LJWorld.com weblogs At Random

What about bi-sexuals, Mr. President? Where is their right to marriage?


I wasn't particularly surprised when President Obama made the statement about his personal feelings on the issue of gay rights. His opinion that they have every right to be happy in a legal marriage along with all the amenities that affords is held by about half the population.

Marriage: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

The above definition is about to change. My interest lies in just how far it will.

Wikipedia definition of bisexuality:

'Bisexuality is a sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical or romantic attraction to males and females - especially with regard to men and women. It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along with a heterosexual and a homosexual orientation - all a part of the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. It has been observed in various human societies and elsewhere in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history.'

Does our President hold the belief that marriage is sanctimonious to a union between two people only? Do you? I know the word monogamy generally comes up in discussion about marriage - gay or otherwise. Can a bi sexual relationship among three consenting adults be classified as monogamous?

I believe as with heterosexual and homosexual individuals, the bi sexual individual is born with the sexual imprint of who they are and where their sexuality lies. The definition of what we hold marriage to be is about to change.....just how far is the change gonna come.

(This is a beginning blog about an ongoing in-depth investigation about bisexuality that I've been undertaking for the past several weeks. I became aware of how predominate it is, when I went out with a gentlemen several weeks ago who decided to place an ad on Craigslist stating we were a married couple seeking another male to participate with us sexually. For clarity sake, I do not consider myself bisexual nor did I encourage the male's action. I was initially shocked and surprised by the overwhelming response my 'friend' received. I decided to not continue my relationship with my acquaintance, but I have subsequently made contact with several of the gentlemen and have been interviewing them about their bi sexuality. They are all married men)


jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

I welcome the expansion of the discussion to include other forms of committed relationships.

Seems to me that we have the best chance of finding structures that work for people when we have a wider range of possibilities.

The statistics on traditional marriages are rather discouraging in that respect, with a lot of infidelity and divorce.

I wouldn't necessarily call a 3 way "marriage" "monogamous", but it certainly could be a committed long-term relationship, wherein each member stays within the group for sexual activities.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


I appreciate your open and non judgemental position. I was a bit fearful of what my response might be, but at least we opened with a positive discussion.

I believe with the definition of marriage as we know it about to change, our definition of monogamy will need to be redefined to include three or more people as well. What words as we once understood them aren't changing.

What other ways would you like to expand the definition of relationships?

Tom Mach 5 years, 9 months ago

Ronda-- There is no end to this stupidity. What about men who want to marry little girls? Wjat about a female teacher who wants to marry a boy in the second grade? What about a group of boys who want to marry a group of girls? What about a woman who wants to marry her horse or her pet monkey? What about two cats that the owner wants legalized into a marriage contract? Why can't we simply leave marriage the way it was for centuries--a bond between a woman and a man?

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

First of all, some of the groups you name, little girls, second grade boys, monkeys, cats and horses, are not able to voice consent because of age or voice issues.

I understand you think gay and bi people should have the same rights but call it something other than marriage? Is that correct?

Tom Mach 5 years, 9 months ago

Absolutely. Why are gays so fixated on the word "marriage" per se? Can't they just invent a NEW word for it and let the people who believe in marriage continue to call it marriage? Why do we have dishonor those people who have held this word in such high esteem? Next thing you know, aetheists will want crosses removed from the graves of servicement who died in defense of our country. (Oops, I think they're already trying to do that through the ACLU)

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Well, first, consenting adults aren't any of the groups you mentioned in your first post.

So, it's irrelevant, and wouldn't be part of any new legally recognized relationships.

Next, of course, in different societies over time, there have been numerous other kinds of "marriage" - Biblical patriarchs, for one, had numerous wives.

Then, of course, the idea that this would "dishonor" anything is odd - the fact that gay people want to engage in the same kind of relationships as straight people is in fact testimony that they value it.

As far as the word goes, I don't particularly care either way, as long as the relationships confer the same rights and privileges as marriages do today. Some in the gay community care, as a matter of "separate but equal" not being equal, while others probably would be more in line with my view.

Finally, the "high esteem" that marriage is held in doesn't seem to translate to actually living up to one's vows - infidelity and divorce rates are quite high.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 9 months ago

The consenting part is very important and is another aspect of marriage that has changed over time. Not so long ago it was perfectly acceptable, both legally and biblically, to marry off a woman to someone against her will. Marriage is not so immutable as some think.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Absolutely consenting is key to all discussions about union or marriage of any type. And you're correct that it has evolved enormously in the past couple of hundred years - well, in many areas of the world.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 9 months ago

I would suggest "civil union" which is, at heart, what all marriages are. You must get permission from the government to marry (license.) After a civil ceremony, anyone who wants to get married again in church should be welcome to do so.

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

"What about men"

All parties must able to and agree to all portions of the contract.

Why did it take you 5 lines to write a question that could be answered with one?

"Why can't we simply leave marriage the way it was for centuries--a bond between a woman and a man? "

The government can't force you as an American to accept their contract. If you let Uncle Sam do that, it's your problem.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

How would you like the amendments to marriage, if any, to read? Are you for full rights for gay and bi individuals and where do you draw the line. Do they need to be in a committed, monogamous relationship? For one day or for forty years or somewhere in-between?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm just curious as to your thoughts.

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

All persons engaged in a marriage contract must be of consensual age in the state where the marriage is contracted. States may not place further limitations on marriage. All marriage contracts are subject to the fourteenth amendment with the exception that a state may opt to not recognize the institution of marriage, and only in such a case may a state reject a marriage contract entered into in another state.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

As far as I'm concerned, any structures that consenting adults enter into is fine with me.

That could be one man with multiple wives, one woman with multiple husbands, group marriages, etc.

There'd have to be some way to sort out the legal benefits of these, of course, which might be tricky.

Perhaps it would be simpler if "marriage" didn't convey any particular legal benefits that were unavailable in other ways, which isn't the case right now.

It's interesting that the men you came into contact with were married, and seeking outside sex - I assume that their wives were unaware of this. So much for the "sanctity" of marriage.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Jafs, in a few cases the wives had been asked to participate in this type of relationship and because of fear, no desire, differing sexual make up or any number of other reasons had declined. Certainly there were cases where the men had not approached their wives to join them and were seeking outside the marriage without the wife's knowledge.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

Ronda, thanks for bringing up this subject. Bisexuality seemed to be popular in the 70s, but rarely hear about it anymore. I suspect it is more prevalent than is apparent. I agree that's it's part of the continuum and may involve people who identify either as homosexual or heterosexual and possibly not even realize they are bisexual.

One of my concerns when the subject of same sex marriage came up was that if you recognize it, then how can you say that marriage is only for two people and condemn polygamy/polylandry etc. Rationality tells me that I can't even though emotionally I have some problems with it.

Although I think we've gone too far for this to happen any time soon, I believe that marriage should not be a function of the government. These kind of legal relationships should be under civil contract. The churches/religions can deal with marriage as they see fit.

Part of the discussion should be the effect on children who are involuntary participants in the adult relationships. I suspect that children mostly care about whether they are loved and taken care of by the adults in their lives. A two-parent heterosexual marriage doesn't guarantee this.

So many questions.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

I have no idea what you just said---I studied the word existential once, but never could understand what it meant. I think I finally grasped metaphor---where I was raised we just said what we thought.

You could have said half right. I would have taken it more kindly.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

I understand now. Your definition and concept of marriage is based on a meme.


Thanks for clearing that up!

Because tab A does not have slot B to fit into, it isn't a real marriage.



verity 5 years, 9 months ago

So, tange, you're still mad because I once said you were wrong.

Ironically (I do know what irony means), I am half conservative, but people always want to put one in a box and half liberal/half conservative doesn't fit the current existential context (did I use that correctly?).

But---I will always love youuuu---

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

I never did buy sex, . . you all . . .


Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

RoeDapple, in case you didn't know, when you do buy sex it often comes with a bonus that you shouldn't be surprised to discover later.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

I am a tiny bit confused though. (Okay, a LOT confused) Would you argue that a bisexual should be able to marry one of each?

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Verity, you're as commonsensical as I remember. I agree with you on several points - absolutely children are non judgmental about looks, beliefs or sexual preference for parents. It is society and its so called 'norm' that later instills any idea of right or wrong, although intrinsically children know if they are being treated the way they should be - loved, respected, have trust.

I also agree that many married people as well as homosexuals are battling feelings of bisexuality often and likely have some confusion as to their sexually identity and roles. I'm sure many are unhappily married because only one side of their sexuality is being met. There are indeed many questions and continums within human sexuality. One bisexual person may still have a preference towards one sex in partner seeking than another. Another bisexual person may enjoy anal sex with a partner while another stops with oral. Human sexuality is as diverse as everything else about the human personality.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

Okay, not only did I not read your blog entirely, I didn't read the previous posts either. I really don't question other peoples living/marriage arrangements, only to say I can barely keep things figured out with my spouse of 39+ years - - - Can't for the life of me figure out any relationship more complex!

JackMcKee 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm with RoeDapple. I don't understand you're point. Although I've long believed that sexuality lies on a continuum. So, theoretically, everyone is technically bisexual.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Good morning, Roe. Love the sense of humor you bring with you! Hehe

We're discussing whether bisexuals should be allowed the same rights that marriage lends to heterosexuals and perhaps soon homosexuals. For a bisexual couple, that could mean one male and two females ( that was the mix I've heard more about), or it could be one female with two males ( my most recent encounters for interview sake). Then there is the mix where both parties enjoy the swap of opposite sex partners. It is indeed a diverse mix.

I agree with Verity in that I don't believe the government should play a role in marriage.
I'm basically saying Obama has opening a can of worms that isn't going to be closed anytime soon. :)

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Jack, the point is should more than two people also be allowed to marry....

Should one male and two females be allowed to marry Or should two males and one female be allowed to marry Or should two couples who enjoy the swap be allowed to marry

JackMcKee 5 years, 9 months ago

Tell the guy you are now common law married and you'd like your half of his stuff.

funkdog1 5 years, 9 months ago

"Bisexual" does not mean "polygamous". There are plenty of bisexuals who would be happy to choose one person to spend their lives with. I think the discussion you want to have is one of polygamy.

JackMcKee 5 years, 9 months ago

or maybe the ethical implications of using dishonesty to get some action.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Dishonesty doesn't equal action, does it? If so, the bisexual person doesn't have a corner on that one.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

So people are acting out on these feelings outside of marriage/civil unions and quite likely are often doing it in a secretive manner---i.e. hiding it from their spouse. How far should we go to accommodate them legally?

Why do gay people want the rights of marriage? Some reasons are so they can visit their partners in the hospital, have medical insurance through a partner's job, bequeath their property, and have custody rights to children. What are other important rights and can they be transferred to relationships of more than two people?

As for what Roe said---I can't even handle a relationship/living arrangements with one other person. I applaud you---and your spouse---for holding it together for so long.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

I do believe we are fast approaching the passing of "wink and nudge" regarding how anyone who isn't "us" choose to live. There are though, some things I'll never do, regardless of partner. Not even if she were to ask. or beg. RoeDy don't play that game.

JackMcKee 5 years, 9 months ago

once again, I'm with RoeD on this. I'm still trying to figure out if Rhonda was hoping for softcore porn here or what the actual point of this conversation is supposed to be.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


This is about bisexuals so there could be two or three.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Jack, you sound bitter? Am I misreading you? And it wouldn't be telling one guy that. It'd be telling two people (at least) that.

Funk, I totally disagree with that statement unless you're also saying they are in a married relationship where their partner is enjoying another partner with them, or knowing they are seeing one outside the relationship and are ok with it.

The bisexual males I've met are mostly unhappy in their married roles - many love their wife and want her to become party to their bisexuality (which is unfortunately not likely to happen since the wife doesnt have the same bisexuality in reverse generally speaking). Some males share this with their wives, others attempt too and get turned down and judged, others don't discuss it and find it outside of their marriage.

JackMcKee 5 years, 9 months ago

I just don't understand what you're trying to dissect here. Unless the goal is a general discussion of men wanting to have sex with other men, which is basically porn. If that's the goal there are 1,000 more appropriate places to discuss that with other like minded women.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Jack. Lol

The point is why should the laws about marriage not include the third group of people as I defined in my blog: there are heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. If the laws about marriage will be changed to accommodate homosexuals, the next expectation is that it will, or should, for bisexuals.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

But you're presupposing that bisexuals are never monogamous and that's the point many posters are struggling with. There is a big difference between being attracted to people of both sexes and engaging in sexual relationships with more than one person at a time. Plenty of heterosexual couples have open relationships that don't involve same sex interactions. Plenty of people across the sexuality spectrum don't confine themselves to monogamy.

Where one falls on the sexuality spectrum does not necessarily relate to where one falls on the monogamy vs. polygamy spectrum.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Eb, I'm not presupposing that in the least. All of the three groups have any variety of sexuality going on within a relationship. Any of the three groups mentioned experience monogamy, celebacy, promiscuity. It's absolutely not unique to any sexual group - but it very certainly can be to each individual.

And is it considered cheating if the bisexual person has sex with both sexes? Should it be? Shouldn't it be?

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

But you are, simply by virtue of referencing bisexuals in the title to this post. If you want to talk about more open relationships beyond monogamous ones, then do so, but don't label it as addressing the question of bisexuality.

The question of whether a bisexual person has sex outside a committed relationship isn't any different from whether a heterosexual or homosexual person does the same.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm not presupposing they all are... Or that any are... Just that they should also have the right to marry two partners rather than only one due to their inherrent sexuality.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

So you ARE equating being bisexual with not wanting to be limited to one monogamous relationship. If you aren't, then why is the title of this post about bisexuals? Why isn't it about anyone, regardless of orientation, who wants some kind of plural relationship?

What you are asking isn't a question of sexual orientation AT ALL. Whether you want to scratch more than one sexual itch at a time has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


No, I believe you're under the assumption that all bisexuals have made a choice to 'settle' for one person and hold a monogamous relationship. The married men I'm interviewing don't hold that view nor would all bisexual females. The thought is why should they hold to your or my viewpoint that monogamy means one partner. Why can't it include two partners. When the definition of marriage changes, it's likely the institution and other ideals of marriage are also asked to be changed.

I'm sure there are happily married monogomous bisexual people in the mix. They are obviously not the ones I met as they were not seeking another man/woman to add to their mix.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

No, I'm not. You are utterly missing the point. The point is that whether one chooses to settle for one person and a monogamous relationship is not a matter of sexual orientation.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

The word chooses would upset some sexual orientation groups..... Many people don't think it is about choice. Or why it should have to be if that isn't part of sexual orientation.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

What? I don't think there is anyone who argues how many sexual partners one has is anything other than a choice.

But for the last time, that is a completely and totally separate topic from sexual orientation. I have never, nor would I ever, say sexual orientation is a choice. Honestly, how did you get anything even remotely close to that from what I have written?

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

"Where one falls on the sexuality spectrum does not necessarily relate to where one falls on the monogamy vs. polygamy spectrum."

AKA the "bigotry spectrum".

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

A bunch of other posts happened while I was writing mine. Everybody must have gotten home from church.

funkdog1 is right, bisexuality does not necessarily mean polygamous, but it doesn't preclude it.

The truth is that same sex marriage does open, as Ronda says, a can of worms. And please don't bring up the idea of marrying your shoe, underage children or anything else that can't legally consent.

If we don't define marriage/civil union as being between a man and a woman (obviously just two people), then how are we going to define it?

Ronda, along with your research on bisexuality, are you going to research the history of none heterosexual monogamous relationships? I think that would be of value in the conversation.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

Ooops, I meant non-heterosexual monogamous relationships. Kind of changes the meaning.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


There are gay people in dishonest married relationships too. There are heterosexuals in dishonest relationships also.

Certainly we know the human condition allows for the ability to love another human equally - why not afford them the same rights to visit a dying lover, have children if they desire with more than the one person...

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

Chuckle---Variety---was that a freudian slip?

