RECENT  POSTS:  » Your anti-LGBT movement at work: Viciously denigrating stock photos of gay families » Maggie Gallagher's latest shows what a disservice she did to the *civil* marriage debate » Brian Brown apparently buying a new dinette set, misapplies purchase to marriage debate » Focus on the Family: Marriage equality activists are 'tyrants'; opponents are 'slaves' » Read: Zack Ford smacks back Ryan Anderson's love of tax-subsidized discrimination » God Hates Fads: Radical Bay State group pretends homosexuality is like skinny jeans » But does the Archbishop even believe in gay? » Video: Move over aliens, plagues, Sharknados—it's committed gays who'll soon kill Western Civilization » Nine former water-carriers for 'ex-gayness' join all credible scientists in denouncing 'ex-gay' propaganda » The operative word is 'yet'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/13/2010

'There's no other way around it', except, uhm, you know -- the truth!

by Jeremy Hooper

Bisexuals are innately polyamorous, says the Concerned Women For America's resident concerned dude, Mario Diaz:

"Of course, all [the Prop 8 opponents'] arguments rest on the idea that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race and should be treated as such. By their reasoning a bisexual man who is "in-love" with a man and a woman should be able to marry them both. There is no other way around it, no matter how much they would want to cover that fact."
What’s this I hear about a Challenge to Marriage in California? I Thought the People Had Voted [CWA]

Ya know, because never mind the fact that no person, regardless of how many objects of lust they might hold in their heart, can marry more than one person at a time. For some strange reason only known to Mario's "pro-family" mind, bisexuals' increased options in terms of genitalia would be the crowbar that would open the marriage custom up to "Big Love"-like proportions. Somehow we never thought of it that way. Odd.

Now if you'll excuse us, Mario, we'll now be "going around" you via this embarrassingly gaping hole in your logic, where we'll join actuality and its simple realization that a desire for monogamous commitment is a separate concept from a capacity for attraction. Later, skater. Send our love to Martha Kleder.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I've never been quite able to grasp their constant misconception/lie that bisexuals would need to marry one of each sex. Like, are they just that stupid? Or is that they have that much contempt for the people who worship them?

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 13, 2010 4:52:03 PM

It's particularly big with CWA. They've used this line many, many times over the years. Several different people, too.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 13, 2010 5:06:40 PM

So no matter how many times someone points out how stupid it is, they keep repeating it?

Posted by: Bill S | Jan 13, 2010 5:38:18 PM

Uh... no, I'm monogamous.

Posted by: WMDKitty | Jan 13, 2010 6:35:47 PM

Didn't one of the defense witnesses (or the attorney himself) also show his ignorance by comparing bisexuals to polygamists? I know that I, as a bisexual myself, did a double-take when I read that.

They've known this suit was coming for how long now, and they didn't even bother to crack a dictionary and make sure they understood the terms of the group of people they're trying to vilify?

Hoo boy.

Posted by: Aya | Jan 13, 2010 10:10:32 PM

"By their reasoning...then they'd have to marry both"

What?
WHOSE reasoning?!
Gay folks aren't reasoning that, nor articulating that. Nor is it part of the stated intention of EQUAL standing in marriage.
Meaning, gay folks agree to and expect to adhere to the SAME standards that straight people do of
ONE spouse.


Why do gay couples have to take the rap for an issue not EXCLUSIVE to either sexual orientation?

This man must be assured that who he is talking to is really stupid, because HE sure is.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 14, 2010 12:48:58 AM

And another thing...
How can he say that bisexuals are 'innately' polyamourous, when people like him don't even agree that being gay is innate?

Considering how many straight people engage in serial divorce, remarriage, infidelity AND polyamory, it can be assumed that sexual orientation has nothing to do with being polyamorous.

Yeah, this boy really doesn't have much going on past his own navel, does he?

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 14, 2010 12:52:00 AM

I can't even. Like...I can't.

Just because they are attracted to both doesn't mean they are polygamous.

It's like saying since Mary likes both blonde men and brunette men, she must want to marry both. Or since Joe likes men with green eyes and men with brown eyes, he must want to marry both. Or since I like men with accents and men without, I must want to marry one of each.

Just because they are attracted to both men and women, does NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO HAVE ONE OF EACH. THIS IS NOT LIKE A COLLECTION OF SOME SORT!!! Men and women are not Beanie Babies to bisexuals! It's not like "collect the whole set!" MY GOD!!!!

I can't. Stupidity, screaming, it hurts my head. BAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Stef | Jan 14, 2010 12:52:02 AM

You said it best!

It's a recurring theme that seems to propagate to a point that they all chime it together. Let's all say: "its a lifestyle choice!". They tell themselves this enough to a point they genuinely believe the lies (or do they?).... and make TV ads on a myth message (how do they get away with that? can I put up an ad exclaiming any old fib?).

How do we fix this?

Posted by: Forky | Jan 14, 2010 1:38:54 AM

This is the exact same argument I saw used by homophobic 14-year-olds on message boards. I figure it's just what happens when you don't logically think an idea completely through.

Silly of me to think that CWA has the ability to criticize queer issues at a level beyond 14-year-olds?

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Jan 14, 2010 3:34:34 AM

Regan: Just a point of information:I'm the one who used the "innately polyamorous" language, not Mario. That's my assessment of what he's saying.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 14, 2010 6:43:24 AM

Oh sorry, G-A-Y.

Still, that "by their reasoning..." line is still the stupidest thing I ever heard from that guy.
I'm attracted to men, and I don't care what their color is.
I'm as attracted to black men as white men, that doesn't mean I want to have a husband of each color at the same time!

And Mario Diaz, get a clue : the voters would best serve protecting marriage by encouraging holding to the VOWS of marriage, including THEIR OWN. You can't protect it by discriminating against gay people.
You protect children, families and marriage from the quadruplet evils of infidelity, addiction, violence, and poverty. Which affects EVERYONE.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 14, 2010 10:06:48 AM

oh, that's a quintuplet evil...I forgot ABANDONMENT, by divorce or some other means.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 14, 2010 10:07:33 AM

Regan: No, it doesn't change anything regarding your astute thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that I said it and not Mario, since it's important to me that our side always remain the fully accurate one :-)

Always love your comments! Even when I don't respond, know that I read them all. That goes for everyone, actually. That's the only reason why I hold them for approval: So I can force myself to read them all.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 14, 2010 10:15:01 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails