Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 12:10AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Allowing them to enter into a marriage with a man and a woman in order to validate their sexual orientation.

So you see this as a way of opening up polygamist marriage for everyone else, or just bisexuals?

It could be logical to suggest that someone who is bi, might require elements from both genders in order to be completely satisfied... I have often wondered about this.

However, most people regardless of sexuality, don't usually find themselves being attracted to two different people at the same time!

Fleawuss · 28-05-2015 12:15AM

I think the marriage referendum must have passed.

dxhound2005 · 28-05-2015 12:21AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

However, most people regardless of sexuality, don't usually find themselves being attracted to two different people at the same time!

That may be true for Ireland where adultery is unknown but in the UK having affairs and mistresses or toy boys is rampant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145925/Women-beat-men-adultery-stakes-Ladies-2-3-secret-lovers-affair-compared-1-8-blokes.html

And of course some other foreigners can practice polygamy, even polyandry in a few places.

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 12:26AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

However, most people regardless of sexuality, don't usually find themselves being attracted to two different people at the same time!

Are you for real? I'd say the majority of people in committed relationships would still feel attracted to other people. That's why it's such a commitment, settling for just one person in a world full of them!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-05-2015 12:26AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That may be true for Ireland where adultery is unknown but in the UK having affairs and mistresses or toy boys is rampant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145925/Women-beat-men-adultery-stakes-Ladies-2-3-secret-lovers-affair-compared-1-8-blokes.html

And of course some other foreigners can practice polygamy, even polyandry in a few places.

It's still probably not most people though, I'd say.

And anyways, still, what does that have to do with the marriage referendum and bisexuals?

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 01:18AM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

Are you for real? I'd say the majority of people in committed relationships would still feel attracted to other people. That's why it's such a commitment, settling for just one person in a world full of them!

I actually meant to say 'equally attracted to two people'... yes we all can have wandering eyes, but to actually love two people equally at the same time? Equal emotional connection. Would you say that is commonplace?

I don't fully understand how bisexuality works... (for lack of a better phrase). If you are attracted to both male and female characteristics, how can you settle for just one of those things and still be completely content in a long term relationship?

Obviously it could be possible to find one person with aspects of both genders, but maybe this isn't always possible.

Makes me question if monogamous relationships are mostly just products of our need to create stability. (esp for raising children) But not really practical for everybody...

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 01:22AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I actually meant to say 'equally attracted to two people'... yes we all can have wandering eyes, but to actually love two people equally at the same time? Equal emotional connection. Would you say that is commonplace?

I don't fully understand how bisexuality works... (for lack of a better phrase). If you are attracted to both male and female characteristics, how can you settle for just one of those things and still be completely content in a long term relationship?

Obviously it could be possible to find one person with aspects of both genders, but maybe this isn't always possible.

Makes me question if monogamous relationships are mostly just products of our need to create stability. (esp for raising children) But not really practical for everybody...

Agree a lot more with the re phrased claim and yeah a committed but somewhat open relationship would be ideal.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-05-2015 01:31AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I actually meant to say 'equally attracted to two people'... yes we all can have wandering eyes, but to actually love two people equally at the same time? Equal emotional connection. Would you say that is commonplace?

I don't fully understand how bisexuality works... (for lack of a better phrase). If you are attracted to both male and female characteristics, how can you settle for just one of those things and still be completely content in a long term relationship?

Obviously it could be possible to find one person with aspects of both genders, but maybe this isn't always possible.

Makes me question if monogamous relationships are mostly just products of our need to create stability. (esp for raising children) But not really practical for everybody...

ARGH! Ok, well. Say you're a man who's attracted to nice legs and blonde hair. And you meet a brunette girl with a killer set of legs, fall madly for her, you're very attracted to her, you're really compatible. Is it going to be a big loss for you that she's brunette? Are you going to be thinking to yourself "I love her and all, but I think I'm going to go and fcuk a blonde, I just won't be satisfied otherwise"

K4t · 28-05-2015 01:36AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, the intolerance and hostility towards people with religious beliefs, Catholic or otherwise. I don't mind people disagreeing with someone's opinion, but it should be respected nonetheless.

Why?

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 01:41AM

Mina Deep Self-incrimination wrote: »

ARGH! Ok, well. Say you're a man who's attracted to nice legs and blonde hair. And you meet a brunette girl with a killer set of legs, fall madly for her, you're very attracted to her, you're really compatible. Is it going to be a big loss for you that she's brunette? Are you going to be thinking to yourself "I love her and all, but I think I'm going to go and fcuk a blonde, I just won't be satisfied otherwise"

Is that not being a touch trivial about it though..?

I know you're using analogies, but attraction goes deeper for some people than just long legs or nice hair.

What about intrinsic characteristics that are not common in both sexes? (gender traits)

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-05-2015 01:50AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Is that not being a touch trivial about it though..?

I know you're using analogies, but attraction goes deeper for some people than just long legs or nice hair.

What about intrinsic characteristics that are not common in both sexes?

It does, but being bisexual means that you're attracted to men and attracted to women, there's no hierarchy between the genders or anything. The point I'm trying to make is that just because a partner doesn't possess every single thing you're attracted to doesn't mean that you can't be faithful to them, or that you'd struggle to be. The lack of penis in a relationship genuinely wouldn't bother me more than the lack of something like pale skin or liking Impressionist art. It's a surface thing. Of course, when you're tied to the post you're still going to bark at the cars, so to speak, it's not like I stop being attracted to one gender when I'm in a relationship of someone of the other gender, but I would never experience that as any kind of deep loss, or use it as a justification for cheating.

I certainly agree that monogamy isn't right for everyone, just not that bisexuals are inherently less capable of it than anyone else.

I'd also be more attracted to people who are less rigidly bound by gender roles too, an ultra macho man or a very girly girl would leave me cold. Couldn't tell you if that's down to being bisexual though.

The Backwards Man · 28-05-2015 01:57AM

Mina Deep Self-incrimination wrote: »

It does, but being bisexual means that you're attracted to men and attracted to women, there's no hierarchy between the genders or anything. The point I'm trying to make is that just because a partner doesn't possess every single thing you're attracted to doesn't mean that you can't be faithful to them, or that you'd struggle to be. The lack of penis in a relationship genuinely wouldn't bother me more than the lack of something like pale skin or liking Impressionist art. It's a surface thing. Of course, when you're tied to the post you're still going to bark at the cars, so to speak, it's not like I stop being attracted to one gender when I'm in a relationship of someone of the other gender, but I would never experience that as any kind of deep loss, or use it as a justification for cheating.

I certainly agree that monogamy isn't right for everyone, just not that bisexuals are inherently less capable of it than anyone else.

I'd also be more attracted to people who are less rigidly bound by gender roles too, an ultra macho man or a very girly girl would leave me cold. Couldn't tell you if that's down to being bisexual though.

So Macho
He's got to be
So Macho
He's got to be big and strong enough
to turn me on
He's got to have, big blue eyes
Be able to satisfy
He's got to be big and strong enough
to turn me on

Balls, wrong thread!! :pac:

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-05-2015 01:58AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So Macho
He's got to be
So Macho
He's got to be big and strong enough
to turn me on
He's got to have, big blue eyes
Be able to satisfy
He's got to be big and strong enough
to turn me on

Balls, wrong thread!! :pac:

Off to kareoke with ye!

The_Valeyard · 28-05-2015 01:59AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm a psychiatric nurse and it often strikes me as bizarre when I talk to clients who have fixed delusional beliefs, that they are given a medical diagnosis and put on anti psychotic medication, when their beliefs are no more crazy than religious beliefs, which sometimes the psychiatrist treating them holds (look at Patricia Casey! How is anyone expected to take her advice about delusion).

The definition of a delusion is a fixed, false belief. The American Psychiatric Association adds a get put clause for religion, stating that it must also be outside the norms of ones culture. But otherwise the definition fits perfectly and I fail to see why a mass delusion is any less delusional than an individual one. Religious beliefs are delusional. And I agree that one day they will be considered as such.

Edit; I'll just add to the above that I am not saying that I think in anyway that religious people should be diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or medicated, but their beliefs need to be kept to their churches, homes and privates lives and religious influence and reference to religious ideas should be removed from all state institutions.

I would honestly question your ability to preform your profession to the best of your ability with comments like that, shameful really.

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 02:09AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I would honestly question your ability to preform your profession to the best of your ability with comments like that, shameful really.

Would you like to specify why or is that mixture of passive aggression and high horsery the extent of your contribution?

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 02:16AM

Mina Deep Self-incrimination wrote: »

It does, but being bisexual means that you're attracted to men and attracted to women, there's no hierarchy between the genders or anything. The point I'm trying to make is that just because a partner doesn't possess every single thing you're attracted to doesn't mean that you can't be faithful to them, or that you'd struggle to be. The lack of penis in a relationship genuinely wouldn't bother me more than the lack of something like pale skin or liking Impressionist art. It's a surface thing. Of course, when you're tied to the post you're still going to bark at the cars, so to speak, it's not like I stop being attracted to one gender when I'm in a relationship of someone of the other gender, but I would never experience that as any kind of deep loss, or use it as a justification for cheating.

I certainly agree that monogamy isn't right for everyone, just not that bisexuals are inherently less capable of it than anyone else.

I'd also be more attracted to people who are less rigidly bound by gender roles too, an ultra macho man or a very girly girl would leave me cold. Couldn't tell you if that's down to being bisexual though.

Again though, I think you're making it about the physical - a penis is not a male trait. It's a physical characteristic.

A male trait would be something like an attribute or behavior that's generally less common or less prominent in females - like directness, aggression etc (in a positive sense)

For females it might be - sensitivity, empathy etc

I know they sometimes cross over a bit, but maybe not enough for some people.

And there are probably intangibles as well. Like I don't fully understand what attracts me to a girl... some things are obvious but some things are a bit of a mystery! lol

Faithfulness and loyalty are character traits in many respects, so I agree that sexuality is not a huge factor in wether someone cheats.

But I just think that some bisexuals maybe desire some of those intangibles and might not even realize it. They might feel something is missing in their relationship, but not quite understand what that "something" is?

Attraction is complicated for some people. That's why the whole "killer legs, blonde hair" thing is a bit too simplistic to describe some people. (or lack of a penis - lol)

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 02:21AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

A male trait would be something like an attribute or behavior that's generally uncommon in most females - like assertiveness

What?

You should think before you speak, that would be progress.

28-05-2015 02:25AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I would honestly question your ability to preform your profession to the best of your ability with comments like that, shameful really.

Perhaps you bolded the wrong bit. "The definition of a delusion is a fixed, false belief. The American Psychiatric Association adds a get put clause for religion"

Perhaps the real question is why anyone would add such a caveat? Given the diversity of religious belief - on what grounds would a sound medical diagnosis give way to such a labile caveat?

I was happy with the idea that the definition of "delusion" was a fixation on a belief that is either false - or there is no grounds for considering true.

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 02:26AM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

What?

You should think before you speak, that would be progress.

Or you could google masculine traits and see what you find?

Like I said, some things cross over between genders... I never said women can't be assertive!

It's generally accepted that higher testosterone will make a person (on average) more aggressive, assertive, direct etc.

I'm not trying to offend anyone!

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 02:29AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Or you could google masculine traits and see what you find?

Like I said, some things cross over between genders... I never said women can't be assertive!

It's generally accepted that higher testosterone will make a person (on average) more aggressive, assertive, direct etc.

I'm not trying to offend anyone!

That's not what you said though you said assertiveness was uncommon in women, a very different claim.

"behavior that's generally uncommon in most females - like assertiveness"

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 02:35AM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

That's not what you said though you said assertiveness was uncommon in women, a very different claim.

"behavior that's generally uncommon in most females - like assertiveness"

You know I'm not trying to start a row with anyone... so you must know that the way I phrased it is not hugely important.

I was just trying to give examples of what are considered more masculine traits or feminine traits - I clearly explained that in the next line.

Ok I'll edit my phrasing for you... so you can hopefully address my points (if you wish to)

28-05-2015 02:38AM

So when you edited the post you dropped the word "assertiveness". Why is that? How do you differentiate it from the words you left in - like being direct or agressive. Clearly you have a distinct definition of this word which justifies you putting it in before - and then taking it and it alone out after.

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 02:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So when you edited the post you dropped the word "assertiveness". Why is that?

It's considered a masculine trait - I didn't invent those traits, I just quoted some.

I deleted it because I know others might ignore my post in favor of jumping on that one word - so it's less hassle just to take it out!

28-05-2015 02:47AM

Nice of you to dodge the substance of my post which you did not quote.

Again my point was - you were challenged to edit your post - and you did.

You dropped the word assertiveness - but you left in the words direct and aggressive. I am interested in your distinction there. I am interested in why you consider them all masculine traits. And I am interested why when challenged you backed down on one and not the others. Why did you willfully edit one out of your post and leave in the two that clearly mean the same thing.

And that is all BEFORE we consider why you think any of them are masculine rather than human traits - VsV precluded women. There is a whole ball of wool to be unraveled here even before or even after the main Question

jank · 28-05-2015 02:49AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I doubt the average refugee knows about direct provision. I'd assume that northern/western Europe would be orders of magnitude more preferable than having Boko Haram/Al-Shabab/ISIS breathing down their neck.

Careful now, you will have some do-gooders pretend and argue otherwise.

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 02:58AM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You know I'm not trying to start a row with anyone... so you must know that the way I phrased it is not hugely important.

I was just trying to give examples of what are considered more masculine traits or feminine traits - I clearly explained that in the next line.

Ok I'll edit my phrasing for you... so you can hopefully address my points (if you wish to)

If you don't wish to argue your point (start a row) posting in a thread discussing decisive social issues is rather ill advised.

It's not a question of phrasing, your climb down significantly changed your substantive point. We're not talking about a misplaced comma.

As for the rest of your argument from what I could see you were engaged in a good debate with another poster on those matters so I thought I'd leave yee to it! In the morning a fresher Dean might decide to wade into that one and we can have it out to our hearts content.

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 03:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice of you to dodge the substance of my post which you did not quote.

Again my point was - you were challenged to edit your post - and you did.

You dropped the word assertiveness - but you left in the words direct and aggressive. I am interested in your distinction there. I am interested in why you consider them all masculine traits. And I am interested why when challenged you backed down on one and not the others. Why did you willfully edit one out of your post and leave in the two that clearly mean the same thing.

And that is all BEFORE we consider why you think any of them are masculine rather than human traits - VsV precluded women. There is a whole ball of wool to be unraveled here even before or even after the main Question

I didn't back down... I have no attachment or bias to those words. I just quoted them to help make my point clearer. They are considered masculine and female traits by many people. You entitled to disagree with them if wish.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

If you don't wish to argue your point (start a row) posting in a thread discussing decisive social issues is rather ill advised.

It's not a question of phrasing, your climb down significantly changed your substantive point. We're not talking about a misplaced comma.

As for the rest of your argument from what I could see you were engaged in a good debate with another poster on those matters so I thought I'd leave yee to it! In the morning a fresher Dean might decide to wade into that one and we can have it out to our hearts content.

What climb down? Don't flatter yourself too much... I was trying to avoid childish pedantics over choice of words or phrasing. I thought by removing the word it might achieve that end - but obviously it was interpreted as a sign of weakness... Oh well I guess I must be a coward not brave enough to stand by his opinions!

28-05-2015 03:28AM

Except yes you did. You acknowledged you were going to go back and edit your post. And when you did you took one word out and not two others. And I have asked you twice now about your choice and your distinction - and you have dodged answering both times.

As for "many people" - I only see you here - without citation. So I am considering it YOUR opinion not the opinion of "many people" as you have in no way established any such thing. Forums such as this all too often see people expressing an opinion and then self validating it with an imagined mass consensus.

ThinkProgress · 28-05-2015 03:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except yes you did. You acknowledged you were going to go back and edit your post. And when you did you took one word out and not two others. And I have asked you twice now about your choice and your distinction - and you have dodged answering both times.

As for "many people" - I only see you here - without citation. So I am considering it YOUR opinion not the opinion of "many people" as you have in no way established any such thing. Forums such as this all too often see people expressing an opinion and then self validating it with an imagined mass consensus.

I clearly explained my reasoning for removing the word. It was a perfectly rational and logical one. If you don't like it - tough ****!

If at any point you feel like engaging in a mature worthwhile discussion involving any of the points made, feel free to do so... I'll be happy to get involved.

I have zero interest in being dragged into childish pedantic behaviour with you.
But nice try all the same!

Iwasfrozen · 28-05-2015 04:09AM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Hopefully the fact that women current have no bodily autonomy once they get pregnant.

We really need an "unthank" button..

Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Comments