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

Ronda, have you ever read about the original Oneida Community?

It was a religious group marriage founded in 1848 with 87 members. It grew, and in 1878, there were 306 people involved in the community. It seemed to work quite well for them.

Wow! Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

And yes, they did make silverware, but the present company that carries their name tries to avoid any association with that. The Oneida community dissolved in 1881, and apparently there has been no other community quite like it.

I don't have a reference for this, but I recall reading about how in later years a couple employees of Oneida, Ltd. finding a box containing a large amount of correspondence between the original members in the late 1940s. After reading a few of them, they felt they were too embarrassing to ever be made public. And then, unfortunately for modern sociologists, they burned the contents of the box.

Another reference to the Oneida Community: http://books.google.com/books?ei=uPCvT8CtIoyhtwfAwKH0CA&id=GFnUBYVtQc0C&dq=oneida+community+old+correspondence++burned&ots=TtlNuBI7Mc&q=boneida+community+old+correspondence++burned#v=onepage&q=boneida%20community%20old%20correspondence%20%20burned&f=false

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 9 months ago

The Oneida Community was a 19th century social experiment in much the same way that Mormonism was. It wasn't unique.The Shakers were also a social experiment with men and women in "communal marriage" but that community doomed itself by imposing celibacy on it's members. Without children, the community depended entirely on outside recruitment and eventually died.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

The Oneida Community wasn't unique? The Shakers don't sound anything like the Oneida community to me. That is, they didn't all have sex with each other. I have read a bit about the Shakers, and I don't see all that much of a similarity.

But in some social grouping ways, I suppose you could say the Oneida Community has some similarities to just about any type of social group.

I have never read anything about any social experiment quite like the Oneida Community, in the sense that they were a social group where all the members had sex with each other.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

(Well, I mean, at least where they admitted to it.)

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Jack, the discussion isn't just about men and it certainly need not be pornographic. Females can be bisexual too. Does that make bisexuality more loving or more pornographic in your mind.

I went into the research very much a novice and with an open mind. It's been interesting. Men can love and care for both parties they are involved with as can women. There are those who are also after a more swinging adventure if that's what you are referring to.

Porn certainly means differing things to each individual.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

"Porn certainly means differing things to each individual."

I think that in some countries in the Middle East, a snapshot of a woman without her burka on is considered to be porn.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Verity, Lol. Freudian slip on my part I referred to you as variety. OMG! Hehe

Now I'm lost....history of none heterosexual relationships that are monogamous?

Ron, I'm not that familiar with this but I'm sure I'll enjoy reading about it.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

See reply above. I didn't proofread well enough.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 9 months ago

Rhonda, don't assume that because someone is bisexual that they are also polygamous. Bisexual people are just as apt to do serial monogamy as the >50% of married heterosexuals in the US that have had more than one marriage. They simply don't see gender as a factor in their choice of mate. Others may be in a committed same sex relationship or heterosexual relationship and simply open to admitting that they are attracted to both genders. Interestingly, bisexual people are as apt to be discriminated against by the gay community as they are by the straight community.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Cait, don't assume I assume. If there is one thing I've learned through life coaching and attentive listening and repeating what someone said for clarity, is that I'm often wrong. Each person and relationship is unique.

And you make a couple of very good points: Bi is as likely to be discriminated against by gay and hetero and as likely to be monogamous.

It's obvious from a couple of comments already made in response to this blog that there is confusion as to what bisexual means.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

Whoops, Ronda! You'll have to excuse that grammatical error in the above!

This blog reminds me of something that showed up on my Facebook thread a few days ago, but I couldn't "share" it for obvious reasons. It appeared to be a newspaper clipping, and it demonstrates why you never see advice columns written by men.

Why Men Shouldn't Write Advice Columns

Dear John,

I hope you can help me. The other day, I set off for work, leaving my husband in the house watching TV. My car stalled, and then it broke down about a mile down the road, and I had to walk back to get my husband's help. When I got home, I couldn't believe my eyes. He was in our bedroom with the neighbor's daughter!

I am 32, my husband is 34 and the neighbor's daughter is 19. We have been married for 10 years. When I confronted him, he broke down and admitted they had been having an affair for the past six months. He won't go to counseling, and I'm afraid I am a wreck and need advice urgently. Can you please help?

Sincerely, Sheila

Dear Sheila,

A car stalling after being driven a short distance can be caused by a variety of faults with the engine. Start by checking that there is no debris in the fuel line. If it is clear, check the vacuum pipes and hoses on the intake manifold and also check all grounding wires. If none of these approaches solves the problem, it could be that the fuel pump itself is faulty, causing low delivery pressure to the injectors.

I hope this helps, John

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

"variety of faults"

It was not my fault. Typical man---blame it on the woman.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Lol. Men and women do often view the sex topic differently.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

"Interestingly, bisexual people are as apt to be discriminated against by the gay community as they are by the straight community."

That is what I find so strange. I remember a few years ago that some gay organization said that there was no such thing as bisexuality. But it's not the only time that the discriminated against have in turn discriminated.

Armstrong 5 years, 9 months ago

What about albino left handed 9 fingered midgets rights ??? when does this crap end ?

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

That's one of the points I'm trying to make. Does this topic deserve attention by our President? If so, where does his opinion end, enlighten, and to what purpose does it serve?

There is always another individual or group who feel their rights are being negated, violated or ignored.

Still, there are clearly three sexuality groups defined as 'normal'. Do they all deserve to have the same individual rights? Absolutely in my mind.

Armstrong 5 years, 9 months ago

Our President is pandering to his base, that's it

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Armstrong, pandering to his base or cleaning up after Biden's gaff?

Glenn Reed 5 years, 9 months ago

Marriage, so far as the government is allowed to define, is simply a legal contract.

The practical effect of the contract relates to property ownership, child custody, and estate management in the event of a death. All of these things can be agreed upon and contracts drawn up to reflect those agreements.

So, you can have all the trappings of "being married" without a marriage license.

I think the best way to go in the whole issue is for the government to stop recognizing marriage altogether and let people put together their own "relationship contracts" involving whomever they want involved.

Folk can still say they're married. They just won't have a "file jointly" spot on their taxes. This could be offset by child care credits of some kind.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, it's not true that an unmarried couple can get all of the legal benefits of marriage.

For example, there are state laws that forbid the granting of "health care proxy" to non-family members, so even if a gay/lesbian couple designate each other that way, hospitals can deny them that authority.

That's one the main reasons gay/lesbian folks are trying to get the right to marry.

I agree that one of the ways out of this problem is to stop granting rights to married couples that are unavailable to non-married ones.

Glenn Reed 5 years, 9 months ago

To amend my earlier statement, the ability to grant these rights to anyone you chose should be protected.

For example, Jay's Hetero-life-partner Silent Bob should be able to put Jay on a list of folks that are "family."

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I absolutely agree. And silent Bob better do it before he becomes silent or unable to sign. A year ago, as my ex lay dying, he was able to add my name to the list of people to take care of him and talk to doctors, eyc. We didn't need marriage for that, but that varies in different states and he was still conscious.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Glen, I've absolutely no problem with what you're saying. It all sounds reasonable to me.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

You give Biden's piehole much more credit than I do. I personally don't think he could choreograph himself out of a toliet stall. Still, he has an undefined likeability.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

You're wicked!

No, I hadn't seen Biden out and about enough to notice anything different about him. I'll pay closer attention.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm a little confused by your post. Do you believe everyone should be able to marry or are you saying just hererosexuals should be able to?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 9 months ago

Plushies and Furries, cast off your chains! Unless, of course, you are into chains & other saucy accessories....

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

What's saucy to you is slush to another. Different strokes for different folks does indeed seem to apply here, snappy. ;)

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Yeah, no fair as the list goes on and on. Point well taken. Humor appreciated.

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

Write it up in the contract and knock yourselves out.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 9 months ago

I wouldn't worry about our current President....Sarah Palin will right all these wrongs.

I mean her piehole is better than Biden's on these issues, right? (eye-roll)

riverdrifter 5 years, 9 months ago

Right_thinker/nancy boy/etc. took a blog on bisexuality and still managed another worn-out assault on Obama. Talk about a flat tire. Waaay to let the air out of things. Bleah.

