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

[SaturnMoon]

A bisexual person isn’t necessarily giving up self identity in having a civil marriage with either someone of the same gender or someone of opposite gender. In either case the person can continual to identify as bisexual.

The same basic argument can be used for why marriage, defined as one man and one woman, doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. They have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The same basic argument can be used for why marriage, defined as one man and one woman, doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. They have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex.

A similar argument has been used. It hasn’t stuck to the wall very well in more recent years. If the intent behind the argument is to be persuasive and change minds I would suggest testing another argument. But if you find it persuasive to those you encounter stick with it.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[epan]

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.

Perhaps you are confusing the issues surrounding sexual orientation with the issue of monogamy vs. polygamy. One could be attracted to a variety of people, regardless of gender.

 

[TCEL]

Can someone please give me a clear explanation, and forgive me if this is a stupid question? Are people making the case that bi-sexual people wouldn’t want to marry more than one person at a time? Is that the case?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Can someone please give me a clear explanation, and forgive me if this is a stupid question? Are people making the case that bi-sexual people wouldn’t want to marry more than one person at a time? Is that the case?

It is not the case, bisexual just means they are attracted to both sexes, not necessarily both simultaneously.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can someone please give me a clear explanation, and forgive me if this is a stupid question? Are people making the case that bi-sexual people wouldn’t want to marry more than one person at a time? Is that the case?

There’s a bit of conflation going on between the cardinality of a marriage (how many people are involved in the union) and the combinations of genders that can be in that union. I think DaddyGirl pointed this out the best; the issue of what combinations of genders can be pair is an issue that is mutually independent of how many people some one wants to be paired with. That is same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is not the same issue as polygamy.

 

[Lokadottir]

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.

I’m pretty sure that unless your trying for polygamy, marriage between a man in a woman is legal they don’t have to fight for it, they aren’t rejecting het marriage just trying to get same sex marriage too.

 

[SaturnMoon]

It is not the case, bisexual just means they are attracted to both sexes, not necessarily both simultaneously.

So-called same-sex “marriage” (as it is defined at this minute in time) doesn’t allow for it if bisexuals do want to marry one of each sex. If this isn’t discriminatory then neither has the traditional definition of marriage been discriminatory since in both cases there is a limit to the definition of the word “marriage”. That’s the point. But, the difference is that the limit with SS"M" is a purely arbitrary limit while the definition of marriage being one man and one woman is based on basic biology since it takes one man and one woman to produce a baby and since babies are the ultimate fulfillment of the biological sexual complimentary nature of man and woman.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

But so-called same-sex “marriage” (as it is defined at this minute in time) doesn’t allow for it if they do want to marry one of each sex. That’s the point.

bisexuals are no more inclined towards polygamy than heterosexual men are.

 

[SaturnMoon]

bisexuals are no more inclined towards polygamy than heterosexual men are.

Bisexuals are attracted to people of two different sexes. That’s what bisexual means. If you are saying that they shouldn’t have to marry someone that they are sexually attracted to then that same argument can be made against so-called same-sex “marriage”.

 

[TCEL]

There’s a bit of conflation going on between the cardinality of a marriage (how many people are involved in the union) and the combinations of genders that can be in that union. I think DaddyGirl pointed this out the best; the issue of what combinations of genders can be pair is an issue that is mutually independent of how many people some one wants to be paired with. That is same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is not the same issue as polygamy.

That’s part of my question. In the case of bi-sexuals who want to marry more than one person, isn’t that related to both gender identity and polyamory? It’s not conflation if it actually falls under both categories. It seems like the option then, for bi-sexuals who want to marry more than one person, is that their bi-sexuality isn’t a true gender-identity case?

 

[TCEL]

I’m also interested if anyone else on here has seen this mission statement from Beyond Marriage? The site lists a few hundred signatures from LGBT activists and associates. It lays out several visions for the future, one of which includes protection for “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

Is this considered a “rogue” element of the LGBT movement? See, I think they’re being consistent with their vision.

 

[VanSensei]

I’m also interested if anyone else on here has seen this mission statement from Beyond Marriage? The site lists a few hundred signatures from LGBT activists and associates. It lays out several visions for the future, one of which includes protection for “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

Is this considered a “rogue” element of the LGBT movement? See, I think they’re being consistent with their vision.

That is one group, not representing all of them. The overwhelming percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals will get married to one person, buy a house, adopt a kid, live a normal life for ~40 years, then die like everyone else.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In the case of bi-sexuals who want to marry more than one person, isn’t that related to both gender identity and polyamory?

The concept of group marriage isn’t specific to bisexuals. I think the question is looking at an overly specific example , like asking about left-handed people that want to marry more than one person and asserting it is discrimination against left handed people (I’m exaggerating a bit to illustrate a point).

It seems like the option then, for bi-sexuals who want to marry more than one person, is that their bi-sexuality isn’t a true gender-identity case?

Gender identity and sexuality while related are not the same thing. For example, a person with XY chromosomes and a penis (both a genotype male and a phenotype male) could identify as being a male or a female trapped in a males body (identity) that is attracted to other males or other females (sexuality).

Now if we were talking about a person with XY chromosome (genotype male) that was born with a vagina (phenotype female) there’s plenty of room for gender identity problems there. There are conditions too that you can find documented in medical books on such gender ambiguities.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[TCEL]

That is one group, not representing all of them. The overwhelming percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals will get married to one person, buy a house, adopt a kid, live a normal life for ~40 years, then die like everyone else.

I’m not saying this isn’t true. I’m pretty agnostic about that aspect, since I haven’t looked into it.

However, why should percentages matter, if it’s a matter of justice? Compared to most of the US’ population, homosexuals and bisexuals make up a small percentage, yet we think it a matter of justice to legalize SSM. So, if an even smaller percentage choose polyamorous marriage, then where’s the harm in legalizing it? Couldn’t one argue that the effect would be even less than SSM? I’m not trying to play “gotcha,” but this exemplifies why I think the arguments really start to sound similar. As it stands, I believe those activists are being tolerant and consistent.

I’ll rest my point after this so I don’t start hammering.

 

[TCEL]

The concept of group marriage isn’t specific to bisexuals. I think the question is looking at an overly specific example , like asking about left-handed people that want to marry more than one person and asserting it is discrimination against left handed people (I’m exaggerating a bit to illustrate a point).

Gender identity and sexuality while related are not the same thing. For example, a person with XY chromosomes and a penis (both a genotype male and a phenotype male) could identify as being a male or a female trapped in a males body (identity) that is attracted to other males or other females (sexuality).

Now if we were talking about a person with XY chromosome (genotype male) that was born with a vagina (phenotype female) there’s plenty of room for gender identity problems there. There are conditions too that you can find documented in medical books on such gender ambiguities.

Thank you for your response. I know group-marriage is not specific to bisexuals, but I believe the OP is trying to figure out what he/she (and I) perceive is a current inconsistency in the SSM debate.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, why should percentages matter, if it’s a matter of justice? Compared to most of the US’ population, homosexuals and bisexuals make up a small percentage, yet we think it a matter of justice to legalize SSM.

This is my personal assessment, but I don’t think that we (our society) has gotten to the point of seeing group marriage as a matter of justice. It took some years, but segments of society do see SSM as a matter of justice. Supporters of SSM are not necessarily homosexual people, but also heterosexuals and people that have no interest in being married themselves that do see it as a matter of justice. While it has been a minority that is homosexual that wants to be married to another of the same gender laws of SSM have in many cases gone to popular vote and includes the views of more than just homosexuals.

So, if an even smaller percentage choose polyamorous marriage, then where’s the harm in legalizing it?

The potential for help or harm would be dependent on how the laws around such marriages are written. I might have missed it, but I’ve not seen anything proposed yet.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I’m also interested if anyone else on here has seen this mission statement from Beyond Marriage? The site lists a few hundred signatures from LGBT activists and associates. It lays out several visions for the future, one of which includes protection for “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

Is this considered a “rogue” element of the LGBT movement? See, I think they’re being consistent with their vision.

Definitely not mainstream.

I’m not saying this isn’t true. I’m pretty agnostic about that aspect, since I haven’t looked into it.

However, why should percentages matter, if it’s a matter of justice? Compared to most of the US’ population, homosexuals and bisexuals make up a small percentage, yet we think it a matter of justice to legalize SSM. So, if an even smaller percentage choose polyamorous marriage, then where’s the harm in legalizing it? Couldn’t one argue that the effect would be even less than SSM? I’m not trying to play “gotcha,” but this exemplifies why I think the arguments really start to sound similar. As it stands, I believe those activists are being tolerant and consistent.

I’ll rest my point after this so I don’t start hammering.

Because it’d require a total overhaul of large chunks of law.

 

[TCEL]

I’m also interested if anyone else on here has seen this mission statement from Beyond Marriage? The site lists a few hundred signatures from LGBT activists and associates. It lays out several visions for the future, one of which includes protection for “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

Is this considered a “rogue” element of the LGBT movement? See, I think they’re being consistent with their vision.

Definitely not mainstream.

Thanks. (Not sarcasm!) What I’m saying is that those who support SSM but not polyamorous marriage for bi-sexuals (should they want one) are being inconsistent in their reasoning. These activists at Beyond Marriage are not, whether or not it’s bi-sexuals they are talking about. I argue that they are relentlessly following through with the logic that we are turning the legal definition of marriage into the sexual or emotional expression of adults.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Thanks. (Not sarcasm!) What I’m saying is that those who support SSM but not polyamorous marriage for bi-sexuals (should they want one) are being inconsistent in their reasoning. These activists at Beyond Marriage are not, whether or not it’s bi-sexuals they are talking about. I argue that they are relentlessly following through with the logic that we are turning the legal definition of marriage into the sexual or emotional expression of adults.

SSM advocates are asking for a minor change in the legal code, to have polygamy legal would require a complete overhaul of massive swaths of the legal code.