quote:
Studies of men who have been in prison for long periods of time find that while they may develop deep affections for some of the men they have sex with while in prison... The connection to their fellow prisoners is a phenomenon of the strict isolation and the shared experience.
So studies show exactly what I said, thank you Rrhain.
Perhaps you should have noticed that I said orientation is based on experience and environment. In the experience and environment of sexual segregation people may end up acquiring a homosexual orientation. I never said it had to last past the conditions where it was acquired.
Unless you are saying a guy that ends up having sex with men for the rest of his natural life is not exhibiting a homosexual orientation? If so then again I think this whole thing swings on what definitions we are using.
You use orientation as permanent, and so some grand scheme on a person's life when taken in total. I look at it as transitory phases. It's no wonder we are talking past each other.
But I will say this, if you think not one guy has come out of a sexual segregated environment and never continued to practice homosexuality, then your studies are full of shit. Some men find things to enjoy in it and so become bisexual, or preferable to being with women and so homosexual. This is not the majority to be certain but it sure as hell happens.
You are using the fact of whether they come out different to retroactively call them gay from the beginning. "Straight people do not come out of prison gay."? That's the best bit of circular logic I have seen in some time.
quote:
People do not become straight simply because they had a bad sexual experience with someone of the same sex.
I didn't say bad sexual experience, I said negative encounters. This can run the gamut of psychological and physical (though nonsexual) abuse. People can come out of negative encounters virtually asexual if the encounter is negative.
Although I should make this clear the negative encounter may reduce feelings in a particular direction, and then by finding solace in an opposite direction they pick up and continue that orientation. This could be viewed as the person creating their own isolation/segregation from the original sexual partner they would have gone with.
quote:
If you didn't find something attractive about it, you wouldn't have done it willingly.
I was horny, very very very very very horny. After having been sexual with girls for years I had hit a dry spell of years. I was in close proximity of guys that were openly available and at some point was forced (not my choice) to share a bed with a guy on more than one occasion. Sometimes it was with a guy that I had grown close to emotionally because of NO connection to girls.
I tried it, and I found some small part of it kind of fun. After this I could focus my mind on that fun part. It has become a part of my life, but it was not beforehand.
Some guys stick their dicks in fruits, vaccuum cleaners, and apparently cherry pies when they are horny enough. Necessity is the mother of invention and experimentation.
Sorry Rrhain, but you have NO idea what you are talking about.
quote:
You even admit that you do like something about the male anatomy.
Which I did not have an interest in BEFORE the encounter. It was about the FEELING and NOT THE VISUAL. Over time I can now associate VISUAL with FEELING and so find a part attractive.
In this same way I lost my fetish for oriental girls. While visually stunning to me, I have found that their skin and hair texture (and in many cases smell) is not as attractive to me as some specific Western races. Not that they are bad, oh no, just that they are no longer the compelling force of nature they once were to me.
Rrhain, you have no concept of what you are talking about.
quote:
It's called "bisexual," holmes. You even admit to it. Come out of the closet and embrace it.
Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you need some help? Next you'll be "shocking" yourself with revelations that my gf is in porn and that I like that too.
You are the guy living in some sort of closet if you believe I am unaware of, or trying to hide my sexuality. If anything I have been one of the most sexually honest people on this website. I have described experiences and MY ORIENTATION very plainly (perhaps more than I should have).
FYI I used to call myself bisexual, but after enough encounters me and my gf discussed this and thought the more accurate description was primarily hetero with bisexual tendencies. I have a very limited environment in which I am able to enjoy sexual encounters with men... mainly because I find nothing attractive about them except their cocks. As one might guess I like she-males.
You can call that a closet if you like, but I have absolutely no fear of being gay. I fucking wish I was gay or fully bisexual. It would make my sexual life a hell of a lot easier in Chicago where the girls are cold and the gay men have awesome sex establishments.
I'm uncertain how you manage to cope with the smell of all the shit you shovel.
quote:
How could it not when orientation is measured by the intensity of the attraction?
This is a good indicator of where the disconnect is. If this is how you measure orientation then we are using different definitions. Mine definition of orientation is habit and not intensity of attraction (other than to an act).
quote:
...except for this one thing. So you're attracted to men to some degree.
A gay man may still find big breasts attractive and want to suck on them. That does not make a gay man necessarily bi or straight. But to make it clear I have always said that I have bi tendencies. If you want to call that bi, I have no issues at all, though men who would approach me with that label in mind will be disappointed (which they have) and so why for the convenience of OTHERS I choose to be more accurate.
I think what's funny is that your definition then means that there are either no such things as sexual fetishists, or that somehow by 3 everyone that is a hardcore SM or PVC or boot or foot or etc etc fetishist has had the experience which directed their orientation.
People change Rrhain. Some major boundaries may be set by genes and hormones, I have not said otherwise, but environment (which is a changing thing) plays with those presets to ultimately shape orientation (or at least my definition, which is habit).
By the way, I am interested in seeing these studies you talk about. I'll try and look for them as well, but if you can point them out that would be appreciated.
quote:
Logical error: Strawman.
Right, you keep arguing that I am saying wholesale changes are necessary and that wholesale changes are not necessary, and so contradicting myself. But that is a straw man.
quote:
I didn't say anything about "change means wholesale change." I said if there is a change in requirements, then it is a wholesale change by definition.
I'm not going to play this semantics game with you. I have shown that the only necessary change required to allow gays or polygamists to wed are definitions or prereqs written in the law books of states, or on contracts. I suppose I could note that for polygamists, the divorce papers as written will not change but for gays it would.
These "rights" and "responsibilities" you think need to be changed are in your head... unless you are going to show some at some point? YOU have the ETHNOCENTRIC CONCEPT that marriage is one to one and so this MUST CHANGE SOMETHING to allow polygamists to marry. That is the same reasoning anti-gay marriage activists use.
quote:
A two-story colonial is not the same as a one-story ranch...even if they're painted the same. However, the tract houses you see in the various developments are all the same, even if the front door on one has stained glass while another model has solid oak.... A wholesale change is an alteration of the functionality of the contract. Same-sex marriage doesn't alter the functionality of marriage and thus is not a wholesale change. Polygamy, however, does alter the functionality and thus is a wholesale change.
The fact that you cannot understand that to an anti-gay marriage activist your argument holds equally true, shows your willful and self-serving ignorance of the issue.
First you argue concept, concept is disproven, then you argue changes in law, and that is disproven, now you argue analogies to concepts which has already been disproven. How many times do you want to go around on this?
quote:
Before, you were talking about requisites. Now, you're talking about prerequisites. Which is it?
You are the semantic king! All hail Rrhain, so caught up in semantics he cannot understand what I am saying.
psssssst... I have not changed what I have been talking about the entire time. If you say you can't figure out what I mean then you are a liar or a fool.
Depending on the state there are definitions, or prerequisites, or both which state marriages are limited to those of opposite sex and currently unmarried. This is all that must be changed in written law, or as they are found on contracts, then in contracts.
These may be called requirements or prerequisites. I never said requisites.
quote:
Non sequitur.
I love how you showed both your quote and then mine and then said this. So you admit your own was a non sequitor? Fine. If not, then mine is just as valid as yours.
quote:
The question is not how the US would accept same-sex marriages.
It is once you create an argument around how the US would accept (or not accept) polygamous marriage. I am then free to turn the tables.
quote:
The question is whether or not the "obvious" understanding of the rights and responsibilities of marriage is that they are really a shared right that simply doesn't have anybody to share it with... Your attitude that the "obvious" interpretation of marriage is a shared right simply isn't borne out.
Strawmen and semantics. Is this all you have left?
quote:
We currently have a system that treats those rights as exclusive. Ergo, polygamy is a fundamental shift in the construction of marriage: Exclusive rights become shared.
Why does the system treat it this way? Because only one contract may be on file at a time. If this was lifted then more than one contract would exist and rights would be default be shared. I have already given numerous examples of this outside of marriage.
But we can go another way as well. We currently have a system that says marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Ergo, same sex marriage is a fundamental shift in the construction of marriage: Two people of the same sex get rights which are only about a man and a woman.
Your ability to see the statement I just made and the one you made above as different in some "legal" sense is the degree to which you are simply being ethnocentric.
There is no "fundamental" shift in the construction of MARRIAGE. YOURS maybe, but that's the same for anyone that sees marriage as a union between a man and a woman... which as I have shown has historical precedent.
quote:
The fact that there are other conceptualizations never crossed your mind.