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh, so correct. However, you must give Rhonda some credit for participating in that assault. It has been so pleasant without her insessant blogs lately. Just another typical Rhonda blog meant to confuse so she never appears to be "wrong".

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

There really is no right or wrong - it's 50 shades of gray plus or minus a few hundred.

Blog topics generally aren't about right or wrong, but about an open discussion and looking at the blog topic from additional perspectives ....but I may be wrong. :)

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

I suspect that, to some variable extent, every human on this planet is bisexual, and it is our social conditioning that makes us not realize it.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

I agree Jonas. Also we tend to like to put people in nice neat little boxes and when they don't fit we say they are "confused" or worse yet, don't exit.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 9 months ago

I tend to agree with jonas & pdecell. So much of human behavior and cognition is spread over a large continuum, if not a standard normal curve, instead of this binary classification we tend to use.

Some brains are wired better for logical and spatial thinking. Others overflow with artistic creativity. Some have incredible memory for detail (Marilu Henner, for example), others are musical geniuses.

All these characteristics are on a continuum, and are not binary.

palin_rocks 5 years, 9 months ago

I can Joe Biden's left eye from my front yard!

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago


Interesting thread. As to your question "Can a bi sexual relationship among three consenting adults be classified as monogamous?" The answer is no by definition of the word monogamous. But certainly it is hypothetically possible for three consenting adults to have a committed relationship. Several posters have referred to polygamy, a somewhat related term is polyamory to describe committed relationships involving consensual relationships between multiple people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm still trying to figure out why you are approaching this with the premise that bisexuals are polyamorous (not the same thing as polygamous). Most of the folks that I have known who identify as bisexual have engaged in monogamous relationships. There may be serial monogamy occurring (such as in many straight and gay relationships) that involves switching between same sex and opposite sex relationships but that is not the same thing as seeking relationships outside of what we considered a monogamous marriage.

You really aren't addressing sexual orientation here. You are addressing how it is acceptable to express it in legal and socially recognized relationships and that's a good discussion.

I also wonder if you are aware that there are many "open" marriages in which neither partner is bisexual. There just happens to be another person in the relationship that one has a sexual relationship with and the other doesn't.

Marriage itself cannot be defined as "one man - one women" or we wouldn't have terms such as open marriage, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, gay marriage or covenant marriage. Each of those terms is a description of what type of marriage it is. This implies that there is not a fixed definition of marriage beyond a legal contract or we wouldn't need descriptive terms to discuss what type of marriage we are referring to.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

Your description above would not be a "marriage". A marriage is a contract that is legally binding and that legally recognizes the relationship(s).

You have all the other items without a marriage. People do that all the time. It is up to them as to whether or not they will to have not only those items but also have it legally and socially recognized as a relationship.*

Historically, marriage has always been contractual (ex: arranged marriages for political alliances). Heck, it is even called a marriage contract in many countries.

*offer not available in all 50 states

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

You can have those items in a marriage but it is not a requirement in order to be a married person.

And, of course, a divorce (the legal dissolution of a marriage) is not a marriage. Given that one has to go through the legal system to dissolve your marriage and that one does not need to in order to dissolve a relationship is further proof that a marriage is a contract.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

While I enjoy that song, you still don't address what a marriage is.

None of the things you describe in your ideal relationship above can establish legal rights and tax benefits.

Because a marriage does that regardless if it does or does not meet your ideal relationship standards.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

No, you had a lot of nice descriptive terms for the kind of relationship that you desire but you can have a marriage and not have a single one of those things in it.

Outlining a contract (getting married) to establish legal rights such as property rights, inheritance rights, etc. is not a miscarriage of justice. It establishes justice for the relationship. You have the legal right to fight on behalf of your spouse. You have the legal right to protect your spouse. These rights are not recognized without a marriage no matter how awesome your relationship may be.

You don't need a license for a relationship but you are required to have one for a marriage. A license is also a contract. You agree to meet certain qualifications or perform certain duties and in exchange your relationship is licensed.

You seem to be limited to thinking of contracts as things that are done only to further your own self-interest, and while contracts can be used that way, they also can be used for the benefit of a partnership (couple) and to protect that relationship.

There simply is no legitimate reason to deny these things that are granted via marriage to all who wish to participate.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

It is interesting that your belief that a "complementary, committed, monogamous relationship characterized by honesty, integrity, reciprocity, and fidelity" can only be accomplished by a penis and a vagina.

It really would have been much easier for you just to say that you don't believe that gay people can achieve a marriage because they possess the same genitalia as the person they love.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

What a cop-out. How disappointing.

There is no depth to your belief.

You can find expression in life in a test tube. That requires no sexual act nor a heterosexual union.

Rules change.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago


Not sure if your comment was directed at me or Ronda but I certainly agree with what you are saying and I think your last paragraph sums the real issue up nicely.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

It was directed to Rhonda. I skimmed comments because most on here have already stated their thoughts fairly clearly on other threads involving marriage.

I was also probably typing my thoughts when you posted yours :)

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

I can be irresistible >;)

Although probably not in the way that most assume that word means...

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

So sorry to take so long to read and respond to your question. Yes, I agree that bisexuality does not need to imply more than two in the relationship at a time, but it can. I mention, as I do in my opening, that the second is what I'm recently researching. Within the group, there is much variation. And Paul obviously makes great points as well.

The discussion is: should marriage be open to other than traditional beliefs of one male and one female, and if so, where does the line become a fixed asset further down the line. (I couldn't resist)?

If all groups and variations aren't included, then one by one the other groups of varied sexual subcultures will come out and forward asking for the same right. Should they be denied?

Thanks for your points!

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

"In Candid Camera’s episode years ago, they had a setup in a store where they had a sign at the cash register that read: No change given today. A parade of people came and when they paid for their purchases, got all kinds of reactions. Most were mad, some argued, some put back what they were buying.

Then, this guy comes up with an item that cost $3.49 with tax and handed the clerk four dollars. He stood there expectantly, waiting on his change and the clerk finally pointed to the sign. He just smiled, nodded his head to her, and walked away with his purchase.

They caught up with him outside the store and asked why he didn’t get mad, and he very calmly said; “I don’t let anyone rent space in my head.”

You should try it, Rhonda.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Got, you make a good point. Many people feel they are born into their sexuality preferences. As we become more open in learning about these once considered alternative lifestyles and behavior, perhaps the stigma and fear will dissipate and people with a 'different from the considered norm' will be able to express themselves more freely. Although, from my information, one can find anything they want on Craigslist. There is much ignorance and a need for education about different sexual preferences. Human sexuality has a wide range of normal.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

Craigslist has eliminated the 'Adult Section' from the website due to some extremely criminal behavior.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

On September 15, 2010, Craigslist announced that it had closed its adult services in the United States for good.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

But, I looked just now, and there is certainly some racy material still being posted!

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I thought you were joking when you said it wasn't open for 'adult' arenas. My friend put up a post around ten on a Sunday evening and within an hour he had enough response that we could have had a different married man every night for a month. His ad was up for an hour before it was pulled.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

My apologies, I have many comments and likely questions to respond to. I took a several hour break to celebrate Mother's Day with my amazing children. I'll enjoy reading your varied comments and will attempt to reply as time permits. Happy Monday!

meggers 5 years, 9 months ago

I have yet to hear of any LGBT advocacy position with regards to polygamy. As others have pointed out, you seem to be conflating bi-sexuality with non-monogamous relationships. While just like in heterosexual relationships, some bisexual folks might have "open" relationships, I suspect the majority do not. The only distinction between bisexual, straight, and gay individuals is that a bisexual person doesn't limit their relationship prospects to one gender. The fact that they are open to dating someone of either gender doesn't mean they wish to date both genders at the same time.

I know your intentions are good, Ronda, but unless you can show any serious push by bisexual individuals to legalize polygamy, your blog is based on a false premise. And in all honesty, I don't think married men who would respond to sexual ads on Craigslist- presumably without their spouses' knowledge- are in any position to speak on behalf of openly bisexual individuals.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Actually, you state your position well, Meggars. The point of this blog isn't about whether bis are needing or should have to make the choice of who they wish to partner with - and how about the fact that it isn't their choice any more than it is for a heterosexual or homosexual - the point of the blog is to give thought to where changing the definition of marriage should stop. It's meant to help people realize each person has different sexuality based on genetics and environmental factors. If the definition is changed for one group, should it for another, should it for all?

So even though the topic stated bisexuals and their rights, it's much more about where does it end or begin..

It doesn't matter to me if it is a monogamous bisexual or a non monogamous heterosexual - well, it does to me personally - relationship, it's about inclusion or exclusion in terms of marriage.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

If you wanted to talk about polyamory and the rights of those who would like to engage in such relationships, you should never have mentioned bisexuals.

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

But Rhonda is always right, don't you know?

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

But Rhonda is always right, don't you know?

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

Substitute "homosexuals" for "bisexuals" if it makes you feel better.

I get the feeling you think polygamy is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in America. Is that your belief?

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

Liberty, is your question directed at me? I'm confused because I don't think I have ever said anything that could lead one to think I don't think polygamy should be allowed.

I am purely complaining about equating one particular sexual orientation with polygamy or polyamory.

meggers 5 years, 9 months ago

The claim that allowing gay couples to marry "would change the definition of marriage" is inaccurate. Allowing interracial couples to marry did not change the definition of marriage, any more than allowing women to vote changed the definition of voting, or having a woman elected president would change the definition of the presidency. Expanding rights doesn't change the definition of the rights themselves. That claim is nothing more than a red herring tossed out by opponents to make people believe that THEIR OWN rights would change should gay marriage be made legal. It simply is not true.

Again, I don't see any effort to expand marriage rights to more than two partners in a given union. Bisexuals aren't pushing it, gays aren't pushing it, and heteros aren't pushing it. Given that, the slippery slope you mentioned has no basis in reality, nor does the characterization of bisexual people as polygamists.

I don't intend to come across as overly harsh, but this blog strikes me as yet another version of the ridiculous claims about gay marriage posing a "threat" to marriage- this time, by basing the supposed 'threat' on some false assumptions about bisexuality.

KansasPerson 5 years, 9 months ago

"Does our President hold the belief that marriage is sanctimonious to a union between two people only?"

Ronda, help me out here. I am going to have to know what odd definition you are using for "sanctimonious" before I can answer that question.

-- KP (that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means....)

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 9 months ago

How can we address the needs of the gay and bisexual community without including the polygamist, the government is trying to put these people in prision for their sexual prefrence.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Ah, these western Kansas people! I'd ask what part, but you may not want to share that.

I think all groups need to be addressed and all individuals rights incorporated. Again, if it's consensual and the people/ person involved are of legal age, what else needs to be considered. The laws for marriage may have just gotten much longer. Will this prevent people from getting married or increase the likelihood.

A couple of people have mentioned that bisexuals are not asking for the right to be married. I believe in part that is true because they are still less likely to be open and as accepted as homosexuals.

Your thoughts?

meggers 5 years, 9 months ago

Bisexual people are asking for the right to marry the person they choose. Once same-sex marriage is legal, they will gain that right. As it stands now, if they have an interest in marriage, they'd better hope the person they fall in love with and wish to marry is a member of the opposite sex.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

My thought is that it is pointless for anyone to try to engage in a discussion with you as long as you are going to insist on using the word bisexual as a synonym for poly amorous. Numerous attempts have been made to explain the difference, but you refuse to see it.

If same-sex marriage becomes legal, bisexuals will be covered because then no matter the sex of the person they want to marry, they will be legally allowed to marry. So, see, bisexual people don't need to fight for a separate right.

You are talking about people who want to engage in polyamory! Which is not the same thing as bisexuality! And, no, there is not a tremendous push in this country for group marriage, either. But the why of why there's no push for that probably isn't a matter of sexual orientation.

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

My thought, too ebyrd. My experience with these blogs is the scrivener misleads, maybe not intentionally, but misleads nevertheless and then does all kinds of twisting to appear without error.

Honestly I think a closer look at the reason she became interested in the subject may be in order. I imagine it is rather disconcerting to have a swinger invite one into their world.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


I believe we have a failure to communicate. Appreciate that some bisexuals don't wish to be married to more than one person at the same time, appreciate that others certainly may wish to be married to a partner of each sex. That doesn't make them less moral or not monogamous.

Remember, within each of the three main sexual norms that there are still variations within each group.

Why not allow all individuals the right to marry whomever they wish and why restrict it to one person?

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm sorry, but the failure to comprehend is entirely on your part. You insist on treating the word bisexual as if it means something it doesn't.

Where have I ever said or implied that not being monogamous is immoral? Where have I said or implied that group marriage or polyamory is immoral or wrong or should be prohibited ? I have said none of those things and I deeply resent you suggesting otherwise.

You quite simply do not understand how to use the word bisexual and it is making me angry because I believe that by doing so, you are unneccessary and incorrectly ostracizing people who identify as bi.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


There is absolutely no wording on my part anywhere as to your judgements or anything about your belief system. I know nothing about you. I'm not sure where or how you're reading such into the above writings. I'm stating my opinion and it holds no judgement on anything you've stated or your beliefs in terms of morality. I'm just reminding all that within each of the main three sexually defined group  there remain individuals. Let us not lose sight of the individual and those rights.

Aiko 5 years, 9 months ago

But can it and will it change from "one person to one person to multiple marriages? Wont that be the next argument or do you think not? If my wife was bi sexual and wanted to have two spouses of the opposite sex why cannot that be the next offering?

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas, the polygamist marriages practiced in the United States and perhaps some other countries by some members of the 'Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' work this way: The man is legally married to only one woman, who is referred to as his "first wife". The others he is "married to" are called "spiritual wives", and according to usual Western mores they are mistresses, that is, adulterous relationships.

That is not illegal in a few states in the U.S., and most of the rest of the states do not ever enforce the laws concerning adultery except in divorce cases.

If the "first wife" dies, then he usually legally marries one of his "spiritual wives", and then she is his "first wife".

The "first wife" is considered to be the most important wife. She makes all of the important decisions that a woman should make according to their belief system, and her husband has to have her permission to "marry" another "spiritual wife".

It is important to remember that polygamy was formally denounced by the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' well over 100 years ago, and the FLDS members are very few in number. But, they certainly do get a lot of publicity.

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 9 months ago

With 33 States having a ban on Guy marrige, my thought is that nothing is going to happen. The mention of this issue is nothing more than an election year distraction from much more serious problems.

After all, here in the USA we have the finest politicions money can buy.

"When the Government become a trough, politics will become a feeding frenzy."

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Agreed, Jesse.

This to me means everyone should be afforded the same abilities in all walks of life.

Not allowing one sexual subgroup to marry is not dissimilar to only allowing whites to vote. Or changing it to whites and blacks can vote, but those of German Irish descent cannot.

All for one and one for all across the board. Do we need laws to prevent crimes of violence and crimes against children, certainly and marriage (or contacts) need not interfere with any of those laws. People are sweating fear bullets about things they don't understand or are predudiced towards (because of fear).

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Yes, remaining unfixed has assisted with my ability to be profound.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

Because I am an idiot, I will try one last time. This whole topic, all that you are talking about, really is not a matter of "one sexual subgroup." It's actually offensive to people who identify as bi to be discussing group marriage in this way, as if bi people would naturally be the group most inclined to marry more than one person.

Wanting to engage in some kind of different relationship dynamic outside of the standard two person, monogamous relationship (regardless of the sex of the parties) is not a desire in any way restricted to bisexuals. Frankly, I would challenge you to establish that it is a desire more likely to be felt by someone who is attracted to both sexes than by those who are attracted to only one sex. Being bisexual does not mean that you constantly need to be satisfied by both sexes.

