct sexualities there are or what cause them, or what new distinctions will emerge in the next 40 years, or which will rise in prominence and which won't. I mainly think in terms of the "big 2," gay and straight. But just like with race in the '60s, the "big 2" simplification is all I would need in order to answer any question about what rights would need to be honored to constitute justice.

I see no dichotomy.

Uh oh. Now I must know. Is it gross?

If it wasn't something I hadn't thought of, then I'd know

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is the dichotomy in our level of knowledge? I don't think we really knew anything about the nature of race, back when interracial marriage was being decided.

At no time was race thought of as a proclivity, a choice, a mutable factor, or classified a mental disorder.

I see no dichotomy.

I disagree.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At no time was race thought of as a proclivity, a choice, a mutable factor, or classified a mental disorder.

Since homosexuality is none of those things either, what is your point?

[subego]

I think sexuality is mutable.

More so for some than others, however.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think sexuality is mutable.

More so for some than others, however.

Really? So do you choose to be attracted to someone?

[subego]

No, but is that a requirement of mutability?

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by subego 

No, but is that a requirement of mutability?

"Immutable" suggests lack of choice. So yes, I would say so. No one chooses to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual- they just are.

[subego]

Fair enough.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not really, but I don't want to goad people into responding if they don't want to. It's all good.

I generally do the same, though I'll usually make an exception if I feel I'm being purposely ignored.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Uncle explained himself satisfactorily, for whatever that means to him.

Well, he was arguing making assumptions about your position that I think were incorrect, so if he cares (I don't) he's have to start over again.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was sloppy. I apologize.

Apology not necessary. It was a unique situation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree philosophically that marriage is a legal gray area, but the SCOTUS will absolutely have to address the present definition of marriage which is one man and one woman. I don't agree about "rushing to amend the definition to "man and woman" though. It was more like, over the past 15 years, States have been amending their Constitutions to ban anything other than man and woman.

2004 was a banner year for anti gay marriage amendments in direct response to MA recognizing them. It opened the floodgates, if you will.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I dare say in most cases, the language for marriage was already clear and the amendment was the result of nothing more than politics.

Not sure I agree. I know state constitutions differ but I suspect that kind of specificity would be rare as people weren't thinking along these lines until the late 1990s.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's fair to say he's arguing in my stead. Maybe my vibe-dar is off too, but I don't think he's agreeing with me or civil unions at all. Occasionally, he does seem to be curious about others' misunderstanding of moderate/right-wing views.

This is why I tend to detest people who play devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Their laws against gay marriage might be rendered unenforceable as you mentioned earlier; they'd have to recognize gay marriage.

Okay, I think we're on same page here. I think civil unions are cut-off-nose-to-spite-face scenario, but if Americans overwhelmingly supported a blanket conversion, I wouldn't have any real objection.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Since homosexuality is none of those things either, what is your point?

leekohler2, please don't go out of your way to misunderstand me. My point is simply to indicate why it is we're still talking about gay marriage in 2013.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

"Immutable" suggests lack of choice. So yes, I would say so. No one chooses to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual- they just are.

Cynthia Nixon insists she was straight and literally chose to be gay. Anne Heche claims to have "closed the door" on being gay, that she's "changed her mind". Taking some at their word, it would be impossible to proclaim that no one chooses their sexuality.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not really, but I don't want to goad people into responding if they don't want to. It's all good.

Are you talking about me?

"Inherent inequality" was an unacceptable answer for you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm still curious about the plural marriage thing. It seems like subego is talking about the dynamic within the marriage (as if 2 women each have their influence diluted compared with the 1 man's undiluted... whatever he has (but then doesn't that complaint rest on an inequality of its own, why should we assume the individual men AND women aren't all equal to each other?)), whereas lpkmcK was talking about rich men scooping up all the women in town leaving no reproductive opportunities for the poor, to quote another Braveheart line "we breed them out." And I suspect there is no overlap between the two arguments, they merely both happen to point in the "no 3somes" direction. But I was hoping for more details. Like for example, what about 3 gays? Since that doesn't seem to step on the toes of either of the objections I listed, what would be the objection to that?

Please feel free to tell me I missed the point, I was waiting for more point to come at me without prompting, but I got impatient.

[Shaddim]

My perception is that women are innately more flexible in their sexuality, while men tend to develop stronger either/or views, and are tied more strongly to cultural influence and genetic predisposition.

[Shaddim]

Some of our friends are in another plural marriage, 2 men and 1 woman. The dynamics are very similar to ours; dominant, fixed, and mutable (I'm not the dominant personality in mine). Not everyone can make it work, because you usually can't throw 2 of the same types together. It can work in a traditional marriage, but in a communal arrangement (3+) the difficulty isn't squared, as you'd expect, it's cubed with each additional person added.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm still curious about the plural marriage thing. It seems like subego is talking about the dynamic within the marriage (as if 2 women each have their influence diluted compared with the 1 man's undiluted... whatever he has (but then doesn't that complaint rest on an inequality of its own, why should we assume the individual men AND women aren't all equal to each other?)), whereas lpkmcK was talking about rich men scooping up all the women in town leaving no reproductive opportunities for the poor, to quote another Braveheart line "we breed them out." And I suspect there is no overlap between the two arguments, they merely both happen to point in the "no 3somes" direction. But I was hoping for more details. Like for example, what about 3 gays? Since that doesn't seem to step on the toes of either of the objections I listed, what would be the objection to that?

Please feel free to tell me I missed the point, I was waiting for more point to come at me without prompting, but I got impatient.

The inherent inequality I'm talking about with polygyny is that the man gets to marry a bunch of people while the women do not.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Cynthia Nixon insists she was straight and literally chose to be gay. Anne Heche claims to have "closed the door" on being gay, that she's "changed her mind". Taking some at their word, it would be impossible to proclaim that no one chooses their sexuality.

They're both bisexual, and can certainly decide which sex they'd like to be with.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The inherent inequality I'm talking about with polygyny is that the man gets to marry a bunch of people while the women do not.

Are you aware that you just changed words? Were you talking about polygyny the whole time, and only just now started using the right word?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The dynamics are very similar to ours; dominant, fixed, and mutable (I'm not the dominant personality in mine). Not everyone can make it work, because you usually can't throw 2 of the same types together.

I have come to the same conclusion (2 of the same personality type clash), but not about romance. I never put it into words before though. What do you mean by "fixed?" Is dominant not fixed (as opposed to mutable)?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you talking about me?

"Inherent inequality" was an unacceptable answer for you?

Correct and for a couple of reasons; first, there's nothing inherently unequal about polygamy that wouldn't also apply in monogamous relationships. I presume no one would knowingly enter into an inherently unequal situation, but it wouldn't be our business anyway. If it's outright abusive, we have laws for that. Second, you've isolated it to one man, multiple women, but no one else is talking about it as if this would be necessary or the only protected form of polygamy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

They're both bisexual, and can certainly decide which sex they'd like to be with.

The former example is upset by others' pigeonholing her to the label of bisexual. She had never been with a woman and was married to a man for 15 years before, in her words, choosing to be gay. I know few things frustrate the gay community more, but it is so and it can't be said with any degree of certainty that no one chooses their sexual orientation.