Bisexuals present an interesting dilemma to advocates of same sex marriage. They argue that people should be allowed to marry according to their natural preferences: men who naturally prefer relationships with men should be allowed to marry a man; women who naturally prefer relationships with women should be allowed to marry a woman. But in the case of bisexuals, they naturally prefer both men and women. Given the principle of their argument, how can they deny bisexuals the right to marry two people (polygamy)? If they deny them that right they do so only by contradicting their guiding principle. If they are consistent and grant them that right they risk being ostracized by the moral majority of this country who think polygamy is wrong. Heads they lose, tails they lose.
Bisexuals present yet another challenge to the arguments advanced in favor of same-sex marriage. Many same-sex marriage advocates argue that gays should be able to marry someone of the same sex because their sexual desires are not chosen, and it would be unfair to deprive them of the good of marriage given that fact. Dennis Prager asks a fair question to those who make this argument: “Should a bisexual be able to marry someone of the same-sex?” If the person answers in the negative they are violating their principle that people should be able to marry according to their natural preferences. If they answer in the affirmative they reveal that their argument is a front. One cannot argue that same-sex couples should be able to marry because they have no choice in their sexual desires, and argue that those who do have a choice (bisexuals) should be able to marry someone of the same sex as well. Either the ground for same-sex marriage is the lack of sexual choice or it is not. The fact of the matter is that the “no choice” argument is typically a front for a more basic, libertarian view that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. But if that is the basis for promoting same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage advocates would do well to just say so.
Thinking to Believe 
November 14, 2006 at 12:48 pm
This post assumes that bisexuals not only are attracted to members of both sexes, but are incapable of settling with only one partner. My bisexual friends would (correctly) call this bi-phobic.
Let’s take a heterosexual example. We’ll name him Harry. Harry loves Suzie, but he’s heterosexual, not Suzie-sexual. If Suzie’s not a potential partner (she’s married, dies after their first date, hates Harry), there’s always Laura, whom Harry also finds attractive. If either woman were willing, would Harry have to choose both? Nah.
Harry’s brother Bill is bisexual. Both Mary and Ted look pretty good to Bill. Must Bill choose both? Nah. Like his brother, Harry, Bill can choose one partner with whom he’d like to spend his life.
Me, I’d be happy to attend Bill’s wedding, whether he marries Mary or Ted.
LikeLike
November 14, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Interesting idea. But I was going to bring up the same challenge as Anonymous. Bisexuals would argue that they just have a broader pool of people to choose to marry. So laws allowing same-sex marriages could still prevent a bisexual from marrying more than one person of any sex. It would just allow them to choose between their prefrences. Nonetheless, there are many who might “naturally prefer” threesomes.
I had a quirky idea the other day: What if someone insists on marrying Elvis? You argue, “You can’t marry the dead.” And the person argues, “But he’s not dead; he’s just in another sphere of reality, and I communicate with him every day via telepathic communications. According to my religion, he is still alive. And Elvis and I are deeply in love; he told me so.I know it’s not the traditional means of communication, but neither is internet dating. I even have a Wiccan priest willing to conduct the ceremony via ouija board.”
LikeLike
November 15, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Anonymous,
Yes, I do assume that bisexuals are attracted to members of both sexes. I don’t know what else to conclude. Does it make many any sense to have sex with a gender you are not attracted to? If you are a male, and you are not sexually attracted to males, I doubt you will be having sex with males.
No, I do not assume that a bisexual is incapable of settling with only one partner. They are quite capable of only marrying one partner, and quite capable of marrying a partner of the opposite sex. I imagine you walked away with that interpretation from the following phrase: “But in the case of bisexuals, they naturally prefer both men and women. Given the principle of their argument, how can they deny bisexuals the right to marry two people (polygamy)?” My statement was factually neutral (a hypothetical), but re-reading it I think it would have been helpful to end the sentence with “if they desire to do so” to eliminate the interpretation you walked away with.
Jason
LikeLike
November 15, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Seni,
Either I am misunderstanding your point, or you are missing the point of my argument. You seem to be arguing that if same-sex marriage was legal it would not allow bisexuals to marry more than one person, it would just expand their options for a single mate. Agreed. Those are two separate issues (although the logic supporting the legalization of the former equally supports the legalization of the latter). But that wasn’t my point.
My point was to expose the argument advanced by same-sex marriage advocates (SSMA) that people should be able to marry according to their natural sexual preferences (or sexual orientation if you will) as a front/fraud. They say that if a man is sexually oriented towards his own gender, he should be able to marry someone of his own gender.
My question to those who assert this is: “If we have a right to marry according to our natural sexual orientation, what about bisexuals?” They are naturally oriented towards both sexes, so shouldn’t they have the right to marry someone from both sexes simultaneously (which would be polygamy)? If they say no, they are denying the bisexual his/her right to marry according to their sexual orientation, and thus violating their own principle. If they say yes, they lose political capital because most people who support same-sex marriage oppose polygamy.
Tactically speaking, by bringing bisexuals into the marriage question we expose the fact that SSMAs (1) don’t really believe the principle that one should be able to marry according to their sexual orientation is universally applicable, or (2) the fact that they actually support both SSM and polygamy. Either way they lose. Regarding (1), if the principle is not universal in application, then they admit it is just to exclude certain people with particular forms of sexual orientation from the institution of marriage. If homosexuals are justified in prohibiting excluding bisexuals from marrying according to their sexual orientation, why are heterosexuals not justified in prohibiting homosexuals from marrying according to their sexual orientation? Regarding (2), once people see that the SSM agenda includes the legalization of polygamy they will be less apt to support the legalization of SSM.
The Elvis scenario is interesting, but not unfathomable. In fact, somewhere in Europe a year or two ago a woman was granted the right to marry her dead fiancé. That takes the expression “our marriage is dead” to a whole new dimension!
I think the point you have captured is that once the definition of marriage changes from something fixed (by natural law) to something fluid and defined by culture and personal self-determination, there is no longer any basis on which to say one marriage is valid while another is not. Marriage can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.
Jason
LikeLike
November 16, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Jason said: “‘If we have a right to marry according to our natural sexual orientation, what about bisexuals?’ They are naturally oriented towards both sexes, so shouldn’t they have the right to marry someone from both sexes simultaneously (which would be polygamy)?”
I think the word “simultaneously” is where I’m losing you, Jason. I don’t see how pro SSM arguments could be construed to allow bisexuals to marry more than one parnter simultaneously. (Which I believe is the thrust of your post.) Bisexuals want the option to marry both sexes, but not simultaneously.
I’m attracted to men. That doesn’t mean I desire to be married to more than one man simultaneosly. So just because bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, does not mean they want the option to be married to both sexes simultaneously.
I don’t think SSM arguments even suggest that bisexuals can marry people of both sexes simultaneously.
I’m not advocating same sex marriages here. I’m just not seeing the “challenge bisexuals pose to common same-sex marriage arguments” that you are trying to convey.
LikeLike
November 16, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Seni,
Legalizing SSM would NOT allow bisexuals to marry one person from each sex. I qualify this by adding the word “simultaneous” to distinguish two different scenarios—one of which would be legal and one of which would not. In a world where SSM is legal bisexuals could marry one person from each sex if they did so SUCCESSIVELY; i.e. divorce one and marry another (what some have tongue-in-cheek called “successive polygamy”—something heterosexuals do all the time). What they could not do is be married to one person from each sex SIMULTANEOUSLY; i.e. at the same time.
(I hate using caps, but I don’t know how to italicize comments)
As I said in the first paragraph of my last comment, from a LEGAL and PRACTICAL perspective the legalization of SSM has nothing to do with bisexual polygamy. They are two separate practices. But one of the principled arguments driving the legalization of SSM is LOGICALLY related to bisexual polygamy.
