What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?

[livingwordunity]

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they don’t want to be forced to choose just one. The “gay” lobby includes bisexuals in their name of “LGBT”. But, at the moment, they arbitrarily say that so-called same-sex “marriage” is defined as either two lesbians or two homosexual men. This discriminates against the bisexuals among them. So, what does the “gay” lobby plan to do about this dilemma? Marriage should be as it was in the beginning - one man and one woman.

 

[Oreoracle]

Umm…there is no dilemma. We already have “traditional” marriage for that. Gay marriage doesn’t seek to replace traditional marriage. Gays want both types of marriage to coexist.

 

[SMGS127]

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they don’t want to be forced to choose just one. The “gay” lobby includes bisexuals in their name of “LGBT”. But, at the moment, they arbitrarily say that so-called same-sex “marriage” is defined as either two lesbians or two homosexual men. This discriminates against the bisexuals among them. So, what does the “gay” lobby plan to do about this dilemma? Marriage should be as it was in the beginning - one man and one woman.

That’s actually not true at all. There are currently many straight marriages between one straight person and one bisexual person, and there are currently many gay relationships between one bisexual person and one gay person. And there are many examples of both between two bisexual people.

Though, if I’m being completely honest, my patience is wearing extremely thin with your tendency to make threads that serve no purpose other than to allow you to make snarky jokes about X group of people. It isn’t charitable, and I would suggest you stop. But I will still answer this question since your assumptions are wrong.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Seriously, you make threads all the time that serve no purpose other than to beg the question about a certain group of people you don’t like, usually gays or liberals. Why do you do that? You know full well that bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, not that they resent being in a relationship with only one gender at a time, yet you still made this offensive and erroneous post. Why do you do that? Do you think it helps your cause? It doesn’t. Do you think this behavior is in line with catholic charity?

 

[VanSensei]

I would imagine some bisexuals are more attracted to one gender than the other, so I really do not see your point, livingword.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m attracted to both sexes, and I am completely befuddled about what you think would be offensive to me about gay marriage. I disagree with gay marriage, but I don’t find it offensive.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m attracted to both sexes, and I am completely befuddled about what you think would be offensive to me about gay marriage. I disagree with gay marriage, but I don’t find it offensive.

Even straight people don’t get to marry everyone they’re attracted to. I think that not only would the government have a problem with it if I tried that, my husband would as well.

 

[Ragamuffingirl]

Don’t worry. They’re working on making polygamy legal. See Utah’s recent rulling. TV shows like Big Love and Sister Wives are to gain sympathy for this sort of thing. So, in the future people who don’t think they should have to settle for one partner won’t have to.

 

[tabycat]

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they don’t want to be forced to choose just one. The “gay” lobby includes bisexuals in their name of “LGBT”. But, at the moment, they arbitrarily say that so-called same-sex “marriage” is defined as either two lesbians or two homosexual men. This discriminates against the bisexuals among them. So, what does the “gay” lobby plan to do about this dilemma? Marriage should be as it was in the beginning - one man and one woman.

Bisexuals, when they marry, will choose just one sex at a time to marry. So, what’s the question?

 

[Havard]

Seriously, you make threads all the time that serve no purpose other than to beg the question about a certain group of people you don’t like, usually gays or liberals. Why do you do that? You know full well that bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, not that they resent being in a relationship with only one gender at a time, yet you still made this offensive and erroneous post. Why do you do that? Do you think it helps your cause? It doesn’t. Do you think this behavior is in line with catholic charity?

You’re right, and I’d be more indignant too if I weren’t laughing because his/her post wasn’t so ridiculous and your reply to it wasn’t so darn spot on.

 

[LongingSoul]

Seriously, you make threads all the time that serve no purpose other than to beg the question about a certain group of people you don’t like, usually gays or liberals. Why do you do that? You know full well that bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, not that they resent being in a relationship with only one gender at a time, yet you still made this offensive and erroneous post. Why do you do that? Do you think it helps your cause? It doesn’t. Do you think this behavior is in line with catholic charity?

It does seem to highlight the irony that when one is uncompromising and dogmatic (ie. an idealogue) in pursuit of their cause, they essentially kick goals for the other team… a concern aired by Pope Francis.

In another irony, in Australia, during the big push for gay marriage over the last few years, the main obstacle to that cause was our previous left wing, atheist, female, defacto relationship-ed, childless by choice, Prime Minister. She quashed the concept of gay marriage as not meeting the traditional meaning and purpose of marriage. Her natural law argument seemed to do its job without the need for dogmatic, uncompromising obsessing. The good Lord works through the strangest hosts sometimes.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Umm…there is no dilemma. We already have “traditional” marriage for that. Gay marriage doesn’t seek to replace traditional marriage. Gays want both types of marriage to coexist.

There is a dilemma in that a bisexual could very possibly wish to be married to both a male and a female at the same time. What the OP is addressing is a subset of the “what about polygamy” (which has a far stronger case for legalization than “gay marriage” in terms of social usage, historical and current usage, and legal history) question that is often avoided by supporters of “gay marriage.”

 

[Oreoracle]

There is a dilemma in that a bisexual could very possibly wish to be married to both a male and a female at the same time.

How is that any different than the common problem faced by straight people wherein they wish to be with two people of the same sex at the same time? Unless you only find one other human being attractive, this is a “dilemma” for everybody, not just bisexuals.

What the OP is addressing is a subset of the “what about polygamy” (which has a far stronger case for legalization than “gay marriage” in terms of social usage, historical and current usage, and legal history) question that is often avoided by supporters of “gay marriage.”

Regarding your comment about polygamy having a stronger case:

For one thing, polygamy has always been a sexist institution. It’s not based on love, or even what’s best for a family. It’s based on old traditions that originate from our hunter-gatherer days. A polygamous family does not consist of equal partners, but of a hierarchy (first the male, then the oldest wife, and so on).

Comparing gay marriage with polygamy is absurd and insulting.

 

[Havard]

Comparing gay marriage with polygamy is absurd and insulting.

Is that why there have been dozens of recent editorials from major news outlets positing that “maybe it’s time polygamy”? I know I’ve seen CNN and Huffington Post pieces to that effect off the top of my head within the past month or two, and in the past year I’ve seen much more than that.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

For one thing, polygamy has always been a sexist institution. It’s not based on love, or even what’s best for a family. It’s based on old traditions that originate from our hunter-gatherer days. A polygamous family does not consist of equal partners, but of a hierarchy (first the male, then the oldest wife, and so on).

Comparing gay marriage with polygamy is absurd and insulting.

How is that any different than the common problem faced by straight people wherein they wish to be with two people of the same sex at the same time? Unless you only find one other human being attractive, this is a “dilemma” for everybody, not just bisexuals.
It is a problem because the argument thus far by “gay marriage” advocates has been that the limiting of marriage to a male and female is unjust. Since this is a question of what is just, logic would dictate that it would also be unjust to limit marriage to just two individuals. The often repeated line of “we should be able to marry anyone we wish” works just as well for those wishing to engage in a polygamous marriage.

Additionally, limiting a bisexual individual to just a two person marriage discriminates against their sexuality (what is really at the core of this entire argument) and basically forces them to live as either a straight person or a homosexual person. Their identity as a bisexual individual is denied them.

Regarding your comment about polygamy having a stronger case: :rolleyes
Oh, so you do have some actual evidence that homosexual marriage has a long social and legal history? (please don’t cite Ancient Greek, even a basic examination of their practices would show that while they accepted “homosexual unions,” such unions did not hold the same weight as male-female marriage did in their society and laws.)

For one thing, polygamy has always been a sexist institution. It’s not based on love, or even what’s best for a family. It’s based on old traditions that originate from our hunter-gatherer days. A polygamous family does not consist of equal partners, but of a hierarchy (first the male, then the oldest wife, and so on).
Doesn’t matter (you are wrong by the way, review the history of 1 wife-multiple husband marriages) since the entire framework for the “gay marriage” issue is that it is a right. An individual can not be denied his/her right without cause (i.e. they have to do something in order to lose their right). We could also discuss that a marriage framework being sexist and/or hierarchical and/or having unequal partners pretty much has had no real effect on the 1 man-1 woman marriage framework.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Additionally, limiting a bisexual individual to just a two person marriage discriminates against their sexuality (what is really at the core of this entire argument) and basically forces them to live as either a straight person or a homosexual person. Their identity as a bisexual individual is denied them.

This is a misunderstanding of the term “bisexual”. The term refers to attraction, not to action. One can be celibate and a bisexual, for example. And one could certainly be married, monogamous, and bisexual.

 

[manualman]

One complaint we catholics often have is that the secular media horribly misreport our story. It’s like they don’t even bother to fact check.

Well the shoe’s on the other foot this time. Gay activists aren’t lobbying for something new to be called “gay marriage.” They are lobbying for a redefinition of the word marriage without any qualifiers attached to allow it to apply to any two combinations of nonrelated consenting human adults. In their eyes, there IS no difference between the committed relationship of a man / woman, a man / man, a woman / woman regardless of what any particular person involved has as preferences.

As noted by others, the limit in the above definition to TWO partners ends up being as arbitrary and indefensible (by their standards) as the old "one man / one woman definition one was. They just choose not to see that for now. Give it 10 years.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is a misunderstanding of the term “bisexual”. The term refers to attraction, not to action. One can be celibate and a bisexual, for example. And one could certainly be married, monogamous, and bisexual.

One can be bisexual and monogamous, but what one can do and what one has a “right” to do are two different items; and the topic here concerns what one has a “right” to do. Any argument based on a claim of discrimination or a denial of a “right” can not be taken seriously if it engages in similar discrimination or acceptance of a denial of a “right” for some. The only valid argument that “gay marriage” advocates can put forth is that those wishing to marry more than one person (traditional polygamous marriages and/or non-monogamous bisexuals) have the same “right” to marry as homosexual couples or monogamous bisexuals.

 

[Oreoracle]

Is that why there have been dozens of recent editorials from major news outlets positing that “maybe it’s time polygamy”? I know I’ve seen CNN and Huffington Post pieces to that effect off the top of my head within the past month or two, and in the past year I’ve seen much more than that.

Yeah, because journalism always reflects the morality and underlying beliefs of our culture. It’s not like they’re just using provocative titles to draw people into reading their drivel or anything.

It is a problem because the argument thus far by “gay marriage” advocates has been that the limiting of marriage to a male and female is unjust. Since this is a question of what is just, logic would dictate that it would also be unjust to limit marriage to just two individuals. The often repeated line of “we should be able to marry anyone we wish” works just as well for those wishing to engage in a polygamous marriage.

This is taking the slippery slope fallacy to an extreme. You’ll notice that the arguments against polygamy do not apply to gay marriage. They aren’t comparable, which is why the same arguments don’t work against both.

Oh, so you do have some actual evidence that homosexual marriage has a long social and legal history?

Actually, I will cite the Ancient Greeks in spite of your protests, but not for the reason you think. Relationships with children have also had a rich history, starting with the Greeks, proceeding with the Romans, and so on. Slavery has an even more consistent history. I don’t see how the histories of these institutions are relevant.

We could also discuss that a marriage framework being sexist and/or hierarchical and/or having unequal partners pretty much has had no real effect on the 1 man-1 woman marriage framework.

I may as well be beating my head against a wall. I’m obviously not going to change your mind, so I’ll leave you to rave.

 

[manualman]

This is taking the slippery slope fallacy to an extreme. You’ll notice that the arguments against polygamy do not apply to gay marriage. They aren’t comparable, which is why the same arguments don’t work against both.

Can you elaborate? The way I see it is that the gay rights movement achieved traction by making the point that society’s definition of marriage contained a merely arbitrary restriction limiting it to a male and female. This only started resonating with the public after a few generations took contraception for granted such that the public no longer considered marriage innately linked to making babies.

But that same argument and change in mentality can be applied to polygamy. If marriage is no more than a public celebration and recognition of two people who love each other and are committed to each other, then the “two” in that definition becomes as arbitrary as the “one man and one woman” used to be. The definition holds no power to resist the arguments of groups of three (four?) people who will inevitably begin to complain that they are being unfairly demonized and discriminated against. After all, why should society be insensitive to their wishes? Why shouldn’t love be legalized? What’s the argument against? Sure polygamy was often exploitive in primitive cultures with no regulatory and social apparatus to support victims against such things, but does that describe today’s world?

You get the idea. The arguments WILL come and cultural habit vacated of any real reason will not be enough to resist the arguments.