[Editor's note: The astute reader will pick up on the implications of this article. The casual reader may be tempted to believe Prof. Everett is promoting bisexual marriage. Pause and consider the importance of what you read below, then comment, and then talk about it in your community.]
by L. James Everett, III
There are two types of Same-Sex Marriage advocates. The Biaphobic, and the non-Biaphobic. I don’t have statistical data on their proportions relative to each other, but my guess is that the Biaphobic Same-Sex Marriage advocates out-number their non-hateful counterparts by a ratio of 8 to 1.
Please allow me to develop this. You’ll need to be logical for a few minutes. You may want to put down any sharp objects.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of Marriage, lately. I don’t mean I’ve been thinking about what makes marriages work, or how to prevent a divorce, or what the essence of a good anniversary is. I mean: I am wondering about the Nature of Marriage. What it “is” or what it “should be.” It’s awfully difficult to tell the two a part.
It’s been quite a battle in California. Starting in the 1970′s, the government or a majority of the people felt forced to spell out the following: You don’t got a Marriage unless you got at least a guy and a gal.
In 2000, California voters passed Prop 22, which amended the Family Code with 14 words to the above effect. That was overturned in May 2008 in In Re Marriage Cases (CalifSupCt). In 2008, California voters passed Prop 8, which had the identical 14 words added to the California Constitution. Judge Vaughn Walker, a Federal judge for Northern California, ruled against Prop 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (July 2010).
Some folks want to abolish legally sanctioned “homophobia.” A good way to do this is to make Marriage not necessarily heterosexual, according to this view. This view has been called by its proponents, “Marriage Equality.”
Stay with this train of thought.
Gays have always been allowed to get married in California law. To my knowledge, which is definitely finite, there has never been a law requiring an official to ask the sexual orientation of an individual before bestowing spousal-hood on them. Gay men have been able to marry women. Gay women, lesbians, have always been legally allowed to marry men. It’s true.
There is no, nor has there ever been, a “Do Not Marry” list in a vault somewhere in Sacramento, with all of the gay people listed out, like the TSA’s “Do Not Fly” list. The issue isn’t about whether gays can get married. To speak in such a way is to mask the logic of the real issue.
So, what is the logic of the real issue?
Here it is, the “Marriage Equality” claim. I warn you, it won’t fit on a bumper-sticker:
The legal necessary conditions of Marriage need to logically allow the expression of all legitimate, legally protected sexual orientations between the spouses.
Homosexuality is one such sexual orientation (see California Fair Employment and Housing Act, search “sexual orientation” here). Therefore, the legal necessary conditions of Marriage should allow for at least two men or two women to be spouses. To disallow this, it is claimed, would be “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Question: How many sexual orientations are there? Google “APA Sexual Orientation.” Read it for yourself.
There are three distinct, legally protected sexual orientations. According to the above logic, the Marriage Equality claim is that the legal necessary conditions for Marriage need to allow for the expression of all 3, otherwise that is “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
What kind of definition would allow the expression of bisexuality among spouses? Hmm. If Bob is Bi, and so is Cheryl, they cannot express their legally protected sexual orientation with just Bob and Cheryl. They need a third. Wait, they need a fourth. Bob needs a guy, and Cheryl needs a gal. That’s four people in one marriage. Like one water molecule has three atoms, except there are four atoms in this Marriage molecule.
4 People in 1 Marriage
In other words, “couple” cannot be a necessary condition of marriage. Bisexual marriage has its needs.
But, Marriage has always meant “couple,” right?
Well, yeah. But then again, Marriage has always meant “guy and a gal” too, up until recently that is, when we were informed that Marriage Equality is more important than holding onto discriminatory Tradition.
And, it’s pretty clear that requiring Marriage to be a “couple” discriminates against bisexuals expressing bisexuality as spouses. By the way, how many in the LGBT community are marching for Bisexual Marriage?
It was claimed in In Re Marriage Cases that sexual orientation is like race. Some races can’t be more equal than others, right? Well, then the same goes for sexual orientations. But, as of right now, “Marriage Equality” appears to mean some sexual minorities are more equal than others.
Homosexuality is a marriage-ready sexual minority.
And bisexuality?
Bisexuality’s place in this new Jim Crow of “Marriage-Separate-but-Equal-Equality” is to shut up, be separate, barefoot, and illegitimately pregnant in the kitchen.
LOL…you are so funny.