The argument people make as to why homosexuals should be able to marry someone of the same-sex (that people should be able to marry according to their sexual orientation) employs a UNIVERSAL principle. As such, it applies to everyone: heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals. Who are bisexuals sexually oriented toward? Both sexes. If—as the argument goes—people should be able to marry according to their sexual orientation, and as a factual matter bisexuals are sexually oriented towards BOTH men and women, why can’t they be married to both a man and a woman at the same time if they so choose? If they say bisexuals can, they lose politically. If they say bisexuals can’t, then they are guilty of doing the very thing they are accusing society of doing to them: denying people the right to marry according to their sexual orientation. How so? Because bisexuals are orientated towards both sexes, and yet homosexuals are only allowing them to marry one person of one sex. In doing so they are frustrating the fulfillment of their sexual orientation. The SSM advocate is caught between a rock and a hard place.
I don’t think you can make a blanket statement that bisexuals don’t want to marry both sexes simultaneously. I’m sure those who would want to do so would be the minority (just like it’s only a minority of homosexuals who actually want to get married), but from a purely statistical standpoint alone, surely there are bisexuals who want to marry two people—one from each sex—simultaneously. But even if no bisexual had such a desire, the argument would still stand because it is a hypothetical. Hypotheticals and thought experiments are used in philosophy all the time to judge the merit of an argument or principle.
Jason
LikeLike
November 16, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I know what a hypothetical is and how it functions. (70% of each law school class is nothing but discussing hypotheticals.) And I understand that you are posing a hypothetical. It’s your hypothetical that I’m clearly not getting.
I understood your hypothetical to posit that SSM arguments can be used to support bisexual polygamy. Anonymous understood your hypothetical the same as I did, as demonstrated with his illustration of Harry and Bill. I still don’t understand what your hypothetical posits other than this, but let me try:
Because SSM arguments state that people should be allowed to marry according to their sexual orientation, and since Bisexuals are oriented toward both sexes, the reasoning behind SSM arguments would allow Bisexuals to marry both sexes simultaneously if they so choose.
Jason said: “If—as the argument goes—people should be able to marry according to their sexual orientation, and as a factual matter bisexuals are sexually oriented towards BOTH men and women, why can’t they be married to both a man and a woman at the same time if they so choose? If they say bisexuals can, they lose politically. If they say bisexuals can’t, then they are guilty of doing the very thing they are accusing society of doing to them: denying people the right to marry according to their sexual orientation. How so? Because bisexuals are orientated towards both sexes, and yet homosexuals are only allowing them to marry one person of one sex. In doing so they are frustrating the fulfillment of their sexual orientation. The SSM advocate is caught between a rock and a hard place.”
I still don’t think that by saying a homosexual can only be married to one person at a time, we are denying them the fullfillment of thier sexual orientation. I think the denial comes in not allowing them to choose between the sexes.
The point I think you might be making, which just clicked in my head is this:
Proponents of polygamy say that the SSM argument is primarily that we should be able to marry however we want. SSM proponents counter, “No. It’s not about marrying however you want according to a personal preference and defining your own marriage. It’s about marrying according to your sexual orientation.” So, you’re saying that the bisexual can use this argument to say that bisexuals could then marry both. Right?
LikeLike
November 17, 2006 at 3:12 am
I think the entire argument is a straw man. No one is fighting for SSM because they feel left out of heterosexual marriage. They do so because the person they love and wish to spend their life and provide for (through insurance, estate and other channels) is a person of the same sex. Introducing the false “bisexual problem” doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
November 23, 2006 at 12:36 am
Umm,
I like your screen name.
I don’t claim that homosexuals want marriage because they feel left out. There are several reasons they want marriage (at least the option to marry, because the fact of the matter is that most homosexuals who can marry choose not to), but based on what homosexuals say it appears that the main reason is because it will give them a new standing in society. Extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples would be society’s highest stamp of approval on their relationships. Homosexuals want society to view their relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. Allowing them to marry would be the greatest way to accomplish this. Of course, there are other reasons as well including legal protections, etc., but all of those things can be secured apart from marriage.
