Jan LaRue of the Concerned Women for America asks, “When Will Bisexuals Drag Homosexuals out of Polygamy Closet?“
Anyone have an answer for her?
And here’s a paragraph in which she explains her thesis, which is: Homosexuals want to destroy society, and if we let them marry, the slippery slope will inevitably lead to polygramy, chaos, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
Anyone have an answer for her?
And here’s a paragraph in which she explains her thesis, which is: Homosexuals want to destroy society, and if we let them marry, the slippery slope will inevitably lead to polygramy, chaos, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
A May 2005 Gallup poll found that 92 percent of Americans oppose the practice [of polygamy], which is illegal in all 50 states. But if Americans can be convinced that polygamy, like same-sex marriage or civil unions is about “fairness,” opposition can be expected to erode, once homosexual activists come out of the closet in support of the right of bisexuals’ to marry an individual of each sex.Because you know that that is every bisexual’s dream.
25 Responses to “And Speaking of Dumb …”
How about it, gay Wo’Cers, can I drag you out of the polygamy closet? Or would you rather try being allowed to get married to one person before you make that multiple spouse leap?
Anyway, Jan needs help with her math skills. If I marry an individual of each sex, then one of those two people I marry is going to have to be a straight man. Assuming we’re all marrying each other, anyway, and assuming we’re not marrying an additional guy so the boys can both be bisexual, and assuming it’s automatic that every bisexual person desires to be jointly and concurrently married to someone of each gender, and assuming that it would be a marriage where each of the people involved were marrying each of the other people involved, and assuming gay people don’t want to get married to more than one person, or that a straight person doesn’t want to marry one or two bisexuals. Actually, I suspect Jan needs help with her logic skills, or maybe just her brain.
Honey, if gay marriage leads to polygamy, so fucking what? You still don’t have to divorce your husband and do that. Feel free to get or stay married to any given single person of your choice. Why would I care? And let’s not get into the bullshit about how it’d be terrible for employers who then have to pay for health coverage for extra dependents–it’s a good argument for universal health care, not much else. My two spouses is in no way a bigger problem for my employer than John in the next cubicle’s Full Quiver of eight kids.
Really, some of you straight people need to put your own house in order before you start leaping out at people and yelling “Queers in the closets! Run away and hide!” Jan, is it maybe just jealousy that you can’t find two people interested in spending their lives with you?
Anyway, Jan needs help with her math skills. If I marry an individual of each sex, then one of those two people I marry is going to have to be a straight man. Assuming we’re all marrying each other, anyway, and assuming we’re not marrying an additional guy so the boys can both be bisexual, and assuming it’s automatic that every bisexual person desires to be jointly and concurrently married to someone of each gender, and assuming that it would be a marriage where each of the people involved were marrying each of the other people involved, and assuming gay people don’t want to get married to more than one person, or that a straight person doesn’t want to marry one or two bisexuals. Actually, I suspect Jan needs help with her logic skills, or maybe just her brain.
Honey, if gay marriage leads to polygamy, so fucking what? You still don’t have to divorce your husband and do that. Feel free to get or stay married to any given single person of your choice. Why would I care? And let’s not get into the bullshit about how it’d be terrible for employers who then have to pay for health coverage for extra dependents–it’s a good argument for universal health care, not much else. My two spouses is in no way a bigger problem for my employer than John in the next cubicle’s Full Quiver of eight kids.
Really, some of you straight people need to put your own house in order before you start leaping out at people and yelling “Queers in the closets! Run away and hide!” Jan, is it maybe just jealousy that you can’t find two people interested in spending their lives with you?
D. Sidhe:
But it’s precisely your assumptions that lead you astray. Obviously it’s God’s plan for men and women to come together in sets of four, so that everyone gets some variety. Thusfar, though, God hasn’t implemented that particular plan because of the dating hassles it would cause.
But it’s precisely your assumptions that lead you astray. Obviously it’s God’s plan for men and women to come together in sets of four, so that everyone gets some variety. Thusfar, though, God hasn’t implemented that particular plan because of the dating hassles it would cause.
Obviously it’s God’s plan for men and women to come together in sets of four, so that everyone gets some variety.
I support this plan of God’s. Strongly. I could not be more in agreement with this. Can we start tomorrow? My partner and I have been poly for decades, so I feel we’ve got a handle on the dating thing already. So, tomorrow, right? We’d like to leap into the new year in accord with God’s desires.
