sexual orientation/preference/perversion

[Mia]

So is poligamy. Why should they not be allowed? Like Mormans, for instance. Some like it. I saw a program where the man had seven wives. They all stayed home and had loads of children and all helped each other take care of them and the house and he took turns having sex with them and they all entered into it willingly and all religious books make mention of it.....

Why do they have less rights than you?

Because marriage is between two people.

[Mia]

Says you (and me too, frankly).

But the "marriage is betwee a man and a woman" doesn't hold water with you, so you can't use that argument on them (well, you can, but it's hypocritical).

It sounds like the public is supposed to go by Giancarlo's definitions of morality and guidelines.

And do you want things to go by your morality? I admit it, I want things going by morality, like every other human being. Marriage can be between a same gender couple. I'm no hypocrite, and don't paint me out as such as a homosexual couple is not in any way like polygamy.

[Mia]

Well, of course I do. But I don't advocate that it be so. If I did, I'd outlaw homosexuality because I find it disgusting and immoral.

But because I don't want others regulating my behavior and because I have sympathy for gays, I advocate their rights.

You, however, allow your morality to make you intolerant which is bad enough, but even worse for you when you are asking for our tolerance for you.

You haven't provided a reason why poligamy should not be legal. You haven't shown us any type of moral standard that allows what you want but disallows what you don't except your own.

If it were put to a vote, the public would not be on your side any more than theirs. Neither would religion, or the government. So who is in charge of the moral standard here?

Originally posted by Mia, Well, of course I do. But I don't advocate that it be so. If I did, I'd outlaw homosexuality because I find it disgusting and immoral.

And I'd outlaw you and send you to jail.

But because I don't want others regulating my behavior and because I have sympathy for gays, I advocate their rights.

You advocate their rights? You contradicted yourself.. you said homosexuality was disgusting and immoral.

You, however, allow your morality to make you intolerant which is bad enough, but even worse for you when you are asking for our tolerance for you.

Intolerant of polygamy? What the f*** does polygamy have to do with this? I'm not intolerant. You are acting like the intolerant one.

[Mia]

I did not contradict myself. I don't agree with abortion, but I defend the rights of those who'd like to have one. I don't agree with hommosexuality, but I defend the rights of people to be who they are and do so unmolested. I like polygamy even less and feel it would have a detrimental affect on society but a good point was raised in here - those are the same arguments about gay marriage.

It is only similar in that it is an alternative orientation that most find to be wrong but that occurs between consenting adults and doesn't infringe on others' rights, and these are my arguments supporting gay marriage.

It's the best thing it can be compared to from a legal and moral standpoint. Comparing it to pedophilia and beastiality is asanine.

Mia, but that's not my point... why would I have such a detrimental affect on society? By the way, I don't agree with abortion. I do think it has a bad affect on society but that's besides the point.

[Mia]

You're not addressing our point - why should your alternative orientation be accepted and others not (the ones involving consenting adults)?

More than just your personal feelings about it is required here.

Two adults. Two consenting adults. I have that with my boyfriend. We are two people. I'm not in a relationship with more than one person.

[Mia]

And?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Mia, I'm not using my own morals - in this country we are (supposed to be) free to do as we please until it infringes on the rights of others - that is the standard I am applying here.

Sorry, but that is not our legal standard.

That is perhaps your MORAL standard, but there is no such law that says we can do what we want until it infringes on the rights of others.

It doesn't exist.

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo, So I can be compared to polygamists when I only have one partner? I do not see how that works. Slippery slope of alternative life style? It is not a lifestyle. It is an orientation. Homosexual couples just have as valid reasons for love to be together as heterosexual couples.

NAMBLA says the same exact thing, yet you have no problem applying YOUR morality to outlawing their behaviour.

And don't drive in the same circles conservativeX does, I'm not supporting polygamy, or incestous relationships. You are dead wrong.

As long as he's not "shot in the head" dead wrong...

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo, Why is polygamy relevant when I'm only talking about a relationship between 2 consenting adults?

Because again, it is an excellent demonstration of you applying YOUR MORALITY to the restriction of sexual lifestyles.

And in the case of polygamy, you have BOTH consent AND age of consent.

So upon what grounds SPECIFICALLY do you deny polygamists from loving each other?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Giancarlo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, good point.  Giancarlo, what is your basis for restricting marriage between one man and three women?

Because it is not between two people. And it is not a good point. Failure at best. Don't make me run in circles like ConservativeX.[/b][/quote]

It is an excellent point.

ANOTHER moral qualifier of yours to legally restrict the sexual behaviour of people.

Can anyone say "polyphobe"?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo, And do you want things to go by your morality? I admit it, I want things going by morality, like every other human being.

WOW. BINGO.

You FINALLY admitted it.

You're no different than me, Gian; the moral line you draw is just in a different place.

Marriage can be between a same gender couple. I'm no hypocrite,

Sure you are; you apply YOUR morality to restrict sexual attractions behaviour and allow discrimination based SOLELY on sexual orientation, to the point you want some of them SHOT DEAD.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by ConservativeX,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ConservativeX,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, Because it is not between two people. And it is not a good point. Failure at best. Don't make me run in circles like ConservativeX.

It is an excellent point.

ANOTHER moral qualifier of yours to legally restrict the sexual behaviour of people.

Can anyone say "polyphobe"?

:rolleyes: what does the fear of parrots have to with it?

[/b][/quote]

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Giancarlo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, There's no circles here.  Just you promoting one type of alternate lifestyle that most disapprove of but not allowing tolerance for another. That doesn't make sense.

[/b][/quote]

It's called relative morality. I can do it, but you can't.

Most in the US don't disapprove of homosexuality according to recent polls.

Then you have no problem with the proposed Constitutional amendment, right?

After all, if "most" in the US "don't disapprove" of homosexuality there's no chance it will pass, right?

You don't make sense. Polygamy is not relevant.

Isn't that "tyranny of the majority" for the majority to discriminate against a sexual lifestyle?

By your standards, at least?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Impenitent,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Impenitent,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by ConservativeX,@ <!--QuoteBegin-Mia, Because it is not between two people. And it is not a good point. Failure at best. Don't make me run in circles like ConservativeX. It is an excellent point. ANOTHER moral qualifier of yours to legally restrict the sexual behaviour of people. Can anyone say "polyphobe"? :rolleyes: what does the fear of parrots have to with it?

[/b][/quote]

LOL!

Well, if you stretch it, polly wants a cracker and white people are associated with the racist term "cracker", so therefore pollyphobia is a fear of birds who want white people.

Or something like that.

Originally posted by ConservativeX,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ConservativeX,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Giancarlo, Why is polygamy relevant when I'm only talking about a relationship between 2 consenting adults?

Because again, it is an excellent demonstration of you applying YOUR MORALITY to the restriction of sexual lifestyles.

And in the case of polygamy, you have BOTH consent AND age of consent.

So upon what grounds SPECIFICALLY do you deny polygamists from loving each other?[/b][/quote]

But you have more then two people thus invalidating it.

Then you have no problem with the proposed Constitutional amendment, right?

The proposed amendment is illegal and unconstitutional.

Ban ConservativeX!