You suggest that they want to marry because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Apart from the fact that homosexual relationhips rarely last a lifetime (I know heterosexuals aren’t doing so great on the “til death do us part” thing right now either, but the rates of lifetime commitment among homosexuals pales in comparison to even today’s low-level commitments among heterosexuals), marriage has nothing to do with either of these things. Marriage does not bring love, nor does it secure it. Just ask all the divorced heterosexuals! Two people can love one another whether society recognizes and blesses their relationship or not. It’s unrelated to marriage. The same goes for a lifetime commitment. Do you expect anyone to buy the idea that homosexuals cannot commit to one another for life unless they have a legal paper? The only thing that marriage alone can bring homosexuals that they don’t already have or can’t already get through some other channel, is social acceptance.
Finally, my argument about bisexuality has nothing to do with the things you brought up. If you are trying to relate what you said to what I was saying, I can understand why it doesn’t make sense to you.
Jason
LikeLike
January 7, 2012 at 7:08 am
Simple yet superb logic Jason. Still scouring the internet to see if anyone can find weaknesses in your manner of reasoning… none found as of yet.
LikeLike
March 9, 2014 at 9:28 pm
if marriage can no longer be defined as being between one man and one woman, then logically, if homosexual persons are permitted to fulfill their desires for same sex attraction, then, bisexual persons should be permitted the same rights, to be able to fulfill their desires for sexual attraction to both genders. An example of this is a three person civil union in Netherlands in 2006, (marriage not yet permitted beyond two). This would also permit those men or women who desire multiple spouses to also fulfill their sexual desires in marriage. All of this is based on the foundational challenge to historical marriage as between one man and one woman.
LikeLike
May 2, 2015 at 1:24 am
[…] The Challenge Bisexuals Pose to Common Same-Sex Marriage Arguments […]
LikeLike
July 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm
[…] The Challenge Bisexuals Pose to Common Same-Sex Marriage Arguments […]
LikeLike
July 30, 2015 at 8:23 pm
T Li is right on point. Throw out gender in the marriage equation and then it’s open to all sorts of interpretations and variations. That’s why over 300 LGBTQ scholars etc. have signed the “Beyond Same-Sex” manifesto:
http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
As I was reading through the comments section, I noticed that there was a back in forth over words like “simultaneously” and “desire to / want to”. But the whole time the “right” for homosexuals to marry was being fought for, it was the word “love” that was thrown around. “If two people love each other, then…” Yet if gender is irrelevant to the marriage equation, then why is the marriage union limited to two? Why not 3? 5? 6? 10? I’ve heard pro-SSM proponents say, “That would cause all sorts of social problems.” What?! And SSM doesn’t? Look what SSM has done to one state:
Governments spend loads of money to discourage and punish smoking because of it’s harmful and potentially deadly. Yet they want to permit / promote homosexual lifestyle, one that CDC statistics show is a disease-ridden, depression-saturated, abuse-stricken lifestyle (even in countries where SSM has been legalized)?!
Anyway, it is no stretch of the imagination to think that there is some bisexual out there attracted to two people simultaneously and want to marry both. In fact, here’s an example:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-next-marriage-redefinition-massachusetts-lesbian-throuple-expecting-the
In the article above, Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, states that “there is no reason not to further re-shape ‘marriage’ to include multiple partner unions”. In light of the logic of approving SSM marriage, he is, sadly, right.
Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman. It’s the only logical, rational, healthy and socially beneficial form of marriage.
LikeLike
July 30, 2015 at 8:36 pm
And here’s a scary article:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why/
Sadly, I think the poor man and woman in this article will realize their huge mistake only after either an STD enters the picture or after they lose their sexual potency.
LikeLike
July 31, 2015 at 11:22 am
Joshua:
See Post 4 in
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/the-legalization-of-polygamy-is-next/#comment-45619
LikeLike