This is the first time God’s ever come up with a program to induce a genuine state of grace in people like me, rather than just endorphin highs. I may have to convert back. (Although, really, it sounds more like the sort of deal one of my gods would have come up with.)
I support this plan of God’s. Strongly. I could not be more in agreement with this. Can we start tomorrow? My partner and I have been poly for decades, so I feel we’ve got a handle on the dating thing already. So, tomorrow, right? We’d like to leap into the new year in accord with God’s desires.
This is the first time God’s ever come up with a program to induce a genuine state of grace in people like me, rather than just endorphin highs. I may have to convert back. (Although, really, it sounds more like the sort of deal one of my gods would have come up with.)
“When Will Bisexuals Drag Homosexuals out of Polygamy Closet?“
Next Wednesday at 5:30 in the afternoon ( eastern standard time). At least that’s what it said on the invitation.
D. Sidhe, I was thinking about the math thing, and I think we need to put the question on a “No Child Left Behind” math test:
“If a train full of straight people leave Chicago going north at 165 miles per hour ( forget about the lake), and a train full of gay people leave Kansas City ( for obvious reasons)going north at 170 miles per hour, and a train full of bisexual people leave Philadelphia and travel north at a speed of 145 miles, how soon before they all get to Canada where things seem to be a lot saner and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit.
Next Wednesday at 5:30 in the afternoon ( eastern standard time). At least that’s what it said on the invitation.
D. Sidhe, I was thinking about the math thing, and I think we need to put the question on a “No Child Left Behind” math test:
“If a train full of straight people leave Chicago going north at 165 miles per hour ( forget about the lake), and a train full of gay people leave Kansas City ( for obvious reasons)going north at 170 miles per hour, and a train full of bisexual people leave Philadelphia and travel north at a speed of 145 miles, how soon before they all get to Canada where things seem to be a lot saner and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit.
Oh, I don’t need to take a frakkin’ train ride to realize Jan’s a complete nitwit.
tomg,
You forgot the train full of transgendered people leaving from Des Moines.
You forgot the train full of transgendered people leaving from Des Moines.
Whoa.
Where do you come up with these nitwits?
Bisexuals want to be polygamous, so they drag their homosexual lovers out of the closet and marry them?
And Kwanzaa is a hokiday dreamed up by the FBI…
I want their drugs. Their reality is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more paranoid than mine, so I’d get to lay blame for everything off on someone else!
Where do you come up with these nitwits?
Bisexuals want to be polygamous, so they drag their homosexual lovers out of the closet and marry them?
And Kwanzaa is a hokiday dreamed up by the FBI…
I want their drugs. Their reality is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more paranoid than mine, so I’d get to lay blame for everything off on someone else!
A hokiday?
I’m bi, and I’ve been happily, monogamously married to a woman for seven years. Polygamy would just be way too stressful.
But perhaps we should ban marriage for anyone who’s attracted to both blonds and brunettes – that would obviously lead to polygamy, since such a person would have to have a spouse with each hair color. And what if the blond likes redheads too?
I’m bi, and I’ve been happily, monogamously married to a woman for seven years. Polygamy would just be way too stressful.
But perhaps we should ban marriage for anyone who’s attracted to both blonds and brunettes – that would obviously lead to polygamy, since such a person would have to have a spouse with each hair color. And what if the blond likes redheads too?
Okay. So if we support same-sex unions or gay marriages, then we automatically also support “big love” in the form of polygamy. Hmm. Heck, why not? And incest, too!
I support polygamy and incest.
I support polygamy and incest.
Personally, I would like to get married to my (one) partner before I even have the option of marrying multiple people.
Jan, honey, I know that your sexual development is severely stunted, but by lumping together every non-straight, non-married, non-having-sex-through-a-hole-in-the-sheet person into some kind of nebulous “other” category where everything is permissible and everybody wants to do everything to everybody else, you belie your sheltered, irrational logic for what it is. I believe the proper term is “bullshitus uninterruptus.”
I have an idea, Jan: you let me, a humble faggot in a wonderfully monogamous relationship, marry my partner and you go get laid. Seriously. By anyone.
Jan, honey, I know that your sexual development is severely stunted, but by lumping together every non-straight, non-married, non-having-sex-through-a-hole-in-the-sheet person into some kind of nebulous “other” category where everything is permissible and everybody wants to do everything to everybody else, you belie your sheltered, irrational logic for what it is. I believe the proper term is “bullshitus uninterruptus.”
I have an idea, Jan: you let me, a humble faggot in a wonderfully monogamous relationship, marry my partner and you go get laid. Seriously. By anyone.
Tara, I love you and am stealing that argument. Mostly I just stare at people with contempt and ask if they sleep with everyone they’re attracted to. Occasionally, I discover that yeah, maybe they do. Short circuits the entire argument.
Bill S.,
“and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit”
So you figured out that that part was a trick question and you got the right answer.
And Cranny Mint,
you’re right. I forgot the transgendered train leaving from Des Moines. But really doesn’t that suggest the more serious flaw with standardized testing? ( starts to whistle Malvina Reynold’s “Little Boxes” ).
“and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit”
So you figured out that that part was a trick question and you got the right answer.
And Cranny Mint,
you’re right. I forgot the transgendered train leaving from Des Moines. But really doesn’t that suggest the more serious flaw with standardized testing? ( starts to whistle Malvina Reynold’s “Little Boxes” ).
D. Sidhe: I just wanted to tell you I enjoyed the Full Quiver reference.
It’s sad how the fundies ideas on anyone who doesn’t fit the Saint Augestine methoid of sexuality are automaticly deviants, ready to be crammed with whatever paranoid fantasy that crawls into their heads.
It’s sad how the fundies ideas on anyone who doesn’t fit the Saint Augestine methoid of sexuality are automaticly deviants, ready to be crammed with whatever paranoid fantasy that crawls into their heads.
I think we can all agree to LaRue the day that Jan, that horny (I mean actual horns BTW), hysterical, Munch-housin’ by Fantasy sufferer ever got near a keyboard or a microphone.
There seems to be more lustful thoughts in those Christianist “think” tanks than there were in the High Temple in Gomorrah – allegedly!
There seems to be more lustful thoughts in those Christianist “think” tanks than there were in the High Temple in Gomorrah – allegedly!
Why, if we start deciding some laws based on the ideas of compassion and fairness, pretty soon we’ll be making ALL our laws that way.
And what a horrible world that would be.
Incidentally, in the popular imagination polgymy is linked more heavily with straight people then wth bisexual folks; Ask somebody to describe the stereotypical polygymous marriage and I’ll bet nine times out of ten they’ll describe some mormon patriarch with a bunch of wives, rather then four bisexuals, or whatever.
And yet straight mariage hasn’t really paved the way for acceptece of polygymy.
When did it become the 1960s again? Back in the 90s we were sailing along, happy as clams, and now suddenly we’re again stuck in an unwinnable, pointless war while we fight a form of bigotry based on nothing more then rank stupidity.
And what a horrible world that would be.
Incidentally, in the popular imagination polgymy is linked more heavily with straight people then wth bisexual folks; Ask somebody to describe the stereotypical polygymous marriage and I’ll bet nine times out of ten they’ll describe some mormon patriarch with a bunch of wives, rather then four bisexuals, or whatever.
And yet straight mariage hasn’t really paved the way for acceptece of polygymy.
When did it become the 1960s again? Back in the 90s we were sailing along, happy as clams, and now suddenly we’re again stuck in an unwinnable, pointless war while we fight a form of bigotry based on nothing more then rank stupidity.
If you legalize aspirin you are gonna have to legalize crystal meth.
>nine times out of ten they’ll describe some mormon patriarch with a bunch of wives
New assignment for Jan LaRue: find out if within rebel Mormon sects still practicing polygamy the wives are engaging in girl-on-girl action. I mean, they’d have to be, right? What with all the marriage and stuff?
New assignment for Jan LaRue: find out if within rebel Mormon sects still practicing polygamy the wives are engaging in girl-on-girl action. I mean, they’d have to be, right? What with all the marriage and stuff?
Better yet, do a survey of the USDA food stamp/WIC/welfare rolls, and see how many white & delightsome polygamous Mormon families are suckling off of the gubmint teat, whilst they are still trekking the earth, trying to destroy every scrap of indigenous culture left on the planet, in favor of taking OVER the planet. And they own hotel chains and the Boy Scouts, too.
As the professional doms always say (and yes, I was but a rank amateur, up against some of the girls that I’ve known): The kinkiest, sickest, most demented fetishists on the planet are right-wing, “conservative,” greed-whore, borderline neo-nazi, filthy-fucking-rich-off-of-slave-labor-in-other-countries *REPUBLICUNTS*.
They are the most regular customers at dom/fetish houses, they spend the most money on their fetishes (everything from trampling/smothering/vanilla BDSM to “adult baby” and “rebirthing” as sexual fantasia), and they treat the WORKING CLASSES worse than they pay the dominatrixes to treat them, because they separate their OWN behavior from how the “proles” “should” behave/do as they’re told, because, of course, the rich live by “different rules.”
Them that doth protest too much, them that doth draw the nastiest little pictures in the heads of their highly-repressed, extreeeeeemely dysfunctional readers/listeners/viewers/sheeples’ heads — is them that’s got the weirdest/sickest/most desperate fetish fantasies of them all.
Not only does Jan need to get laid, apparently she wants to get laid by two bi boys and one REALLY angry omnisexual dominatrix.
And fuck no, I am NOT applying for THAT job.
As the professional doms always say (and yes, I was but a rank amateur, up against some of the girls that I’ve known): The kinkiest, sickest, most demented fetishists on the planet are right-wing, “conservative,” greed-whore, borderline neo-nazi, filthy-fucking-rich-off-of-slave-labor-in-other-countries *REPUBLICUNTS*.
They are the most regular customers at dom/fetish houses, they spend the most money on their fetishes (everything from trampling/smothering/vanilla BDSM to “adult baby” and “rebirthing” as sexual fantasia), and they treat the WORKING CLASSES worse than they pay the dominatrixes to treat them, because they separate their OWN behavior from how the “proles” “should” behave/do as they’re told, because, of course, the rich live by “different rules.”
Them that doth protest too much, them that doth draw the nastiest little pictures in the heads of their highly-repressed, extreeeeeemely dysfunctional readers/listeners/viewers/sheeples’ heads — is them that’s got the weirdest/sickest/most desperate fetish fantasies of them all.
Not only does Jan need to get laid, apparently she wants to get laid by two bi boys and one REALLY angry omnisexual dominatrix.
And fuck no, I am NOT applying for THAT job.
Could we please lay off the “SSM is dandy, but those polymarriage people are moral monsters” crap? Any three random adults marrying each other is a far different thing from the rest of the “But gay marriage will lead to dogs and cats living together!” garbage. It’s not sisterfucking, it’s not kidfucking, it’s not animalfucking. The difference? A little thing I like to call “consent”.
I know it’s convenient to be able to stake out for your civil rights but to be able to suggest that you’re a reasonable person by making compromises. But I think we’re, as usual, giving too much ground in our arguments with inherently irrational people.
Polymarriage would be legally complicated, not that voting rights or desegregated schools or currency readable by the blind aren’t in their own way. This is generally not an argument the courts consider valid in determining what’s legal.
But it doesn’t hurt anyone who doesn’t want to do it, and it sure as hell isn’t the crystal meth of marriage. It’s just another way some people live, and would it really hurt Jan or anyone else if they could do it legally? If you’d like to make your “It is not a slippery slope!” stands, may I suggest you object to age-of-consent laws that allow minors to get married? Or arranged marriages? Really, anyplace that involves people who cannot or do not consent, as opposed to people who, like the rest of you, want to be allowed to be with the people they love, and have some legal protections.
Disclosure: my partner and I lost our partner several years ago. It was ugly. We had no legal right to make decisions, and it resulted in a great deal more suffering than was necessary. How, exactly, did our three-person all-equals household hurt Jan or any other straight couple, or even gay couple? We all had our own jobs and insurance, we filed taxes seperately, etc. But it was pretty much just luck that the house wasn’t in the wrong name, despite us all paying to the mortgage. And it never got quite as ugly as it could have on some levels, at least, there were no disapproving relatives stomping in to start making vicious decisions and demanding inheritances and the like.
But if you can tell me who would have been hurt if we’d all been able to marry each other, then we can have a discussion about why it’s appropriate to throw poly people to the Moral Values wolves. Otherwise, you might as well be saying “I support a woman’s right to choose, but think there should be a limit on the number of abortions she can have” or “I support an increase in the minimum wage, but don’t think it needs to be applied to farmworkers”.
There’s a rational place to draw these lines, and even if you don’t agree with my suggestion, this kind of “Those people are perverts! I just wanna redefine marriage a little!” triangulation is disturbing and irrelevant. Do you really think Jan’s going to agree to a deal where gay couples can marry as long as poly marriage, pedophilia, and man-on-dog are off the table? You’re never going to be able to lighten the sled enough to get away from wolves like Jan. Why try?
I know it’s convenient to be able to stake out for your civil rights but to be able to suggest that you’re a reasonable person by making compromises. But I think we’re, as usual, giving too much ground in our arguments with inherently irrational people.
Polymarriage would be legally complicated, not that voting rights or desegregated schools or currency readable by the blind aren’t in their own way. This is generally not an argument the courts consider valid in determining what’s legal.
But it doesn’t hurt anyone who doesn’t want to do it, and it sure as hell isn’t the crystal meth of marriage. It’s just another way some people live, and would it really hurt Jan or anyone else if they could do it legally? If you’d like to make your “It is not a slippery slope!” stands, may I suggest you object to age-of-consent laws that allow minors to get married? Or arranged marriages? Really, anyplace that involves people who cannot or do not consent, as opposed to people who, like the rest of you, want to be allowed to be with the people they love, and have some legal protections.
Disclosure: my partner and I lost our partner several years ago. It was ugly. We had no legal right to make decisions, and it resulted in a great deal more suffering than was necessary. How, exactly, did our three-person all-equals household hurt Jan or any other straight couple, or even gay couple? We all had our own jobs and insurance, we filed taxes seperately, etc. But it was pretty much just luck that the house wasn’t in the wrong name, despite us all paying to the mortgage. And it never got quite as ugly as it could have on some levels, at least, there were no disapproving relatives stomping in to start making vicious decisions and demanding inheritances and the like.
But if you can tell me who would have been hurt if we’d all been able to marry each other, then we can have a discussion about why it’s appropriate to throw poly people to the Moral Values wolves. Otherwise, you might as well be saying “I support a woman’s right to choose, but think there should be a limit on the number of abortions she can have” or “I support an increase in the minimum wage, but don’t think it needs to be applied to farmworkers”.
There’s a rational place to draw these lines, and even if you don’t agree with my suggestion, this kind of “Those people are perverts! I just wanna redefine marriage a little!” triangulation is disturbing and irrelevant. Do you really think Jan’s going to agree to a deal where gay couples can marry as long as poly marriage, pedophilia, and man-on-dog are off the table? You’re never going to be able to lighten the sled enough to get away from wolves like Jan. Why try?
The logic deprivation is severe.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asked: “If marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?”
Which could also be stated, “If marriage is defined to include a man and a woman in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to two women and two men in love?”
Or, “If marriage is redefined to include two complete fucking idiots in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to right-wing bigots like me and LaRue?”
However, being a crude person, I enjoyed this:
“It’s not a case people can sniff at,” said Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asked: “If marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?”
Which could also be stated, “If marriage is defined to include a man and a woman in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to two women and two men in love?”
Or, “If marriage is redefined to include two complete fucking idiots in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to right-wing bigots like me and LaRue?”
However, being a crude person, I enjoyed this:
“It’s not a case people can sniff at,” said Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University.
Tara, I love you
Shhh….don’t tell Concerned Women!
Shhh….don’t tell Concerned Women!
Tara, I got thick fingers and the “k” and “l” keys are next to each other…
Personally, I think the whole concept of marriage, love, and relationships need to seriously be reconsidered. Women and children aren’t property, sex isn’t only for making babies with little pleasure as possible, and even men are free from fitting into some tightly-packed macho breadwinner ideal. Not everything would change, but I think it would do society good.
Confused Women in America actually have women among their membership? Most of their spokesmen seem to be men. And if they aren’t gay, my gaydar went kablooie.
I gave up on my gaydar after yet another closeted bi boy who preferred to be the… shall we say… feminine one…
And Raj, have you ever thought about how most of the “mavens” of “fashion” are MANvens? Sure, sure, they’re gayer than a maypole, but they’re still MEN who tell WOMEN how they should look/interpret themselves/starve themselves to look like prepubescent BOYS.
Sounds like “Concerned woMEN for Murka” aren’t the only ones who want to “define” women according to some very fucked-up templates.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when the evidence rakes in billions of dollars (and billions of cases of anorexia & bulemia and cutting and self-loathing ad nauseum) every fucking year.
And Raj, have you ever thought about how most of the “mavens” of “fashion” are MANvens? Sure, sure, they’re gayer than a maypole, but they’re still MEN who tell WOMEN how they should look/interpret themselves/starve themselves to look like prepubescent BOYS.
Sounds like “Concerned woMEN for Murka” aren’t the only ones who want to “define” women according to some very fucked-up templates.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when the evidence rakes in billions of dollars (and billions of cases of anorexia & bulemia and cutting and self-loathing ad nauseum) every fucking year.
No comments:
Post a Comment