NO, it never crossed YOUR MIND that I understood different concepts and understood how they would be handled. You keep confusing your incredulity with some measure of what I know.
quote:
You were the one that said the US had no legal precedents regarding the treatment of the rights and responsibilities of marriage with regard to the question of whether they were exclusive or shared but only held by one person. It turns out you were wrong. The US does have legal precedents with regard to those rights: They are held by one and only one person. They are exclusive.
psssssst...
1) what you have described is not marriage law (or marriage "rights") but immigration law,
2) even if polygamy were allowed in the states, the immigration law regarding this could stay the same for wholly separate reasons,
3) a change in this immigration statute would not be necessary in order to allow polygamous marriage to exist,
therefore
4) there is no change necessitated in law, if polygamy were allowed.
and of course
5) You fail to acknowledge that the same laws bar marriages of the same sex, they are unrecognized as marriage.
quote:
You seem to be saying that the US should follow the model of other countries simply because of what, precisely? Because you like that interpretation? What does that have to do with anything?
That's right, mr Hypocrite still hasn't answered my question so I'll ask it again as it is a major argument in the gay marriage movement.
Do you agree that gay marriages conducted outside the US should be recognized by US law? Do you think it is a courageous act when gays go to Canada or the Netherlands to get married and then come back here?
Oh yeah, and are you ever going to address the fact that SF is doing the exact same thing as the people you slammed in polygamous communities. A reply to someone else seemed to defend this action. Hmmmmmm, hypocrite.
But in answer to your shrill question, I do believe that US law should try to accept diverse beliefs and not impose singular religious standards on citizens or immigrants. In this it should in practice allow rights to be had so that minority communities (at least with regard to the US) can pursue their concept of liberty and happiness. This should only be restricted if it would affect national security or the direct health/wellbeing of the populace.
Do you have some sort of problem with that?
quote:
In many countries, it is still perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife.
Oh man, I don't know if you heard but in some countries they even allow FAGS to get married.
What a fucking ass you are, trying to throw guilt by association into debate regarding polygamous marriage.
You are out of the closet now you hypocritical bigot.
quote:
But you're ignoring all the other precedents that are more directly related to the issue at hand. When looking at marriage, the best examples are the precedents that touch on marriage, not the ones that deal with children.
No, I have already discussed where precedent comes from when it involves property or other nonparental rights. If you want to play this game then anyone can equally say all precedents of marriage have been between a man and a woman.
ME:There are no laws which say spouse's rights are exclusive,
YOU: Yes, there are. That's the point I'm trying to impress upon you. The way US law has treated marriage...
"Treated" is not the same thing as "laws which say". There are no laws written and so none which must be changed in order to make judgements in polygamous cases. They will derive "treatment" of such cases as they always have, from precedents where multiple parties have equal rights (esp. in contract form).
What is so hard about this, that you cannot figure it out? Your claim is laws will have to be changed, and no they will not.
quote:
If a lawyer is involved, it is not superficial. Having to get two divorces instead of one is not a "superficial" difference. You remind me of the creationists who claim that gene duplication isn't an "increase."
You remind me of a bigot that won't allow gays to be married because he can't figure out who would be the bride... that sure isn't "superficial".
Laywers are involved in almost all divorces, so what's the difference? Having two divorces instead of one is superficial if the parties handle it as one case. If they decide not to then that is their choice. But I am curious how serial polygamy reduces any of the above. That is allowed and is the current state of marriage. That actually increases the number of cases.
I might add that this does not affect marriage, but divorce. So to those who get married and stay married your argument is not just superficial it is wholly irrelevant.
I am still curious as to why what they might have to do (spending wise) is an argument that laws must change or is a reason people would abandon seeking the rights they want or is a reason we should not allow them to have the rights they want?
Are you suggesting it is pity for their potentially having to go through a more complex legal procedure which should guide our decision to NOT give benefits to their children and partners?
quote:
Yes, you did. You said that H&S could create any marriage arrangement desired.
Sigh... okay Rrhain, change "create" to "simulate" or "mirror".
quote:
Break a connection in a H&S marriage and all the other connections stay. Break it in a MI marriage and all the connections dissolve for there is only the one.
Yawn... what was that? You say something? Oh, just haven't tried thinking? You might want to.
If a group wants to simulate an MI legal arrangement where a divorce of all can be held at once, thus one broken contract can mean the breaking of others, this can be written into the prenup as a possibility.
You awake Rrhain?
quote:
Once again: If A, B, and C are married all to each other, how many divorces are needed for A to leave the relationship in a H&S marriage? In a MI relationship? How are those legally equivalent?
Snooooooooze... oh sorry, your semantic games have now put me to sleep as well. Legally they are equivalent, or can be if you set them up the same. Physical procedurally different is not the same as legally different.
By your logic any marriage with a prenup is not the same as a marriage without one.
quote:
Because the fact that it always requires more work indicates it is fundamentally different.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA... oh my god, oh my god, you are killing me. Because they might want things done in a special way it might require more signatures or time with a lawyer, and that means their MARRIAGE is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT?... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.
quote:
Are you suggesting that we force people to enter into prenups? It's the only way to guarantee that a H&S marriage has the same legal obligations as a MI marriage.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... this can't be good for my heart.
Force? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Are you serious? If someone wants something special in their marriage contract, then they can choose to use a prenup to define what they want. It goes on all the time.
Are you suggesting we should deny people rights because some might have to use prenups to help define the special arrangement they want to make?
So if people decide to write their own vows because they don't like the official text, they are engaging in something fundamentally different, or... or... we are somehow FORCING them to write it by not having everything they might potentially want written out in a generic document?
quote:
Because you failed to show that it was otherwise. With no justification for your claim, the only thing left is the direct observation that what we see as a fundamental difference really is a fundamental difference.
Seriously Rrhain, you ought to tour with this act. I have shown what must necessarily be changed in order to have gay or polygamous marriages, and the changes are of the same type and degree.
All you have presented is assertions and incredulity to support your own.
Or maybe I can play your game... Where have you proven that allowing gay marriage will not change marriage law? Since you have failed to show otherwise I am forced to believe there must be some myriad of laws somewhere it will affect.
quote:
But what you have failed to show is that polygamy is necessarily H&S. You really don't understand what this discussion is about, do you?
I don't have to show polygamy is necessarily H&S, nor have I tried to. All I have to show, and I have, is that H&S contracts are capable of covering polygamous marriages, just the same as straight marriages.
If you want to argue that there is some minor fringe group so uninterested in what rights they might receive, that they cannot handle signing an extra document, then all you have shown is that THOSE PEOPLE will not NECESSARILY be covered by the same constitutional claim.
But yeah, I think I know what this discussion is about. You will wriggle and contort anyway possible, including overt acts of contradiction and hypocrisy, to champion gay marriage rights while severing polygamy from your constitutional claim, because you fear it will act as a ball and chain. Or perhaps because you are a closet bigot. Equating polygamous marriage to raping wives was not something I had expected.
ME: If so, I am uncertain why ALL styles of polygamists would have to be allowed or none.
YOU: I haven't said one way or the other. The point as I have always said is the fact that we have to even ask the question in the first place is indicative that the state of polygamy, however you would want to define it, is a wholesale change from two-person marriage. It simply isn't the same.
So my being able to ask whose the bride counts. Okay no marriage for gays!
You do realize that what you just said is because you have to think which groups of polygamists would fall under the same constitutional argument, all should not?
Where does that even come in logically?
quote:
But that's not the same as two-person marriage. Those rights are exclusive. You're right that they don't have to be, but in the US they are considered exclusive and those are the laws we have to consider.
Or is it that you have no idea what we are discussing? In the latter portion of my post I was discussing constitutional rights to be married like anyone else... which is to have benefits and rights regarding ones lifetime partners and children.
If one camp (lets call them the reasonable polygamists) uses the same consitutional argument as gays, then they would be covered just like the gays. If there is another group (lets call them the fussy polygamists) that by the nature of their request does not make the same constitutional argument as gays, then they will not be covered just like gays.
Marriage is not about gaining exclusive internal rights, it is about excluding those outside the legal relationship from equal claim, and protecting those within it... spouses and children... by nature of benefits afforded to those who are married.
I notice you have shifted your goalposts again. Now its ALL about the exclusivity of rights... what happened to the legitimation of sexual practice?
Oh yeah, and you have consistently avoided that question too. If marriage is about legitimation of sexual practice, why do gays need it now that laws against homosexuality no longer exist, and why wouldn't polyamorists be able to appeal to wanting to legitimate THEIR sexual practices? Fornication and adultery were equally crimes like homosexuality.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
