RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

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

02/09/2011

Concerned Women's Concerned Man concerned about poly- bisexuals (emphasis on *CON*)

by Jeremy Hooper

Of all of the groups, Concerned Women For America has led the pack in making a false equivalency between bisexuality and an innate desire for multiple partners at once. But while the logic's always flawed, CWA staffers usually don't refute their own point in the same piece.

Yesterday in his testimony to Maryland Senate judiciary committee, CWA's resident Concerned Man, Mario Diaz, did just that:

SB 116...openly discriminates, for example, against a "bisexual" person who believes he or she is "in love" with both a man and a woman, as it re-defines marriage to disregard gender, while still limiting it to "two individuals."

But why would this body be comfortable discriminating against persons who contend, as many homosexuals do, that they were "born that way?" If we open the door to homosexual "marriage," what reason do we retain for restricting the happiness of the "bisexual" person?

I submit to you, the reason you are comfortable with it is that the "two-person" requirement for marriage, just as the "man-woman" requirement, is not an arbitrary restriction born out of bigotry, but the result of a painful cultural process that has proven time and again that the traditional definition of marriage is best.

It is best for the persons involved, best for children, and best for society.

That is the reason these restrictions are in place. We have learned, through much trial, that it is not in our best interest to merely follow our every desire. In fact, most men can attest to the fact that they are not "naturally" inclined to monogamy. But the errors of the past have shown us that the type of intimacy required to sustain a relationship, and therefore a family, through better and worse, for richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health, is best pursued through the loving interaction of one man and one woman.
CWA Testifies in Support of Marriage Before Maryland Senate [CWA]

See where he refudiates repudiates his own point? It's in the part about male monogamy, where Mario quite accurately notes that such is largely a choice. A choice that most people typically make when they enter into a marriage. And a choice that applies to any couple -- gay, straight, bisexual, or whatever!

Just as with homosexuality or heterosexuality, bisexuality is a capacity for attraction. So when it comes to the choices of monogamy and marriage, it doesn't matter if a person's capacities extend to any number of men, any number of women, or any number of either. In terms of relationship structure, the choice of whether or not to be monogamous and/or legally married to one person remains exactly the same! The conversation of polyamory is wholly separate, regardless of the sexual orientations of that conversation's participants or the personal validity that the individual participants place in said conversation.

And for those bisexuals who *do* support polyamory and want to see such unions codified in law? Well, like any citizen of any sexual orientation, he or she must make the individual legal case on the basis of perceived merit, with that case (like all cases) ultimately beholden to the burdens of our nation's governing documents. Through years of dot-connection, two partner same-sex couples have more than met that constitutional test. So inclined multipartnered [any-]sex couples will need to do the same.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails