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


LaRue not saying 'bi, bi' to fallacious argument

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images Vidpic Janlarue-1So you may remember that two weeks ago we pointed out how unbelievably ridiculous the Concerned Women For America's Jan LaRue (pic) was being in trying to link polygamy with bisexuality. You can go here to read our full piece and refutation of her spin, but if you don't have the time or desire to do so: Ms. LaRue's basic argument was that since bisexuals are attracted to both genders, then they will innately want to marry someone of each gender; our basic response was that just because one has the capacity for attraction to both genders, it doesn't mean they are any more likely to seek multiples spouses. Her piece was truly one of the most unbelievably specious things we'd seen in months, and so we seized the opportunity to counter Ms. LaRue's notions with rational thought.

Well, Ms. LaRue did not reply to our piece (how rude), but she has chosen to respond to gay activist Michelangelo Signorile's recent appearance on the "The O'Reilly Factor," in which he refuted Bill O'Reilly's attempts to link polygamy to gay marriage. And since she has responded to him in a way very similar to how we'd imagine she would've responded to us, had she deemed us worth of reply, we're going to address each of the ten follow-up questions she has rhetorically presented to Mr. Signorile and answer them as if they were sent in our direction instead. After all, we may always play bridesmaid to Signorile, Solmonese, Foreman, and Wolfson's bride, but fortunately we know how to do more than ensure their wedding fights go smoothly. So below (in red) are the questions Ms. LaRue has presented to Mr. Signorile, followed by our subsequent responses (in blue):

1. You believe that homosexuals should be allowed to express their sexuality within marriage, right?

Well of course! The almost-always-Biblical-based justifications used to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage equality are unconstitutional, indecent, and just plain wrong! Denying full marriage equality to committed, taxpaying, same-sex American citizens is a gross injustice that will someday be remembered as the civil rights blight that it truly is.

2. You claim to support full equality for bisexuals, right?

We claim to support full equality for everyone. Bisexuals are a realistic part of the spectrum of normalcy, so of course they are also part of the spectrum of social parity.

3 Then, why aren't you supporting bisexuals' right to express their sexuality within polygamous marriage?

Well, this is the point where you start spinning, Ms. L. So to address your duplicitous question, we must first pick it apart.

First off -- bisexuals are not innately polyamorous! A bisexual person is simply attracted to both genders. As we mentioned in our last refutation of your deceitful attempts, just like a man can be attracted to Angelina Jolie and his wife, yet only legally bound, committed, and in love with the wife, a bisexual person may be attracted to
both halves of Brangelina, yet when it comes to monogamous commitment, they settle down with the one person with whom they are in love. You are linking attraction with with commitment, and that is where your argument takes a turn towards the whacked-out.

Then comes the second part, which is that by saying there is no link between gay marriage and polygamous marriage, that we gay activists as a collective are denying polygamous couples their own right to fight for what they see as just. All we are saying is that
outside of the idea of legislating morality, their fight is not the same as ours! There are some straight and gay folks who strongly oppose polygamy, others who have mixed feelings, and others who think it is wonderful. But that is not the discussion we are having! If polygamists want to push their own cause, then they have every right to do so. But the organized fight for gay marriage is seeking the state of matrimony to simply be opened up to TWO PEOPLE, regardless of gender. No matter how virtuous or demonic we may find the fight to open it up to three, four, or more individuals, it is a fight wholly separate from same-sex marriage.

4 How can you be consistent with your alleged support of equal rights for bisexuals and not support their right to marry both a man and a woman?

Because this is not a "right" bisexuals are seeking! If they are seeking the right to marry both a man and a woman, then in addition to being bisexual, they are also polyamorous. Again -- different legal scenario! You are obviously trying to provide a convenient bridge between the LBT and polygamist communities, so that it will seem that the distance between the two groups is only a hop, skip, and a jump!

5 Why is it right for homosexuals to draw a moral line against polygamy, but it's wrong for the rest of us to draw a moral line against "same-sex marriage"?

This isn't about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to draw a moral line against polygamy. It's acceptable for ANYONE to draw a moral line against whatever they damn well please! But on that same token, it is also acceptable for one to protest where that line has been drawn! Again, neither the gay community or the heterosexual community has collectively said "POLYGAMY IS WRONG." Neither community can be defined so broadly.

As for the "moral line" that folks like you, Ms. LaRue, have drawn against same-sex marriage -- well, we find it wrong because we know gay couples to be a realistic part of life. We also find legally-recognized monogamy and the benefits that come with to be a beneficial concept for a productive society. We feel that by stifling such unions, our opposition is making an unfair moral judgement about our lives and loves, and foisting their version of ethics onto households that think differently. Also, we feel that our legal marriages would not hurt those who are against them one bit, so it is unfair for them to so ferociously prevent us from something in which they could simply choose to not personally participate.

6 Did the Canadian court go too far in ruling that a boy can have two mommies and a daddy as legal parents?

Well, Ms. L., you're referring to a case in which a biological mother, her lesbian partner, and the biological father have all been granted parental status. This (at the request of all involved parties) shores up the lesbian mother's legal attachment to the child, should something happen to the biological mother, while also allowing the biological father his own legal role in the child's life. And no, we don't think this went "too far"; we personally feel that this is a fair, just, progressive ruling. However, this particular situation has nothing to do with bisexuality or polyamory, so we don't really understand why you're bringing it up now. Presumably it's because you feel that this ruling will allow three polygamously-involved adults to also seek parental rights. However, just like with every single other issue involving polyamorous arrangements, it is a SEPARATE legal battle!

7 So if the three Canadians were bisexuals, you wouldn't support them if they wanted to get married?

Oh, Ms. L -- that issue would not be bisexuality, but rather polyamory. See #4

8 Aren't you the guy who said that homosexuals should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution"?

We won't answer this one, as it refers to a comment specifically made by Mr. Signorile in 1994. We won't speak for him as this quote certainly doesn't speak for us.

9 So your "radical" alteration of marriage doesn't triangulate for bisexuals?

Again, this is for Mr. Signorile specifically. But our definition of marriage absolutely includes bisexuals, as the marriage we are seeking involves two people pledging a life together. Not to sound like a broken record (kids, ask your parents what a record is), but monogamy is not a concept that is foreign to the bisexual community. Traditionally, marriage means "forsaking all others" in favor of a life with your one true love. This applies to EVERYONE, no matter to what gender(s) their capacity of attraction is geared!

10 So you really don't support equal rights for bisexuals?

You really want to put those words in gay activists mouths, Huh Ms. L? Well, you're not going to divide our community that easily with absurd logic.

It's almost as if Ms. LaRue had some sort of a recent "Eureka!" moment in which she decided that "bisexuality=polygamy" would be the ace in the hole that would vault her side's anti-gay marriage argument to new heights. Unfortunately for her, it really only exposes yet another fundamental flaw in our opposition's thought process, as well their willingness to say absolutely ANYTHING is they feel it will garner them more support. It seems completely absurd to us that someone like Jan LaRue, a legally-trained person who meticulously studies the gay rights movement, could honestly think that bisexuals need to have a partner of each sex in order to fulfill their orientation! So it's likely that she's just using this new stratagem to cause dissension within the LGBT ranks, yet cohesion between the thought that "gay = polygamy" and "tomato = tomahto"

We of course can't be fully sure whether Ms. L sincerely believes her spin, or if she is just using this new anti-gay marriage tactic because her legs to stand on are limited. Either way, however, we'll keep calling her out on her nonsense until it us to whom she is directing duplicitous queries.

Another Homosexual Activist Cuts Bisexuals out of Wedding March [CWA]

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

Your thoughts

Thank you for this, right now equalityforall.com is using non inclusive words for same sex marriage and it's really bothering me and a bunch of other bi bloggers and activists. Sing it from the mountaintop, bisexuals are attracted to genders not gender. Just because we're attracted to both doesnt mean we always want to settle down with both...at the same time.

Posted by: Faith | Jul 6, 2008 6:44:31 PM

Our pleasure, Faith. This maddening argument pops up every now and then with the "pro-family" contingent. Here's a more recent example:


Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 7, 2008 8:20:26 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails