Ok, let me see if I can answer in a serially monogamous way. Get it, get it?
I made a joke. Ah... never mind.
, you did a good job. You disagreed with me, and supported why in a graceful manner. You were not a kiss-ass about it, nor did you respond as if you're bleeding out your twat or dealing with an irritating head ache. I wish some of the seniors with 10 posts a day under their belts would take a similarly patient approach.
How some of them manage to have 5 relationships, presumably also a job, and sit on the internet for long enough to be able to read and reply to, on a daily basis, to almost every post here... totally escapes my mind. Do they even sleep? It's like Jewish entrepreneurs have made their way into the love business.
, 33 genders? Respectfully, I ask with a raised eyebrow. Where would the line(s) be drawn, if there were even the concept of discreet lines? Am I misunderstanding to think that a guy who, born with a penis, who's sexually attracted only to women, but who has easily recognizable feminine traits, is of a different gender than a guy exactly like him except for instead loving cars, babes in bikinis, and aggressive competition over romantic comedies and fluffy animals?
If those two are of a different gender, who's to say there are no fewer genders than there are humans on this planet? After all, isn't everybody
unique to some extent with respect to masculine and feminine extremes? It just gets too vague after a point, and becomes unnecessarily complicated.
Kinda like the starving artist who insists on injecting meaning into the vomit he projected onto a canvas. I mean, it IS interesting in its own way, especially if you're high on pot, but at the end of the day, it's still vomit on a canvas. When that artist starts getting pissy 'cause somebody points out a fact, "How DARE you insist it's merely vomit on a canvas? IT'S A SPECIAL RENDITION OF MY INTERNAL WORLD!"
Thing is, it's BOTH. It's both a rendition of his internal world, to him and all those who've been made privy. And it's also NOTHING except for vomit on a canvas. Both can be, at the same time, true. (Maybe he wouldn't be so starving if he held the food down? See, another joke).
, I was wrong. Whoops. Tom-ay-toe...
But justification for physical violence? Eh, I don't think stereotypes should be blamed for violence. It's the douche bags who commit the violence, themselves, who need to be blamed.
Like, say a homophobic dumbass beats up a gay dude for making out with another guy. Uhm, it's unkind to beat someone up. Period. The act itself is unpleasant to the one being beat up. But to say, "I can't believe he beat him up for being gay!" is a bit retarded. It's arrogant, and proves that YOUR moral compass is the absolutely correct version.
The gay dude gets bruises and scuffs. Those bruises and scuffs hurt NOT because he's gay, but 'cause he got his ass kicked. And the guy who delivered the beating because, in HIS head, simply in contradiction to what's in YOUR head, the guy's homosexuality warranted what seemed like an appropriate response: violence.
Does the gay dude have a right to love and make out with another man? FUCK YEAH! But that's how I think, and that's how most of you here think. The guy, however, who beats up gays, does NOT think that.
We do NOT, I repeat, WE DO NOT have absolute rights. Rights are something we secure for ourselves by being able, even by force if necessary, to prevent anyone or anything from infringing on those afterwards de facto rights. And if we're too weak to secure such rights, we can still have them IF through the generosity of somebody strong enough (a gang, a body guard, the government) secures them for us. But if neither a stronger entity or we ourselves are able to secure those rights, they in that instant disintegrate.
Try explaining to a tiger that you have a right to not be murdered while she's gnawing on your bones to fulfill her right to food.
, lazy maybe. Ignorant, maybe. Disregardful, maybe. But dickish? You insist that somebody as uninformed as I am be considerate of all the, many, many, sometimes confusing options that would make sense to self-identified polyamorists.
I mean, if a biped with tits and a slender face walks up to me and starts meowing, it's unfair to call me an asshole for asking her if she's ok. "How DARE you disrespect HER god-given right to be a MALE cat if she so pleases to be a cat!" Eeeesh.
I just don't know any better! Who's the dick now...
"This is why the polyamorous community will never gain traction in mainstream society." <-- Hey, so? We care about our lives and about being true to ourselves more than we do about society's acceptance, obviously, otherwise we wouldn't be doing this period."
Ok, c'mon, we know this is simply not true. YOU might not care, which is respectable and, to me, commendable. But we know there's a coalition brewing, ready to attack legislation to legalize plural marriages.
This probably makes me an asshole, but I remember a few years back attending a gay rally to kill prop 8 (legalized gay marriage in California). I came with my girlfriend. I made it happily known that we are NOT married, and will NOT be getting married. And that she means to me no less than any of you mean to any of your other significant others.
This goes back to the whole rights thing. Why do people even want to get married? It is, ultimately, a piece of paper with sometimes financial benefits. If you feel your love for another is somehow more "legitimate" by being accepted by a society who couldn't possibly appreciate your type of love anyway, then... sorry, you're shit out of luck and the joke's on you.
Benefits? Hospital visits? Stop being a freakin' cry baby. If you want to make it work, you'll find a way, and won't let petty laws get in the way. Otherwise you're just stuck in a cage you're built yourself, pleading for the mercy of others to unlock you.
, I appreciate your response. Again, it adds something to the conversation without being a personal attack under the guise of debate.
For argument's sake, I could have also added this one: "Totally single and looking to explore with others, and people who aren't in my lives are free to explore others."
I can't cover all bases even if I tried.
I think, fundamentally, my mistake was in placing a poll designed for a majority, on a website evidently frequented by minorities.
Say, for example, though, that if I were to go to a forum discussing all things secular, I could write: Are you 1) Christian, or 2) Muslim.
YES, that poll does not include other options such as Buddist, Wiccan, etc.
Nonetheless, the correct answer for an agnostic atheist would be to not select any of the above, and to forgo answering.
If the poll was carefully designed, it would be only for purposes of comparing the number of Christians to the number of Muslims, WITHOUT respect to the number of those practicing other faiths.