CWA continues to use bisexuals as a wedge issue

[yesthattom]

(CWA is the modern equivalent of the KKK... except it’s run by “concerned women” that hate everyone.)

And the best part is that L/G activists that don’t “get it” about bisexuality fall for the trap every time.

”When Will Bisexuals Drag Homosexuals out of Polygamy Closet?”

Luckily, this tactic fails because, as we all know, bisexual’s don’t exist.

Comments

[syringavulgaris.livejournal.com]

You know, I just keep staring at that headline and going "what?" Even knowing what the article is about, the headline still doesn't parse in any human tongue.

(Which is why it makes sense that it was written by a CWA representative, of course.)

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

Wow. I just can't wrap my head around that article at ALL. So much hate in so little space.

And, of course, there was a part of my brain that kept thinking, "Umm...and why would it be so awful if three people COULD get married instead of just two?" the entire time I was reading it.

Says the mostly-straight, monogamous girl.

[geeksdoitbetter.livejournal.com]

hi

so, seriously?

you're comparing them to the klan?

how is that useful?

[lilbjorn.livejournal.com]

Yeah! They don't even use sheets.

[geeksdoitbetter.livejournal.com]

i understand the mainstream media is biased, but i still believe the reason we've not heard of the CWA led lynchings and what not is because, you know, they are *not* like the klan

[baerana.livejournal.com]

well, the klan hasn't lynched anyone in 25 years, and the CWA is only 27 years old, so their lack of lynching doesn't really prove anything

both groups want the same thing - they just go about it in different ways. i think calling them a "modern day klan" is valid

[geeksdoitbetter.livejournal.com]

was there a "last one we'll ever lynch" party?

[baerana.livejournal.com]

I think it's useful because the KKK is a reference everyone understands, and the CWA is much like them, in that they hate blacks, jews, homosexuals, etc - basically everyone not a straight white man or a straight white housewife. The public face is very different, but not the agenda.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Something else on which we agree.

I think Tom sometimes confuses with which audiences hyperbolae will make his points seem stronger, because he himself falls in both camps. As he is wont to do. :)

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I hold the theory that if people say it enough, the media will start repeating it too.

The emperor's same old argument?

[rationalfool.livejournal.com]

Most of this sort of argument involves one or more sleights of hand (as is obvious in the passing reference, in the very last paragraph to the appeal to the slippery slope). First there is the hope that reference to polygamy yields a reductio ad absurdum. One can of course use such a reductio approach in reverse: if the assumption (as is quite surely the case with the author) is that polygamy is wrong and that by equating it to homosexual union the author has demonstrated (modus ponens) that homosexual union is wrong. However, having arrived at the latter result, we are not prevented (as an earlier commentor notes) from wondering, hmm, that seems a good case for polygamy after all (i.e., the premise is wrong).

Except of course there is another sleight of hand. That it is the consideration of homosexual union that brings into relevance the legitimacy of polygamy. It is not true that homosexual union highlights the need for polygamy to be considered, but rather the arbitrariness of straight-only union that logically leads to and underwrites the examination of the otherwise rather unrelated issues of gay marriage (no quotes) or bisexual cohabitation rights (or marriage) and polygamy. I would rather the author stop pretending to be logical and just go the whole Santorum and discuss bestiality!

Wow.

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, in that it's gibberish.

She's basically saying homosexual marriage would be fine if it didn't lead to bisexuals wanting multi-person unions. She doesn't mean to, but that's how bad her argument is. Slippery slopes often make you slide somewhere you didn't intend to.

I also like how she implicitly denies the existence of the monogamous bisexual. As if having one mate denies your true nature if you're bi. Of course there's no way she could understand orientation versus practice.

This is a woman?

[cpj.livejournal.com]

I guess I'd be Concerned too, if I looked like this.

Double take

[rationalfool.livejournal.com]

> When society and its courts think “fairness” and “tolerance” trump morality,
> the laws of God and what’s best for children, what will stop polygamists from
> marrying?

So I guess we can read this to mean that LaRue's [sp?] idea of morality does not include fairness or tolerance? Yeah, why let concrete meaningful criteria trump the make believe world of non-existent laws by unknown entities!

Holy Incoherence, Batman!

[niqui.livejournal.com]

What the... ? I couldn't make heads or tails of what that article was trying to say. If they legalize gay marriage, the bisexuals will get mad because we can't marry one person of each gender at the same time? But... huh? Just because I like both genders doesn't mean I'm necessarily bigamous. (If I sleep with a m2f gal does that make me trisexual? How many varieties of person do I get to increment my sexuality for? Does it have to be a prime number? This could get confusing fast. Is someone taking notes on this?)