RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Indianapolis Star' to Governor Pence: FIX THIS NOW » Bill Maher's monologue on dialogue he'd prefer remain a monologue » Video: Even Michael Steele thinks Indiana law is too broad; Ryan T. Anderson constantly interrupts, still loses » Watch Gov. Pence heap praise on lobbying group that admitted #SB101 was all about same-sex marriage » Shellshocked Gov. Pence in full-blown spin mode » Video: Man who's called for exporting gays goes on CNN to defend Indiana law, earns deserved result » Man who insinuated it's better to be thrown into sea than support homosexuality attended #SB101 signing ceremony » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so  

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

06/29/2012

NOM confuses spousal potentiality with spousal multiplicity

by Jeremy Hooper

It always drives me crazy when social conservatives conflate bisexuality with polyamory. In truth, bisexuality is a capacity for attraction, much like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Whereas monogamy, be it in marriage or not, is a choice that one makes regardless of the spectrum that one's personal capacity of attraction encompasses. When it comes to the relational choice, it doesn't matter if a person's capacities extend to any number of men, any number of women, or any number of both/either. In terms of the structure of the relationship, the choice of whether or not to be monogamous and/or legally married to one person remains exactly the same!

Conversations pertaining to polyamory/bigamy/etc. are wholly separate from sexuality, regardless of the sexual orientations of that conversation's participants or the personal validity that the individual participants place in said conversation. Just like any person of any orientation, bisexual men and women who *do* support polyamory and want to see multi-partnered unions codified in and recognized by law would need to make the individual legal case on the basis of perceived merit, with that case (like all legal cases) ultimately beholden to the burdens of our nation's governing documents. But bisexuality does not inform this desire any more than any other kind of sexual orientation does! *Everyone's* capacity for attraction is essentially limitless, and everyone's range of choices in terms of how they channel that capacity is on the same footing!

But it's of course convenient for the NOM crowd to pretend like they don't understand this and pretend like LGBT accpetance is an slippery slope, which is why we get blog posts like this:

201206291241
[NOM Blog]

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