I am ok with all of it, with whatever kind of relationships consenting adults want to have. I am not ok with you continuing to discuss bisexuality in this way because it is in my view doing harm to those people who identify as bi. Of course, I've already written roughly this about 7 times and you still act as though I'm trying to deny marriage rights to those poor maligned bisexuals when the truth is YOU are the one maligning a sexual subgroup by perpetuating your wrong view on bisexuality and I am the pro-LGBT person who is trying to get you to see that.

KansasPerson 5 years, 9 months ago


I applaud your persistence. Whatever field you're in (I suspect law!) -- if I ever need the services of a professional in that field, I hope I can find you, because you're intelligent and focused and you don't give up easily.

However, in this case, I'm going to recommend that you give up and walk away. Smart people reading this understand you and are shaking their heads at the OP. The rest of the people who don't understand big words (I never got an answer from the OP regarding her weird use of the word "sanctimonious") or logic are never going to understand. I love reading your rebuttals but I can only imagine how frustrated you're getting.

Keep fighting the good fight at New Moon Farm. :-)

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

You're right, you're right. I know you're right. But you know how stubborn Emily can be...

A very sweet friend once kindly characterized my bizarre need to spread reason and correct all the wrong stuff I see on the Internet as optimism. Nice of her not to just call me nuts.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating either you or Kansas. That certainly isn't my objective. My objective is that it does not matter how many partners are involved. This blog is about each individual and their right to equal treatment regardless of their sexuality, lack of sexuality, etc. it's really not about sex at all!

Kansas, I used the word as humor having seen another poster use it. I was being funny but I can comprehend that that attempt failed, particularly if one didn't read all the previous comments.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

What about them?

Generally speaking, marriage is based on much more than sex. I'm hoping regardless of the individual(s) it would be based on love, commitment, a desire to care for the other party on some deeper level than any physical connection. Good question.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

My author friend, Sally Jadlow was unable to post the following comment. She gave me permission to do so on her behalf. (she did go through the process of signing up but never received a confirmation email)

CHOICES   A friend sent me an ongoing discussion in the Lawrence-Journal World about the changing definition of marriage.             One made a comment that it should be between two consenting adults. Another argued marriage should be between one man and one woman. A third chimed in that threesomes were okay; that he wasn’t going to get his nose into anyone’s private business.             There have been people in the past who decided to make their own rules. In essence saying, “God, we don’t need your rules. We’re going to do it our way.” The results were disastrous.             If you don’t believe me, you can read the historical account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapters 18 an 19. God destroyed the place because of their wickedness. Nothing was left but crispy critters. That area today is known as the Dead Sea.             Going further back, into history, read the account of God destroying the earth because of the wickedness of the people in Genesis chapters 6-9.             These accounts aren’t fairy tales, they are warning signs posted by God to show us what happens when people decide to go against God’s law. He didn’t give us His laws to trip us up. He gave them so we might enjoy a rich, full life. He made us. He knows how we work best.   When we take it upon ourselves to bend His laws we end up broken.             There is a way out of our dilemma. It is to admit we’ve done it our way instead of His, ask His forgiveness, and receive His cleansing. If we don’t, we’re headed down the wrong path that ends in a bottomless pit, separated from Him and everything we love, for all eternity.

Sally Jadlow author of God's Little Miracle Book II

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm sure your friend is delightful, but that post reads like a sermon and does little but justify bigotry with god and try to scare us all straight.

If the god in question is so petty that he/she/it would punish people for loving the wrong people, I'm glad he/she/it doesn't exist.

Seriously, if you were god, would you be so offended by 3 guys being married and enjoying each others company enough to banish them from your god-land?

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Very few things offend me. Certainly three males or one female and two males or three females and one male don't offend me. Color me curious and open. We are on earth to experience the human condition. That condition varies widely and I certainly learn more and experience more by being open. Do I want to try everything I hear or read about, heck no. I don't want to bungie jump or eat a spider either. It doesn't mean I'm not ok, maybe even amused or impressed, with someone else doing it.

As the saying goes, it takes all kinds. There is no reason to fear the differences among us as some posters seem inclined. Respect, embrace (intellectually) question, observe, enjoy and occasional assist, restrain, refrain, laugh and cry because of our fragility.

My friend is delightful and I respect her opinion and writings very much. There is indeed a place for all of us on this planet.

(anything resembling profound directed for Fixed - not transfixed- amusement). Hehe

Fixed_Asset 5 years, 9 months ago

Keep trying, honey. Notice how many posters are trying to figure out the point of this blog? There are real folks out there who truly care about the rights of others. Intelligent people can sniff out a fake every time..

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

How is speaking for the rights of every individual and bringing attention to the ridiculous addition to homosexual marriage changes only fake, babe? :)

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

"There have been people in the past who decided to make their own rules. In essence saying, “God, you might not exist. We’re going to do it our way, but we're going to justify it using your name.” The results were disastrous."

Another way of looking at it.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 9 months ago

"These accounts aren’t fairy tales," === I wouldn't call them that, but the age of magic and gods ended for much of the world a while back. Those who hang on have my respect, but I object to picking one god, one book and one set of rules that are then shoehorned into public policy.

somedude20 5 years, 9 months ago

Yep, because same sex marriage would totally kill the sanctity of rapist on victim unions (don't forget to pay the victim's father 50 shekels) or male soldier and prisoner of war marriages (wives must submit sexually to their husbands) http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible?c=la2

Lisa Medsker 5 years, 9 months ago

Dude, I think you have touched on exactly why I believe so many have a problem with same sex marriage. It seems that it was originally designed for a man to have total control, or "ownership" of a woman, thus creating a power structure. If a man were allowed to marry a man, or woman allowed to marry a woman, then who owns whom? It disrupts the power structure, and married people might actually have to view their spouses as "people" instead of "property". I can see how many, who claim to be traditionalists, might have a problem with this.

It might take something away from the sanctity of the solemn unions a la "Spears" or "Kardashian", as well. We can't have that!

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I agree with what you and somedude are saying to a point, but there also seems to be a lot of judgement and fear about anything that varies from one person's idea of norm. This is true within all aspects of the human experience.
I'm not sure why so many people are judgmental, which is usually based on ignorance...fear of change comes to mind and then it does circle right back to control, or lack thereof.

Lisa Medsker 5 years, 9 months ago

I guess some people fear what they can't control, so they brand it "unmanageable", thereby leading to a label they are able to understand and control. I can almost get my head around why some people are so attracted to the idea of religious, fundamentalist dogma, because it somehow provides the illusion of control. Kind of scary.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Yes, not having control, feeling out of control, all fear is a core motivating factor in our lives.

Illusion of control is central to our well being, certainly, but many feel relieved to relinquish that control to their higher power - whatever that is for that individual. Religion serves so many functions within lives - its as individual as our sexuality.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 9 months ago

If I am understanding this right, this is about bi-sexuals being able to go to the court house and get a legal document so that they will qualify for all the benefits of being a spouse. Since marriage to more than one person is illegal how would you work around that? And, if you change that law, shouldn't everyone be entitled to have more than one spouse?

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Each individual should have the exact same rights to enjoy and observe. It should not be based on anything other than the right to be married to whomever, however many, they choose. Sexual preference or spiritual connection ( since some people enjoy celibacy) should not be determined by the President. Everyone who is a specific age can drink, vote, ...... Allow everyone who is a specific age the right to marry whom they want. Yeah, I know, we only get one vote. :)

Liberty275 5 years, 9 months ago

"Yeah, I know, we only get one vote. :)"

I got to vote for president, congressman, state offices, referendums and even whether to show up. We get lots of votes.

I understand your use of a union of at least three people, one or more of which bisexual as an example of polygamy. I see a couple of people being pedantic about the word "bisexual" when it really isn't the subject you are addressing. I always get a little suspicious when I see people I know to be intelligent ignore the obvious and choose to argue a side point.

The person Eb-something, tipped their hat a little when they remarked a bisexual might be offended by being associated with polygamy. That hints that Eb might be offended by polygamy. That's only a hint though, which is why I asked the question point blank regarding polygamy. They didn't answer whether they think it should be legalized while we adjust the law regarding marriage.

I think everyone in the thread should come right out and say whether they think polygamy should be made a legal option in marriage. One sentence will suffice.

I'll start out: I think polygamy should be a legal option in any marriage contract.

As for the other things written, like "wow" or "profound", I don't understand why you are subject to such answers. You seem to be amicably addressing anything posed. Maybe there is ill-will between you and the other posters, but within the context of your blog and the various posts made after, I don't see any reason for it.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

I seriously don't get how you read any of my comments as being anti-polygamy. All I have been trying to say all along is that it is offensive to link one and only one sexual orientation (bisexual) with polygamy or polyamory. Bisexual individuals should not be pigeon-holed thusly. No moral judgment on polygamy stated or implied. Ronda is just misusing the word and mixing terms, which makes me nuts. The "wow" response was because I was just out of words and frustrated that Ronda first made judgments about me and then in the next comment denied making any judgment.

And because I'm a contrarian, I'm going to decline to make an official statement about my position on whether polygamy should be legal. Because that isn't why I got involved in this discussion at all.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I think polygamy should be a legal option in any marriage contact.

See how easy it is, Eb. Or you could write your own sentence. I choose Liberty's as it states concisely and directly my opinion.

I've made no judgments moral or otherwise about you, Eb. Because my ongoing research does not suggest bisexuality to be the same as what you believe it to be does not mean my opinion is wrong. It means my base exposure and knowledge is different from your own. If you are bisexual, or have bisexual friends, and are willing to talk about your belief system with me privately, please let me know.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 9 months ago

In your post you cite a definition of bisexuality that is "a sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical or romantic attraction to males and females." This, too, is my definition of bisexual: being attracted to both sexes.

I'm just not understanding how you are extrapolating from that that bisexuals are wanting to enter polygamous marriages. That is all I have commented on and all I care about correcting.

Wanting to marry multiple people is not a function of sexual orientation. It just isn't. I'm tired of this. I'm not interested in humoring you with an answer to a question that you can't frame properly.

And please stop calling me Eb. I don't know why, but it's irking me.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


My apologies for not using your full online personna. It's not meant to offend - just laziness and brevity on my part.

And I'm absolutely not saying ALL bisexuals desire a marriage with more than one person, although to say there are those who would not desire such is misleading. Each individual regardless of sexuality has their own morality code. I'm saying who are any of us to judge another?

And saying I'm not wording my own question correctly is absurd.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

And on a more amusing note:

The Secret Service issued new rules of conduct for agents Friday: They can no longer get drunk, procure hookers or go to strip bars. The rules say that from now on, if agents feel compelled to engage in such behavior, they can run for public office like everyone else.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh, at first I missed the L in that word.

lonelane_1 5 years, 9 months ago

I don't get the President angle in this. It's the Republicans that are currently passing anti-gay, "marriage is between a man and a woman", anti civil union laws in city after city and state after state and putting other people's rights up for a vote. It's about time others in high authority speak out.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Good afternoon, lone,

The President is mentioned only in that he recently endorsed homosexual rights for marriage. My question is why stop there. I don't know if you read the additional comments, but if one subset group is allowed to marry, why shouldn't all of them? Why keep any restrictions in place? And who is the person who has the right to make those types of discussion. Is it the federal government, each state? Should it be arbitrary for anyone however they wish once they become legal age.

It is similar to allowing one group of people the right to vote, but not another.

MarchHare 5 years, 9 months ago

"Wikipedia definition of bisexuality.." First of all, I should hope you would be intelligent enough to realize that although prevalent and readily available Wikipedia is not a credible source for citation.

According to biresource.net, or essentially any credible resource on bisexuality, its far more complicated than your quoted definition would have us believe. " 'I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge in myself the potential to be attracted, romantically and/or sexually, to people of more than one sex, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.' "

Besides, you're making the assumption that because an individual identifies as a bisexual they must be a polygamist as well, while this is certainly not the case. It precludes the need for a recognition of polygamist marriages, which is an entirely seperate topic from recognition of the rights of homosexual individuals to get married, specifically based on the realization that marriage would still be a formal/ lawfull union between two individuals (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) and to this end, bisexual individuals wishing to settle down and marry each other would be adequately addressed.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Absolutely spot on about just using the one source as a definition As I've mentioned several times, this blog isn't about the right for bisexuals to marry as much as it is about each individual to hold the same right regardless of what that means for that individual.

Some bisexuals would like to marry more than one person at a time, so would some homosexuals and some heterosexuals. I chose to use bisexuals since a subgroup of married bis are who I'm presently interviewing. And their belief system is very very different one from another.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago


Just don't take the Craigslist posters as being representative of bisexuals. I strongly suspect that they are not.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Paul, It's so nice to be in contact with you again. It's been a couple of years, right? How fast time goes. I hope you'll come to our next backyard event so we can catch up. Yes, we still have them.

I'm aware the males I've had the pleasure of talking with via the Craigslist opportunity are different from many other male bisexuals and female bisexuals. And honestly, each male I've met with or spoken to is uniquely different one from another.

I'm see some people dismissing bisexuality as a fad of the 60's. I feel that is absurd. I haven't read the studies you've directed me towards, but I have had several friends throughout the years who state they are bisexual. The diversity within normal sexuality is fascinating.

I hope all is well in your world. Hello to your lovely spouse. Thanks for your additional input and knowledge.

Do you feel monogamy is natural for the human animal or goes against innate desires because of societial restrictions and laws? How would your ideal definition for marriage read?

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

I think it is natural for people to want committed relationships. But that perhaps is a different thing from monogamy. The problem is that our current environment is far removed from that in which we evolved so maybe asking what is natural doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Certainly our closest relatives (Chimps) are not monogamous so maybe our monogamy is more of a function of the greater need we have than even chimps to invest in our young.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Still....you have not brought up the words God, the bible, sin..... You're a scientific mind with strong religious base, slight, none?

Perhaps our desire (for the most part) towards monogamy is a key difference in evolution from the chimp. Just call those other guys animals. But now I'm off topic. And I do not judge.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

Actually I do have a strong religious base. But my view of sacred scripture is that it is not meant to be either a science text or a legalistic framework for living to be slavishly followed.

I view human behavior through the lens of science, after all we are animals and many of our behaviors have parallels in our animal relatives. That doesn't mean anything goes-what is is not necessarily what ought.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

Almost forgot-Here is a link to the American Institute of Bisexuality. Some of the links at this site are not current but others are. http://www.bisexual.org/home.html

meggers 5 years, 9 months ago

Historically, it has been heterosexuals who have fought for the right to engage in polygamy. Most notably, fundamentalist Mormons.

Do the spouses of the men you are interviewing know they have been trying to "hook up" with couples on Craig's List? If not, they are likely trying to rationalize their dishonest behavior, claiming they wouldn't have to seek out people in secret if they were allowed to marry more than one person. If they won't even tell their current spouse that they are seeking out other partners, the chances of them achieving such domestic utopia, even if it were legal, is quite slim.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago


As with all three of the main sexuality groups, I'm sure there is variation on individuals, but oddly enough (well, to me at least) everyone of the men I've interviewed had discussed the topic with their wives and are actively encouraging the wife to become involved. This isn't about them wanting to do a male partner and/or a female partner alone, they are seeking a couple and the ideal for them is that it would be their spouse/wife (in these cases). What would or could enrage, anger, turn off, cause feelings of jealousy to imagine their spouse with another male is a huge turnon to them. Those who have spouses who aren't willing are seeking outside the marriage and generally feel it is safer to engage with another married couple.

Take into account however that my experience has been only to married men seeking additional married couples. One person has had an ongoing five - six year relationship with the same couple until they recently had moved. They are more about seeking an ongoing relationship than a one night stand.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Absolutely on target, rockchalk. Still, if you're the seven percent, it's disheartening. And it's more fun to discuss than the economy in my mind. :)

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Is there much worse than being the relative of a politician! Not fun. I still remember the stories about President Carter's Billy.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

I bet Ronda will let you have one. On my blog we don't do any of that all caps trendy stuff. ;-p

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm certainly into unfolding trends. ... Well, as long as they don't unfold here. I'm not a trend setter or trendy. I'm just a trend alertest.

booyalab 5 years, 9 months ago

Bisexuals are allowed to marry in every state, just like homosexuals. Most states just require them to marry someone with whom they have a remote chance of conceiving a child. They're funny that way.

Paul Decelles 5 years, 9 months ago

Actually Booyalab, states do not require people to marry someone with whom they have a remote chance of conceiving a child. I don't recall getting asked about mu fertility status when I got married. Lots of people get married in their post reproductive years and have no intention of having children.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Yes, if one need pass a fertility test to get married there would be many who wouldn't be able to marry. Certainly many people I know chose to remain childless for any variety of reasons and seem quite happy with that choice.

booyalab 5 years, 9 months ago

Sort of in that vein, think about contriving to ensure that at least one of your child's parents can never play a primary role in that child's life. To me, that is much worse than having a kid with someone and them taking off. But we act like it's no big deal when kids don't have both of their biological parents. There are also countless cases of heterosexual couples doing it, but I think it is selfish on their part. They want a kid and who cares how he or she will feel about it.

booyalab 5 years, 9 months ago

I shouldn't say "much worse". Luckily, neither has happened to me so I don't know how I'd feel. But they are both bad for the child.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Thanks, Consumer - I almost called you customer. Lol

I wouldn't refer to my meetings with any of these men as cesspool. They have all been upstanding members of society and their communitirs, each has children, love their wife, good providers, and anyone meeting them would be clueless as to their sexuality unless it was another male on the downlow. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

Hope you're enjoying the magnificent weather.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Ahhh, ok. I was surprised by what I took your interpretation to be. You are generally open minded about sexuality issues Yes, blogland is a strange and wondrous disconnect sometimes.

There is always that. Talking to strangers here is less preferable to the other on many levels. . One has to start somewhere though. I enjoy opening doors.

Blackberries? :^)

mjkiran 5 years, 9 months ago

Will someone please refer all those who repeat the idea that "civilization is based upon one man and one woman" to the following webpage? http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/marriage.htm

Statement by American Anthropological Association on marriage.

Oh, and to answer the question posed in the title, marriage between 3 or more people is called polygamy. Anthropology 101.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Thanks for the link. And as far as what you call a marriage between three or more people, the idea behind the blog isn't about labels - it's about how we should remove labels (what good have labels really done anyone?), and give each individual the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Thanks for your comment.

acg 5 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Danielle Brunin 5 years, 9 months ago

Sorry Ronda, I agree with the other posters here. It seems like you're confusing polyamorous relationships with bisexuality. I know several bisexual people who have settled down and married or are in partnerships. Bisexual orientation simply means that they had more fish in the sea to choose from for a life partner. However, they found their partner/spouse and settled down with that person. There's no swapping or bringing someone else into their relationship. Or, at least, not at a higher rate than in heterosexual marriages (like when people decide they want to "spice things up."

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

acg, hope you're feeling better soon.

Rodent girl - I'm not talking about bisexuality or homosexuality or polyamorous, I'm talking about the right of any induvdual regardless of sexuality to have the right to be married. For every bi person you may think doesn't want the option of being married to two people, I can show you one who does. The reality is that none of the three main identified groups sees things all the same way. Within each group are subsets. Some heterosexuals desire marriage, others have no desire to, some homosexuals desire a marriage, others do not. I think anytime we label anyone we forget that the induvdual gets lost.
Just as all heteterosexuals are not republicans and all homosexuals arent democrats. It's like people are saying all bisexuals are left handed. 'Each person as an individual regardless of sexual grouping has the right to marriage.' - and all that entails legally in terms of property, insurance, bedside presence, and on an on.

The idea that instead of our President - or anyone else - naming a specific group that he supports in respect to marriage, it would be better to say ALL individuals are entitled to the same right within their preferences. I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from getting married, I'm wanting to bring attention to what the word means to one person obviously isn't the same to another. As it shouldn't or wouldn't be expected too. I hope you're doing well. I haven't been blogging topics except poetry for a time so I'm out of the loop as to what some of you have been up too.

Lisa Medsker 5 years, 9 months ago

And for every bisexual person who is polyamorous, I can show you a heterosexual person who is polyamorous. "Bisexual" does not mean they are actively having sex with both sexes at the same time. It means they are attracted to members of both sexes. Some bisexual people don't even act on the attraction to the same sex.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I absolutely agree with the above. That's why I keep coming back to the individual and their right to marriage and not having our President or anyone discuss such as gay rights, bisexual or heterosexual rights. We're all just people.

Thanks for saying it so well.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

I think once some government incentives (tax status, etc) got involved in what is essentially a property transfer and decision rights arrangement, there was no longer any way to make a truly consistent right available to the public at large. (in other words, either everybody can do what they want, or nobody could do what they want). As has been pointed out in some past threads, all of the rights available in a marriage are procurable somewhere else, but its still not equal, because none of them have the strength of public perception provided by marriage, and I bet that none of them are as cheap to procure ($100 for a license last time I remember checking).

The only thing that can be done is to make some arbitrary distinction at some point, be that one man/one woman, one person/one person, etc.

And then, what happens is that it falls under the one Real consistency in life: strength of force trumps all. Why are states passing amendments making it between one man one woman? Because enough people are using force (votes), to make it so. Why are there places where it is legal? Because systemic force (judges, authorities), are passing laws that make it so. Homosexuals may get rights that polygamists won't get because they are getting more popular support from people who are willing to exercise their own force to make it so, and polygamists are not.

Talk about rights all you want. Rights are words written on paper without the force necessary to implement them and protect them. It's all about strength, that's the one consistency in the world.

/pleasant dreams >B^)>

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Well stated, Jonas. I agree with strength and numbers and people in high places - ok, so I added the last two - and it takes people coming out, speaking up, strong members of society to make the changes. It's always been that way throughout history.

I certainly hope my children look back in future years with the same awe, shock, disbelief, and outrage about what will have changed in respect to the laws of marriage as my generation has been able to with civil rights. It isn't to say things have progressed as far as we'd like, but what has changed for many is astonishing at least comparatively.

I wonder what the next group is that surfaces to make itself aware - the elderly? Obese? Any ideas?

Hope you are dreaming a Kansas landscape.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

You might be behind the times, Ronda. I dream North Carolinian landscapes these days. Perhaps that was what you were implying.

Numbers are strength. It's why I suspect that we formed societies in the first place. Social/communal strength against the natural world.

People in high places, well, that goes without saying.

Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

I am behind. Cool scapes where you are indeed. Don't forget the Arikaree Breaks however or Where the High Plains Meet Heaven. (just pugged two of my poems - feel used? Hehe)

Against the natural world of animal impulse and instinct.... If we could only build up against the hate and the killing. Too base to let it go.

You know you love Kansas.... Congrats to you though.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

It's not actually true that all of the rights gained by marriage can be gained without it.

That's one of the main reasons GLB, etc. folks are trying to get the right to marry.

Just one example - there are state laws that require "health care proxies" to be family members, so if a glb partnership exists and each member designates the other as their health care proxy, hospitals can (and do) simply ignore that.

That means that you can have a lifelong partner you want to make health care decisions for you, and you can't get that - instead a family member may wind up making those decisions. This can be true even if your family ostracized you for your sexuality, and your partner was a faithful, loving, and supportive partner for many years.

Another example - health insurance policies will often offer "family coverage" or "spousal" coverage, which isn't available to glb partnerships.

Then, of course, there are the various tax benefits available to married couples filing jointly.


Ronda Miller 5 years, 9 months ago

Agreed, excellent points as to why rights should be extended to all.

There seem to be several instances where doctors ride over personal decisions. Our health care system is an entirely different topic, but certainly a huge part of the right to marriage request. Then again, health care is huge business and every attempt for revenue is utilized.

Does anyone know offhand the top five states where end of life wishes are the best in terms of compliance? I'm sure I can google it.

So many rights to fight for, so little time.

Thanks for your input, Jaffs. If I seem as though I'm rambling, yes, not enough coffee or sleep. .

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 9 months ago

I've got friends in low places where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases my blues away.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.