I was at a party the other night and the election discussion came up. Of course the gay issue came up, and there were two people saying "I just don't agree with gay marriage"....when I asked why not, one of them had no answer. We brought up the fact that gay couples should be allowed to visit in hospitals, should have the same benefits, etc....by the end of that conversation she didn't know what to say.

BUT, on the other hand, there was this old woman. Her reason for not supporting gay rights?? BIGAMY. Yep folks, because if you give gays the same rights as us straight folk, they will demand that they be allowed to marry BOTH sexes...and then Bigomy will eventually have to be legalized....Gee, I never looked at it that way WTF???

That is such a messed up argument. Polyamory or polygamy is an entirely different thing than being gay, lesbian or bisexual. For example, I'm bi, but I'm a monogamous person. I have no desire to be in more than one romantic relationship at a time. Hell, some of my exes might say that I wasn't all that good at handling even one relationship, never mind multiple ones.

Bogus argument. Bigamy means a person is legally married to more than one person. Heterosexuals can and have practiced this. So this has nothing to do with giving the gays the right to marry. As far as adultery is concerned, that knows no bounds.

If a person is bisexual, meaning he or she is attracted to both genders, and decides to marry ONE person, that is not bigamy. There are lots of misinterpretations of homosexuality and bisexuality. We need to keep the facts straight and, IMHO, remember that what people choose to do in their lives is their business.

Polygamy, Bigamy, whatever that lady was talking about was a crazy argument. I have gay friends, and I have Bi friends. Rox, I'm inclined to agree with you about Bi's having a harding time keeping a relationship All I know is that that was the most insane argument I'd ever heard...lol Us NORMAL folk just looked at each other around the table like

I agree. I don't think she knew the difference herself. Her argument was if you allow gays to marry, they will want to marry one of each sex....which would be more of a concern for bisexuals. But in reality, just because someone is bisexual doesn't mean that the jealousy factor won't come into play. I think a threesome marriage is pretty much out of the question.

I do know some folks who live as threesomes and quads. And sometimes two of those people will be married to each other, especially if they have children together. So those folks might be interested in marriage to multiple partners. But in all of the instances I know like this, the partners are either straight or bi, not gay, although I'm sure it also happens in the gay community as well.

That said, I still believe that whether a person is monogamous or not is totally separate from whether they are GLBT.

This is an old argument - I'm surprised you hadn't heard it before. There are other ones I find even more offensive - that if you allow gay marriage you'll be encouraging child abuse, and bestiality.

After all - a dyke is just a perverted animal, right? sigh

Oh yeah - I've been told that if I were to be allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals in marriage - I'd be opening a window for pedaphiles to marry children, encouraging polygamy, and endorsing bestiality (sex with animals). That's a mighty heavy charge to have leveled in your direction.

I don't worry too much about the people who say such things though. They belong to the fringe element of our society that also believes what the tabloids print is gospel truth.

Don't know if you've noticed, but we're being taken over by the right-wing fringe-element. :ph34r:

See, now this I would have a problem with on a MARRIAGE standpoint. Marry one person and screw around, thats your option. But to allow the rights, I DEFINITLY think that marriage should be between two people only.

Regardless of this issue, I've come to the realization that the term marriage really means nothing. If I were gay, I guess I'd be pissed off about not being allowed the same benefits, but to be honest, I wouldn't want to be married in a church or in the presence of people who didn't support me anyhow.

I think the entire fight about gay rights comes from something deep in the "collective unconscious".

I read a theory a long time ago (I can't remember the author, maybe Maslow) about the three basic kinds of people in the world.

Type 1; The "Slow Burner". This type of person is very monogomous, steady, reliable, but not romantic.

Type 2; The "Fast Burner". This type of person is monogomous also, but less steady, more volatile, and is very romantic.

Type3; The "Playful". This type of person is not monogomous, and has many relationships, but is sincere in each relationship.

The Big Problem according to the author of the theory, is that these three types of people don't readly recognize themselves or the other two types, and often pick the wrong type of partner. This causes much pain.

The other problem is for the "Playful". This person is disdained by the other two types because he/she is not monogomous. Cultures and religions throughout history have persecuted the Playful as sinful, a threat to families..etc.

Even though some gay people are monogomous, and may fit into one of the first two types, they are PERCEIVED as being a "Playful" (GAY) by the "Hetero" population.

This brings up the unconscious hatred/fear of Type1 and Type2 people for those perceived as such. And since they vastly outnumber Type3, they are vulnerable.

I've heard this argument before though. What they're saying, and it's a harder argument to debunk than you might think, is that there has to be a clear stopping point in the definition of marriage because if you don't have one, where will it end?

Specifically, they say, "Marriage is between one man and one woman, period." Then you say, "No, that is not right. Marriage in the eyes of the state, from which marriage licenses emanate, is a contract and you cannot deny gay couples the right to enter into a legal contract." Then they say, "Following that reasoning, you cannot allow any consenting adults the right to enter into that contract, so you cannot deny people who wish to enter into it with more than one person the right to do so." Then you can ONLY say something like, "An inherent property of the marriage contract is the expectation of a commitment not to involve other people, thus a three or more-way marriage is inherently self-voiding." If you're lucky, they'll be satisfied with that, but if they're on their toes, they'll say, "What if they choose to tailor that contract to the needs of their arrangement, as all other contracts can be written to particular expectations as is marriage per pre-nuptual agreements, to exclude monogamy as a requirement?" Then you'd have no argument left but to say, "Well, the one thing that 99% of our population can agree on is that marriage is a relationship between two people, so I think we can find common ground to leave it like that." And they'll say, "Well, isn't that just you doing the same thing we're doing with gay marriage, but tailoring it to your own more but not endlessly permissible value system?" To which you can only say, "Yes."

Then what?

Thankfully the folks that use the Christian Right's arguements are getting older,and they're kids don't believe that garbage, so now it's just a matter of time till these old fools die. One note to the elderly, MANY of the staff in nursing homes are gay and lesbian, so you might not want to PO us!

You know I never thought of that. Many gay people I know are in caring or at least non-violent jobs. I personally would like to own a greenhouse or tree farm, so I guess that makes my job a non-violent one.