Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs At Random

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

Advertisement

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)

Comments

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

jonas_opines 1 year, 11 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^)>

0

tange 1 year, 11 months ago

Polyamorous?! I like parrots as much as the next guy, but I find I can commit to only one bird.

/ and you know what a commitment it can be to get them to say what you want them to

0

rodentgirl16 1 year, 11 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."

0

acg 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

mjkiran 1 year, 11 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.

0

consumer1 1 year, 11 months ago

Rhonda, I admire your Hootspa for diving into the cesspool. Good luck with your research.

0

booyalab 1 year, 11 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.

0

booyalab 1 year, 11 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.

0

Paul Decelles 1 year, 11 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

0

tange 1 year, 11 months ago

verity say: "... 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...."

Well, you're two-thirds wrong >:-) , but you are right with respect to rarely hearing about 70s-variety popularity of bisexuality anymore. That's because, rather than reflecting some underlying or intrinsic sexual reality, it was a TREND. And being bisexual was TRENDY. These days, we parade it down the street. Or blog about it.

/ or comment about it... and, no, I'm not... TRENDY, that is

0

MarchHare 1 year, 11 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.

0

lonelane_1 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

Gotland 1 year, 11 months ago

Will same sex marriage rgiths apply to heterosexuals as well?

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 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?

0

somedude20 1 year, 11 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

0

Paul R Getto 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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

0

Roland Gunslinger 1 year, 11 months ago

Here's the thing about rights... they're not supposed to be voted on.

That's why they are called rights.

0

georgeofwesternkansas 1 year, 11 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."

0

georgeofwesternkansas 1 year, 11 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.

0

KansasPerson 1 year, 11 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....)

0

meggers 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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!

0

Gotland 1 year, 11 months ago

Why is marriage only for the monogamous? Gay or Straight. My enlightened liberal friends have explained we are all born with certain sexual preferences. Some preferences are not to monogamous. Why are they discriminated against in marriage? In fact monogamy goes again the male nature. When will the federal government accommodate males. They are born this way.

0

Paul Decelles 1 year, 11 months ago

Katara,

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.

0

Katara 1 year, 11 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.

0

Paul Decelles 1 year, 11 months ago

Ronda,

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.

0

palin_rocks 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

Gotland 1 year, 11 months ago

You have to understand the president prefers intelligent committed gays when arbitrarily determining who should have marriage rights.

0

jonas_opines 1 year, 11 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.

0

autie 1 year, 11 months ago

I think when men marry men and women marry men, it only follows that men will lay with dogs and cats will sleep with birds. The President probably won't care. I am pretty sure I don't care. Just keep your blinds pulled shut. Especially you that keep your posters of Regan handy and your lotion more handy.

0

riverdrifter 1 year, 11 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.

0

Boston_Corbett 1 year, 11 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)

0

sierraclub 1 year, 11 months ago

What about me? I want to marry my boyfriend and my girlfriend. We all share the same love for each other. And, my girlfriend wants to marry her girlfriend and her boyfriend. Gee, you guys are so prejudice and hatefull.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

thuja 1 year, 11 months ago

The only thing I can say that might be the truth is that is wrong to even subdivide marriage into hetero- and homo-. Regardless of what the Bible says. Not everyone lives by the Bible.

What you are doing is going further in the wrong direction by subdividing it even further.

Marriage should be free from such distinctions. Simple.

Don't buy into the political B.S. just because the politicians do.

0

its_just_math 1 year, 11 months ago

Ronda queries: "Does this topic deserve attention by our President?"

Why yes, yes it does Ronda. Especially since Biden's piehole completed Obama's "evolving" thought process on the issue. I really think Biden was just priming the pump in a a very cleverly choreographed event----up to and including The Anointed One's $40k a person fundraiser at George Clooney's house with one hundred and forty Leftist Hollywood Elitists. And lest we not overlook the fact Obama's camp and the willfully dishonest Obamamania liberal media peddled the event as a "$15 million" fundraising event, when in actuality, more than $9 million of that $15 million was taken in from internet donations in the form of 'win a night with the president and the stars' raffle. Just do some "rough math":

40,000 x 140


=5,600,000

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 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.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

verity 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 11 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

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 11 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_C...

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

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 months ago

Variety,

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...

0

verity 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 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.

0

verity 1 year, 11 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.

0

funkdog1 1 year, 11 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.

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 11 months ago

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

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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. :)

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 11 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.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 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!

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 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.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 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?

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

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

;-)

0

verity 1 year, 11 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.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year, 11 months ago

jafs,

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?

0

jafs 1 year, 11 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.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.