I was just reading a blog post by a mainline ordained pastor who identifies as bi-sexual. She was talking about how amazing it is that her denomination had changed it's definition of marriage from "a man and woman" to "two people", and how cool it was that queers (her word not mine) can get ordained. While I'm sure this is all very exciting, especially in light of the SCOTUS decision, I was left with a question. How will this work? Given the fact that this entire campaign has been portrayed as being about lofty things like love, equality, equity, and justice, how can we arbitrarily grant justice to one group, while denying it to others?
This particular young woman identifies as bisexual, so how does a bisexual achieve marriage equity/equality? It seems that there are three options. One can marry one other person (of either sex), then engage in am extra marital affair with a person or persons of the other sex. One can marry a person of each sex. One can simply marry and divorce a series of individuals depending of their current preference.
It seems to me that each of these is problematic.
The first is problematic in that traditionally one component of marriage is the concept of monogamy, obviously this one is not shared by many in the GLBTQXYZPDQ community, but in a Christian marriage ceremony it talks about "forsaking all others" etc. Again, it seems that entering into a marriage with the intent of engaging in a sexual relationship outside of the marriage kind of defeats the purpose.
The second, is probably the closest to equity/equality for the bisexual, and is probably one of the next bridges to fall. But for now, the definition of marriage still reads "two people". So, it seems like this one is out as well.
The third option has the benefit of seeming to fit with the popular culture in general which doesn't seem to see much problem with marriage and or divorce at will. It does seem problematic to go into a marriage agreeing to the vows, all the while knowing that you'll divorce this one for someone of the other gender when you feel like a change.
It seems clear that the current push for "marriage equity" is the first step down a path. How can we grant marriage to the person of one's choice to gay people, but not to bisexuals? The PR is it's all about marrying who you love, right? If that's the case, the obvious next question is why limit it to two people who love each other?
So, how is this going to work when the bisexual folks realize that they are still getting less equity than the G and L initial folks are getting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Bisexual simply means that they can be attracted to folk of either gender. Doesn't mean they HAVE to have sex with people of both genders. A bisexual brother or sister may date folk of either sex, but I would imagine they would settle down with one person.
Just as a heterosexual is attracted to people of the opposite gender doesn't mean that they have to have sex with all the opposite gender.
Dan,
Your naivete is touching, I think I'll leave this comment because it's so cute.
How many bisexual people do you know intimately? With whom you've visited at their homes or shared a meal or a church service? Do you have any data at all on which to base something more sinister?
Delete away, you asked a question, I answered it based on the anecdotal data I have. While I may be naïve and cute, your arrogance and ignorance and willingness to talk about that which you are wholly unfamiliar (I'm guessing) is neither naïve or cute, just a little ugly and pathetic.
Craig, brother, embrace grace.
[Should I be mistaken in my guess and you actually have many beloved friends who are bisexual and whom you know intimately, I will apologize for guessing incorrectly...]
Some data for you, should you be interested in, you know, data...
"Most bisexuals describe themselves as being emotionally, sexually and/or romantically attracted to both women and men and feel capable of loving and forming relationships with either.7 To most bisexuals, the gender of the person they find attractive is substantially less important than who the person is.
Contrary to common misperceptions, bisexuality is not the equivalent of sexual promiscuity.8 Most bisexuals describe themselves as monogamous in their committed relationships.9 Bisexual identity speaks more to the existence of attraction to people of either gender, rather than a statement of past or current sexual activity."
http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/BisexualityDispellingtheMyths.pdf
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-bisexuality-sometimes-seen-as-a-sign-of-sexual-promiscuity
Dan,
What's naive and cute is your willingness to make sweeping judgmental pronouncements based of the anecdotal stories if the few people you know.
I suspect, as is so often the case, that you didn't actually read my post before you commented. The number of bisexual people I know is immaterial, as I would never even begin to have the arrogance to presume that my small anecdotal sample could even begin to be representative of any larger group.
It does interest me that your "data" doesn't actually address the questions I asked or the issue I raised. Not only that, I suggested nothing sinister in the least.
Look, you have made lots of claims based on extrapolating from the few gay folk you know and virtually all of your extrapolations don't line up with research.
So, please, if you would like to address the questions I asked and the issues I raised, feel free. If you prefer to continue to provide anecdotes (which you actually didn't do, you just implied intimate relations with bisexuals in an attempt to give some weight to your nonexistent anecdotes), then just don't bother. If you want to respond to things I didn't say, don't bother.
But feel free to call me names and impugn my motives all you like.
Again, the problem is that you completely missed the point of the post in your hurry to name call and impugn.
I think I'll leave this one up as it is a great example of how you (intentionally?) miss the point and reflexively go on the attack.
But, of course, all of this just is overflowing with your (expletive laden) version of condescending grace.
Dan,
I called you naive because you are. You think that you can extrapolate from your little group of gay friends and make broad statements about how things really are. Yet, the actual research (not anecdotal, but real research) has shown that your little enclave is not representative of the larger "gay community", and that your charmingly naive attempts to pretend otherwise are kind of touching.
As to your "forth option"< I considered that I decided that it would be unjust in inequitable for force bisexuals to deny their natural orientation, therefore I just couldn't see that as an option in the current state of affairs. However, you are correct, it is an option for people to exercise self control over their sexual desires and that would be a good thing for people to do. Again, I just didn't want to be so bold as to suggest something so limiting.
So, now you have offered a third explanation for your grace filled expletive laden rant, I'm sure you'll find one that sticks at some point.
I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, I've never really been able to detect when you are extending grace, what with the vitriol, snark, expletives, and name calling. I've just kind of written it off as one more thing you demand of others, but not of yourself.
For the record, it is quite clear that you continue to miss the point as simply want to foist off your anecdotal experiences with your small insular group of people, as somehow normative for the "gay community at large". So, given that, as well as your lack of answers in the other thread, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to hit the old delete button.
If you figure things out, let me know.
I'll be out of touch for a couple of days, so if you could avoid whining that I won't respond to your comments until Monday or so, that would be great. If I have a chance I will, but I'm just getting it out there.
If you have actual research specifically on bisexuals and what they want out of marriage, by all means, provide it.
I doubt that you have it, but you can show me if I'm mistaken.
Dan
Yes, it's quite clear Dan missed the point, or more likely, doesn't care about the point because all in all, it doesn't praise and celebrate the sexual immorality he is so quick to champion.
A bi-sexual is just as dysfunctional as a homosexual. (As Andrew Dice Clay said, "What's this "bi" crap? You either...or you don't.") Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suspect they might be equally inclined to share the general immoral view of sexuality as do the homosexuals. And as Craig states, the research makes Dan's small sampling of homo- and bisexuals a rarity amongst the greater LGBT population, assuming he has perfect knowledge of their private lives.
Dan,
Unlike you, I am not making claims about what bisexuals want out of marriage. Nor am I attempting to extrapolate my limited experience to speak for all bisexuals.
Why is it arrogant to be concerned about denying bisexuals equity and justice? Under current (in this particular case) church law bisexuals are being forced to choose either one man or one woman for a life long monogamous christian marriage, this is clearly unjust and inequitable.
The rest of your comments just keep hammering home the fact that you just don't get the point of the post. So, out of kindness and grace, I am going to delete those comments so that you don't continue to look foolish. FYI your last comment is really bizarre since no one except you is irrational or emotionally over wrought. As for "immoral" as long as you can't articulate a transcendent objective standard for what is or is not "moral", you have absolutely no groundwork to refer to anyone or anything as "immoral". So, you can lay your foundation or stop, your choice.
Just a hint, arrogance is the furthest thing from the tone of this post.
"A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”
[…]The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them."
I guess we don't even need to wait.
This is an excerpt from an MSN story, hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/ar-AAcriXZ?ocid=iehp
If one adopts that somewhat arbitrary "If it doesn't cause harm." standard, then there is no reason to find this problematic in the least.
"The problem is, fires don’t burn indefinitely unless you keep adding more wood. They start with a spark, work their way up to a roar, then calm back down to a crackle. When the crackling gets too quiet, someone throws another log on, and the flames flare back up. The cycle repeats over and over again, as long as there are more logs, more fuel.
Our fuel is running out. Brad and I have tried all the tricks. We’ve fanned the flames. We need more logs—new energy, a fresh perspective. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other, or that we are done with each other. It just means we need something new."
"I had freed myself from the grips of government, religion, and parents. The only chains left to throw off were those on my sexuality—particularly the chains of monogamy."
" Along with the fear of God, I cast off any respect for parental authority I once had. Since the punitive, authoritarian man in the clouds was no longer real to me, who was to say children should obey their parents?
[…]Then, one day, I came across an article about polyamory. One article led to another, and soon I was watching documentaries about polyamorous triads and quads. I became obsessed with the reality TV show “Polyamory: Married and Dating,” and ordered the book “Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships.”
“This is it!” I thought. I’d finally found what seemed like a desirable alternative to the wedded misery I saw all around me."
"We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going," she said. "It's more liberal, it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want."
And of course, the real issue here is not whether or not a group of deviants or mental defectives wish to form a family the way they want, but whether or not the state is obliged to recognize those groups of people as families simply because the group wishes to apply the term. I don't see any Constitutional obligation on the part of the state, or anyone else for that matter, to do this. If it was an issue of a hetero couple and their children being denied anything other actual families get, then there's an issue because a heterosexual couple, especially those legally married, and their children ARE a family by definition.
But there's that problem again: words mean things and the actual meanings of some words do not work for the crotch-centered and self-absorbed leftists.
MA,
My biggest problem with the ruling is that it took what is a decisions that was being made through the appropriate legal process at the state level, and decided to apply a non-enumerated power in a blanket way that seems at odds with our federal system.
The questions becomes, which oppressed minority will get on the bandwagon first or will people realize that they just laid the "legal" groundwork to legalize concealed carry in all 50 states as well.
Post a Comment