A ramble of many tangents in which I offer some humble thoughts:
I think bisexuals are generally not the most well-liked, in the sense that both camps often want them to just “Choose a Side, Already.” Whereas the bisexual is more like, “The person I fall in love with, I fall in love with, gender notwithstanding.” Which, if you really want to put somebody in a sexual-orientation box, can be quite annoying!
Also, just by way of gentle correction (ahem, lol), marriage has not always meant guy and gal (whether you are reading the Bible or studying human history at large). And it certainly has not always meant, “one guy, one gal, and we choose to marry because we have fallen in love” Not even close! This whole love thing is a new kid on the block. The point being, if we want to go with historical marriage norms, then our current societally accepted norm of what marriage means will fly right out the window.
On bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc, etc, one psychologist that I am friends with once said that “human sexuality is not a box, so stop trying to make everybody fit in one.” I liked that, personally.
People generally don’t thrive in boxes. (Sure, we can have our own particular religious beliefs, but our particular beliefs cannot inform what other people are and are not, or do and do not choose, or feel or do not feel).
As far as individual sexuality, using an example most here can probably relate to, heterosexual women have different partner preferences, for example. Short men, tall men, bald men, hairy men, intellectual men, jock men, nerd men, jerky men, nice men, religious men, farm dude men, etc, etc, etc… A woman may be heterosexual, but may or may not not be *attracted* to all different kinds of men. Each heterosexual woman is going to have a completely unique and different kind of chemistry that works for her, and vice versa.
So I think that those who argue that allowing for gay rights is too complicating for our society should probably remember that heterosexuality is pleeeenty complicated itself. Anyone who disagrees should spend some time in divorce court or as a fly on the wall in a sex therapists office. Egads. Therefore a sometimes-complicated sexual orientation is no reason to not allow an individual citizen to have basic state recognition and protection for their lifelong committed relationships. If it is, we should definitely not let heterosexuals have state protection for their committed relationships!
We are complicated, we human beings.
This is why I think that affording basic civil rights to all of us (complicated image-bearers that we are) seems to me…kind of basic.
Hi Molly.
Thanks for your comment. I always enjoy reading them.
I will be brief in my response to clarify and perhaps push back a little (if I may?)–:). I am pushing you to be a little more clear, for my sake, your sake, and other readers.
When you ride a bicycle, do you ride “either” tire, or “both” at the same time?
“Bi” means “both,” not “either.”
The APA never uses the word “either” to define bisexuality. “Both” is the word. That’s because “Bi” means both. Bicycle. Both tires.
This basic point is the heart of biaphobia.
There is a common misunderstanding (at least in my experience with this argument). The misunderstanding is about the nature of bisexuality as it relates to the legal definition of marriage in California. Legal definitions not only allow, they restrict. All legal definitions do this.
Your second paragraph mis-defines bisexuality. You seem to assume–I could be totally wrong about this, and if so, I’m sorry and will gladly retreat–that bisexuality is a way station on the tracks to “either” a homosexual relationship with 1 other person–homosexuality–or a heterosexual relationship with 1 other person, and one has to choose “either”, cuz one can’t have “both.” (if I am misreading you, please correct).
That is not how the APA defines bisexuality. The APA definition is the one relied upon by the Courts. I have read their Amici Curiae for those cases. Judge Vaughn Walker, in his FF 42, makes the same assumption you seem to make. He misquotes the APA definition of bisexuality, and seems to rely on that to make his biaphobic ruling. (He correctly quotes APA in FF 43, but proceeds to ignore the logical consequence).
Here are a couple of thoughts. Let’s say:
(1) one thinks Marriage should be legally defined to allow for heterosexuality and homosexuality in the Marriage Bed. If so, then one is a Same-Sex Marriage advocate (should vote no on Prop 8).
(2) one thinks that Marriage should be legally restricted to a couple–not 1, not 3+, but 2 spouses. If so, then one only supports the expression of the hetero or homosexual act in the Marriage Bed (between spouses), to the exclusion of the bisexual act from the Marriage Bed.
And, that means the bisexual act–sex with both (not either)–is not a Marriage Bed act, and that is a biaphobic stance, according to my argument.
It’s ok, most Same-sex Marriage advocates are biaphobic. If you support (1) and (2), you are safe, in the majority. My first sentence says this.
–Also, I don’t recall saying what you corrected me on. I worded it much more carefully. Please go back to my original wording and see if you agree with that. I would be curious to see what you think.
Feel free to push back. I like it. Thanks for taking my blog seriously but not getting upset about it. Many people turn off their brains and stop thinking (on all three sides).
Cheers,
LJE, #3
LOL, fun.
*Attracted* to both, NOT *requiring* both (at the same time). Right? Oriented towards both genders.
It was a misunderstanding, regarding my second paragraph. I was attempting to talk about the people who WANT the bisexuals to just choose one or the other orientation. Whereas the point is, their orientation is different from the hetero or the homo.
So your thought is that the bisexual must have both, at the same time? I don’t agree. The hetero is also attracted to both…both this cute woman and that cute woman…oooh, and that one too! But the hetero does not have to try to get with all of those women at the same time.
The hetero can have multiple attractions within his orientation…but what he chooses to do with those attractions is his own choice. Likewise, the bisexual can have multiple attractions…but what he chooses to do about those attractions is his own choice. Bisexual refers to orientation…and I think you are talking about acts. (Am I hearing you correctly)?
And sorry for correcting you on something that you didn’t say.
But let me explain, because here’s what I read,
But, Marriage has always meant “couple,” right?
Well, yeah. But then again, Marriage has always meant “guy and a gal” too, up until recently that is, when we were informed that Marriage Equality is more important than holding onto discriminatory Tradition.
So I thought you were saying that most feel marriage has “always” meant “couple,” and that marriage has “always” meant “guy and a gal.” Whereas, historically, it hasn’t always meant either.
Molly, I think here you are conflating type with particulars. To be attracted to many particulars of the same type is not the same as being attracted to two different types.
It seems from Prof Everett’s point drawn from the APA, a bisexual is restricted from full sexual expression and commitment to his or her attractive types. A heterosexual and homosexual become the privileged class…lucky for them.
Logically, either the APA is wrong or bisexuals are discriminated against in the same-sex marriage argument.
Hence, the same-sex argument either needs to overturn the APA or broaden marriage beyond a couple. Both are a hard sell… So people get left out and not acknowledged. Talk about civil rights! Same-sex marriage proposals, from what Everett is saying, relies on the authority of the APA and conveniently ignores the APA when not politically convenient.
Hmmm…I read the APA link given a few times over…and I’m just not seeing what you are both seeing.
Looking at it another way, the bisexual, if not allowed to marry two individuals (one for each preference), is being forced to choose which “side” of his/her sexuality to fulfill in marriage. This is what the current proposed redefinition of marriage leads to when applied to bisexuals. To insist that marriage be restricted to couples is to deny bisexuals the right to fulfill their orientation within the covenant of marriage. To force them to choose is, as prof Everett has pointed out, “biaphobic”…
A.T.
I can’t help but think that you all should probably talk to some bisexuals. The kind of bisexuals who are into committed lifelong relationships.
Because, I have to say that this feels sort of like when non-Christians tell you what Christians really feel or really say. And you, as a Christian, are kind of like, “Uh…no…that’s not actually how it is…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality
Wiki on bisexuality, too.
Hey Molly,
Check this out–this is clear, I think.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
Search “either.” Search “both.”
Hi Molly,
Regarding your comment that we should talk to some bisexuals: There are a few assumptions behind that one. It sounded to me like an underhanded personal slight.
To me, given my experience. Why did you have to personalize it? and refer to my personal experience? You don’t know what my experience is or isn’t. You don’t know my family history. My own sexual orientation. That kind of thing can be hurtful, especially when you don’t give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Here is my advice: Assume that I am not lacking in personal experience.
Besides, it is not really relevant to the issue at hand. One can take a position on the merits of my argument without getting personal.
Many gay men are married to women. They married women. Vice versa, too.
They weren’t allowed to express their sexual orientation in Marriage.
Boom. My point, exactly.
No underhanded slight at all. For realsies.
Not intended, anyway, and I apologize if it came across that way. I have been enjoying this conversation and my words are typed in the tone of friendly-coffee-shop-style-discussion at a table, sipping on a large mocha. (Mmmmm…hm, that sounds really good). 
I have known people who identify as bisexuals and I have never known one to say that they *need* both genders in a marriage or in a relationship in order to feel satisfied. Or that they need both genders at once to feel satisfied. Or that they need both genders at all to feel satisfied. Rather, it seems that they are attracted to certain human beings who attract them, gender notwithstanding. (Whereas the heterosexual is attracted to certain human beings who attract them, but only within the opposite sex category).
So it seemed like (SEEMED like) you were saying that in order to feel sexually satisfied, a bisexual must experience both genders…and I was thinking that a conversation with some bisexuals, or, shoot, maybe a survey or a research project or something, was in order.
But, also in response to your comment, I do think it’s fair to ask what one’s personal experiences have been (without being accused of personal slight), only in the sense that, well, Christians have said a LOT of things authoritatively about people that are outside of their camp…and it’s fair to ask if they’ve actually had any experiences with said people or people groups.
As an example, I was just watching a Veggie Tales last night with one of my kids and the show was telling little kids about these people called “pagans” and how pagans prayed to tree branches and then they did a little bit where a vegetable character is off praying to a branch sticking out of the ground, and it really annoyed me. Because it’s a real mischaracterizing of a whole people group (so very easy to do, always easy to make another group look petty, stupid, or evil) in order to make ones own group look good. My kids have a good friend who calls himself a pagan. And that’s not what he does. Nor is that in any way representative of pagans. It’s a great way to make pagans look like idiots, though.
And since conversations about gay rights tend to involve Christians painting non-heterosexuals as petty, stupid or evil (or any other descriptive term you might like to use, as long as it’s negative), it’s fair to ask if that particular people group in question has any voice in a conversation like this, or if they are being represented by someone who is saying, “This is what they are saying,” but isn’t necessarily going to be someone that THEY would recognize as accurately representing their voice.
Does that make sense? Nothing personal at all about it. No slights intended, whatsoever. Just something that I feel is important, and an area where I think we mess up a lot (and in so doing, make a lot of “outside” groups really mad at us, and rightfully so).
Dale, you’ve got some great sentences in this reply. Thanks. Punchy without being violent.
Molly, I think here you are conflating type with particulars. To be attracted to many particulars of the same type is not the same as being attracted to two different types.
Okay. I think I’m figuring out where the big divide is (the one that has LJE III seeing a very clever argument, yet has me scratching my head, hearing what he is saying, at least I think so, but not seeing the cleverness, lol).
This is where I think I differ, summed up in your quoted statement above, Dale. My opinion:
Human sexuality exists on a spectrum. We can parse it out, dissect it and divide it up, for purposes of study, research and the like. But whether it is actually dissectible is up for debate.
A person may want to make types and in so doing, may find that easier to categorize, organize and attempt to analyze the sexuality of people. One way of doing that is by making types. And many people may very well fit into a category of types. So that may be a handy tool for studying the sexuality of some people. But when it comes to the sexuality of some other people, it may not work very well at all. For those people, there are no types, there are only particulars. If the particulars are right (or the chemistry, or the personality, etc), then the attraction is there. What gender that attractive person has does not factor into whether or not the person is eligible for being attractive. (Which is not to say that the gender does not matter).
Many bisexuals would fall into a description like this. The type, for the bisexual, is human being. The particulars (what particular things make one person attractive and another person not attractive) are then as unique as each bisexual is unique.
If this is true, then the person who is bisexual can make a lifetime commitment, if so desired, to another person, without sacrificing the expression of her bisexuality in that commitment. Her bisexuality is expressed in her choice to make a lifetime commitment to the person (male or female) that she felt was worth committing herself to, because that person is her type (human being).
Hi Molly,
If I am a bisexual and I am being forced to express only 1 part of my sexual orientation because of the 2-person requirement of traditional marriage, this means that I would be suppressing the other part of my sexual orientation for the rest of my life. If I choose a same-sex relationship than I am suppressing the heterosexual part of my orientation, and vice versa. How fair and equal is that??
Suppressing a part of my actual orientation (type) would be much different than suppressing the particulars. The TYPE is much closer to the core identity of the person than the particulars (skinny, tall, short, blond, blue eyes).
Let’s say I am a bisexual and I’m in a consensual 3-way bisexual relationship, and we all want to get married in 1 marriage. Let’s say this is on a ballot- how would you vote?
Heather
Hey Molly,
You said, above:
“So your thought is that the bisexual must have both, at the same time? I don’t agree. The hetero is also attracted to both…both this cute woman and that cute woman…oooh, and that one too! But the hetero does not have to try to get with all of those women at the same time.”
No I am not saying that first sentence.
I am absolutely NOT saying that “the bisexual MUST have both, at the same time.”
The word “must” is completely out of place. I am not sure where you got that from my blog.
I am not saying any person MUST have anything.
Recall, I phrase it more carefully than that.
I said, “Bisexuality has it’s needs.” I said bisexuals are NOT ALLOWED to express bisexuality in marriage. Please don’t confuse “not allowed” with “must.” I never said “must.” I never implied anyone “must” do anything.
So, are you for this restriction: NOT ALLOWING any bisexuals anywhere, by force of law, who want to, to express bisexuality in marriage? Yes, or no? You are not very clear. Please articulate a stance on that.
If yes, why? On what basis?
Whatever basis you give will be something that conservatives have used to beat down gay marriage for decades.
And it will be biaphobic.
Bisexuality gets the shaft.
Bisexuality is not welcome in the Marriage Bed. When Homosexuality was not welcome in the Marriage Bed, that was called “homophobia.” Bisexuality is just as legitimate, distinct, unchosen, unalterable, deeply rooted in a person’s identity, and just as connected with civil rights, just as legally protected now, as homo or hetersexuality. And yet it is barred from the Marriage Bed.
The sexual orientation is protected. But, it is not allowed in the legal definition of Marriage. Because of Biaphobia, a latent hatred and fear of bisexuality.
Conservatives never claimed to be for Marriage Equality. But “progressives” did. Hence, progressives who deny that If Homosexual Marriage must be legal, then Bisexual Marriage must be legal,” are hungry hungry hippo-crits.
It strikes me that whatever one says about those annoying conservatives (the non-hateful ones), hypocrisy is not part of their position on Marriage.
Or, am I wrong there? What do you think? Push back…
LOL…
Don’t have the inclination to wade into this much farther. You may be making a point. I think it’s kind of overboard. I don’t see the point the way that you see it…I’m not seeing it at all, actually. But it’s funny, too, and that is always a treat.
My personal position is that people should form lifelong commitments with whoever they want to. I really don’t care, as long as we attempt, as a society, to promote, encourage and help relationships be healthy and happy.
As for answering your question below, I was referring to the Bible’s regular reference to polygamy, etc., as well as human history. Marriage between one-man-one-woman is not “normative.” Just like marriage-for-love is not “normative.” Marriage between same-age mates is also not “normative.” Marriage between equals is also not “normative.” There are a whole heck of a lot of assumptions made about “traditional marriage” that aren’t traditional at all, in the scope of human history, but are very very new things.
Polygamy in the Bible is always one man, one woman, per marriage.
Poly = many
Gamos = Marriage
Many marriages. Each one has 2 people: a guy and a gal.
So, your source of authority for what is normative is_______?
Ah. I suppose if that’s how it is defined, then I am technically wrong on that one. (Here is where I am also glad I am not in a polygamist marriage)!
However, the actual *practice* of polygamy still involves a group of people in a marriage vow…because they are all in it together. A team of people, living out their marriage vows together in an intimate way. It’s waaaay the heck more groupish than today’s view of what one-man-one-woman means.
However, the other comments about what is normative do stand. And the point there is just that what we consider normative is not solid. It shifts and moves with the culture, the mindset and with the survival needs of the time. I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we think that our current definition of traditional marriage is a bastion that has not been affected by culture, worldview, philosophy and needs.
Molly,
What is your source of information for your last sentence of this comment I am replying to here?
I need more than just your authority for that one. That’s a whopper.
One of the most common arguments against affording civil rights to gay and lesbian couples is that it would complicate everything too much. And, if I am reading right, you are saying the same thing…the idea of, “where do we draw the line?” But that presupposes that heterosexual relationships aren’t complicated…but they so are…
And it also brings up basic civil rights. I mean, “if we let the blacks drink from our water fountains, next they’ll be marrying our daughters!” It was a real argument, used to maintain the so-called “separate-but-equal” mindset. We like our lines. We like knowing where stuff is. We like having some sense of control. And, hey, that’s fair. But lines should never be held at the expense of basic civil rights. And denying homosexual couples the ability to commit for a life together (and thus be legally protected under the law when that spouse dies–pension, retirement, property, etc), when everything we are learning says that orientation is not a conscious choice one makes, seems so strange. A homosexual will be a homosexual, period. So isn’t it to society’s benefit to grant legal protection status to those who commit to a partner for life? Doesn’t that make society a more stable place?
The argument that it is too complicated doesn’t work for me. Especially when, holy smokes, heterosexual relationships are incredibly complicated. Shoot, maybe we should just outlaw marriage altogether!
Morning ramblings…and only half way through my first cup of coffee, too!
Hi Molly:
This has some clarity to it, but it still isn’t clear as a comment on my blog.
It sounds like you have the separate but equal mentality on Marriage.
Bisexuality, drink from a “non-marriage” drinking fountain.
Marriage Equality, Plessy-style.
?
I don’t think I have the mentality you think I do. But, I think that comes from a different way of thinking about human sexuality. I realize your way feels very clear and straight-forward to you. I guess I just…see things differently.
Warmly, as always,
Molly
My mistake, then.
I definitely do not want any hard feelings between us, Molly. It is difficult to tell through the print medium. And of course I don’t know you personally, so that doesn’t help any
It’s not about “my way” (funny that you called it “straight”) or the highway. Not at all. If you don’t have the segregation mentality, ok then. I miss read it
A lot of really nice white people were segregationists. Heck, a lot of really nice black people were segregationists. I could give you examples, if you want.
What I meant was: there were separate but equal drinking fountains. And whites thought that was actually equality (some blacks did too, and didn’t want anything to do with the white section, because it was dangerous).
That was Plessy-style Equality, referring to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which was the US Supreme Ct case that allowed the Separate But Equal doctrine, which had to do with whether blacks could share trains in transportation in that case.
We now look back on Plessy and say that that wasn’t really Equal. It was Equal in Name only.
So, like I said in the blog–there are 2 types of Same Sex Marriage Advocates–those who think that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality have their own Marriage Drinking Fountain (the couple requirement), and Bisexuality has it’s own Separate “Domestic Partnership” drinking fountain.
The law protects all 3 sexual orientations the same, and should treat each sexual orientation equally. In Re Marriage Cases (May 2008) said that sexual orientation is like race. Like Harlan said in his Dissent to Plessy: A Chinese man can sit next to a white on a train, but a black man can’t. All races are equal? No.
Many bisexuals are like the blacks who thought that separate but equal is really equality. But, there are bisexuals out there (or, not “out” there, if you know what I mean), who see that this is not really Equality. It is separate but equal equality.
Any one can see that, if they wanted to, is my view.
You seem to be a Same Sex Marriage advocate. It seems that you are one type or the other–one who would vote to stand in the way of Progress, or not. I was trying to get you to state which side you were on, that’s all. Since it seemed like you were committed to the couple requirement in marriage, it seemed like you were standing in the way of Progress. You are for tradition, and are actually taking a stand for a conservative view, in that case. Or, maybe you don’t know what side you are on yet, because you would like more time to think about it, or don’t believe in voting, or …prefer not to state your views, or whatever.
Your statements sound very tolerant, but there are limits to your tolerance.
Its a shame we can’t meet in person and talk about this. I’m sure you are a great person, and I was honestly interested in getting your perspective clearly stated–You have thought a lot about stuff–not sure it was all on topic. It was a little frustrating trying to sort out what you thought about what I took to be the very heart of the matter–what I was calling “Biaphobia” (the segregationist view).
Warmly,
LJ
This is great argument, Mr. Everett. By using the definition that includes same-sex unions, it appears the 2 person limit to marriage is logically indefensible and is, therefore, discriminatory; that is, to limit marriage to a “couple”, it logically follows that it discriminates against bi-sexuals…
1) How strong of case is this for “traditional” marriage, i.e. man/woman union?
2) Why not reserve “marriage” for the private sphere, while in the public sphere everyone gets a “civil union”. By your argument, it would seem that civil unions could not limit the number of units in the union…
3) What of the person who has sexual preferences for children? That is their “orientation”, so why should we discriminate against them? Is the current definition of marriage also pedophobic?
A.T.
1. As long as “traditional” is understood to be what our particular culture considers is traditional. Not historically or Biblically.
2. I personally really like this option. Might be easiest, for the sake of simplicity, to limit civil unions to two people. But, then again, maybe not. I dunno.
3. This conflates the argument, in my mind. We are talking about consenting adults. Not children. I mean, most pedophiles are adult heterosexuals. And we have laws against that because children cannot give full consent. Adults wanting to “marry” children who can NOT give full consent is not the same discussion as same-sex adults wanting to have legal protection for their lifelong commitments.
My musing thoughts…interesting conversation, always.
Dear A.T.,
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This argument has been a brewin for a few years. I have tried it out on about 2,000 people. Not everyone likes it (e.g., hateful, hypocritical, “progressives” in denial of their biaphobia).
Regarding your (1):
I think the best case for traditional marriage occurs when conservatives become non-hateful proponents of what they actually believe, and vote that way consistently. Marriage is the way it is because God made it that way. Gen 1:26-27. Something along that line, perhaps less crude, more nuanced, etc.
Regarding your (2): That is the way it was before the Civil War. After the Civil War, when the Republicans abolished slavery and wrote and ratified the 13-15th Amendments, the National Powers became more and more enmeshed and eventually over-powered the states. There are different ways to tell the story, and it is difficult to tell (the national govt had many powers already, read John Marshall’s opinions in the Bank Case, regulating commerce, War Powers, etc). Of course, my favorite: Jefferson doubled the size of the country without a single provision of the Constitution supporting that action (in fact, in violation of it, since it was an expenditure that was not approved by Congress at the time of the transaction). No one complained because we got more land. Yay.
It will never happen. But it is a logically/philosophically coherent position. I would love to see it in writing. But, yeah, it will never happen unless everyone becomes Tea Partiers. And AARP and the Unions will never allow it.
Regarding your (3): That is illegal. But then again, so is marrying yourself. The APA took homosexuality off of its list of personality disorders in the 1970′s. And I’ve heard the DSM-V has gotten rid of Naricism. So, maybe one will be able to marry oneself in the future.
Many people have already had sex with themselves. Maybe some of us should stop cheating on ourselves with other people, and make that commitment.
As far as children?
It will never happen. Pedaphilia is not a legally protected sexual orientation according to the APA. Apparently, NAMBLA has not been able to influence them.
However, what is the age of consent? It used to be lower. But then again, children had to grow up faster in times past. Now, adolescence lasts into the mid-20′s. We sacntion the extenstion of childhood–we coddle them. College is for many a way to not be an adult for a few more years.
But, yes, pedaphilia is disgusting and morally reprehensible, and should be legally outlawed.
Hi Molly,
If I am a bisexual and I am being forced to express only 1 part of my sexual orientation because of the 2-person requirement of traditional marriage, this means that I would be suppressing the other part of my sexual orientation for the rest of my life. If I choose a same-sex relationship than I am suppressing the heterosexual part of my orientation, and vice versa. How fair and equal is that??
Suppressing a part of my actual orientation (type) would be much different than suppressing the particulars. The TYPE is much closer to the core identity of the person than the particulars (skinny, tall, short, blond, blue eyes).
Let’s say I am a bisexual and I’m in a consensual 3-way bisexual relationship, and we all want to get married in 1 marriage. Let’s say this is on a ballot- how would you vote?
Heather
I will repeat from an above comment, keeping in mind that these are my thoughts, as of right now, from what I have read and learned and mused upon…and this is why I do not agree with the premise that the article is built upon…hopefully it will make some sense (which doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it, of course…just that it somehow can be communicated):
Human sexuality exists on a spectrum. We can parse it out, dissect it and divide it up, for purposes of study, research and the like. But whether it is actually dissectible is up for debate.
A person may want to make types and in so doing, may find that easier to categorize, organize and attempt to analyze the sexuality of people. One way of doing that is by making types. And many people may very well fit into a category of types. So that may be a handy tool for studying the sexuality of some people. But when it comes to the sexuality of some other people, it may not work very well at all. For those people, there are no types, there are only particulars. If the particulars are right (or the chemistry, or the personality, etc), then the attraction is there. What gender that attractive person has does not factor into whether or not the person is eligible for being attractive. (Which is not to say that the gender does not matter).
Many bisexuals would fall into a description like this. The type, for the bisexual, is human being. The particulars (what particular things make one person attractive and another person not attractive) are then as unique as each bisexual is unique.
If this is true, then the person who is bisexual can make a lifetime commitment, if so desired, to another person, without sacrificing the expression of her bisexuality in that commitment. Her bisexuality is expressed in her choice to make a lifetime commitment to the person (male or female) that she felt was worth committing herself to, because that person is her type (human being).
Ok, I think I got it.
Molly, please feel free to correct me if I am getting this wrong: You would force bisexuals to choose male or female. You are for the couple requirement in marriage. Not for 3-ways or 4-way Marriages.
Ok. Clarity over agreement, as Dennis Prager says.
So, you don’t disagree with my blog. My blog says that by a margin of 8 to 1, Same Sex Marriage advocates feel this way. I said that in the first paragraph.
Warmly,
LJ
Nope.
A. Because a bisexual can choose to be in a monogamous relationship with one other person (no forcing required). And,
B. Because the couple requirement for marriage goes against traditional marriage.
I am probably a Libertarian on this issue, as of right now. I don’t see a problem with people deciding to commit to live their lives together in lifelong committed relationships. If studies show that a particular committed-for-life arrangement is detrimental to the development of healthy adult members of society (ie, this kind of relationship is well proven to hurt kids in serious ways), then it would behoove society and the state to discuss how to not encourage that particular form. But otherwise…why is it any of our business what consenting adults choose to do?
I think that when consenting adults seek to stabilize their relationships by committing for life, this is generally a good thing for all of us…better than serial relationships, you know? From a societal perspective, it seems wise to lean towards encouraging committed relationships over discouraging them. Committed relationships help keep a society stable, right? So I could care less if it’s a couple or not. I could care less if the Muslim or the fundamentalist Mormon wants to practice polygamy, as long as all are adults and are consenting. For example, through some friends, I know of a very happy non-religious plural marriage family, one man, three women, and lots of kids…and they love their life and appear very happy and healthy and goofy and thriving in their chosen arrangement… and…who am I to say they are wrong, especially in the face of so many miserable couples? The initial gut reaction I had, mind you, was to say…”Eek! You can’t do that,” because it was something new for me to observe…but…it’s really really hard to argue with happy. It’s not what *I* want, but it was what *they* wanted…and what works very well for them. It certainly gave me a LOT to think about. I could care less if, say, pagans want to practice polyamory in fidelity, as long as all are adults and consenting. My Libertarianishness (lol) leans towards believing that personal relationships between consenting adults are none of my business, as long as children aren’t being hurt, murder isn’t being committed, etc.
Those who have religious beliefs for or against various relationships, let them expound and believe and practice or not practice the form of committed relationships that they wish, but it seems overboard to push those religious beliefs on others when the country is not supposed to favor any one religion over another. As for discussing how it would all work out legally, I don’t know. But I do know that business partnerships take place all the time with two or more members.
So I currently claim a position than falls somewhere on the Libertarian spectrum. To me, it seems the most respectful of my fellow humans. Which, honestly, is really what it comes down to for me.
What is your position?
Btw, it’s hard to be asked about one’s position on something like this, because it is such a hot button issue. Disagreeing with the anti-gay-marriage-rights group is often akin to being told you aren’t possibly a Christian, and/or you should be burned at the stake. So I wasn’t being coy. Just not sure if I wanted to risk getting a whole bunch of BR readers convinced I am straight up evil (pun intended, lol). Because the kind of Christian camp I partially hail from is one that tooootally thinks they can and should have the right to tell fellow members what they should and shouldn’t do with their lives, how they should do it, specific steps, etc., often with the view that one’s standing with God is at stake. (Think of parenting philosophies like Growing Kids God’s Way or the Biblical patriarchy movement, etc).
I mean, dude, if I can have my salvation questioned for openly wondering if the post-modern movement might have some positives for us all to consider, or if birth control is okay to use, then surely not towing the line by demanding that gay people forgo legal protection for their lifelong committed relationships will tooootally get me in trouble. So…just sayin’.
It is, in great part, due to experiences of having others tell me what (*they* felt, though they claimed it was God, ha) God did and did not want me to do with *my* life, when it did not follow the paint-by-numbers script I was given by them to follow, that I strongly believe it is important that we respect our fellow adult human beings and allow them to make choices for their lives without our noses being constantly in their business. Love respects. You can’t have love without respect.
I am a biman in a relationship with a biwoman. But when I first started dating her I was also dating a gay man. Eventually it hit a point of “who will it be” and I just told them both I loved them and didn’t care if it went on forever. My girlfriend was all for it but my boyfriend wasn’t. He said well “Who would you marry?” I told him in the state of Illinois I could legally marry my woman but also get a civil union contract with him! He laughed but I was quite serious. He is still a friend and who knows maybe we will all get married.
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your comment, and thanks for reading.
Sorry it took so long to get back with you.
Oh dear, what a conundrum… stuff I never pondered before…
Dear Cindy,
Indeed.
Thanks for reading.
Interesting: And supports my first paragraph of this blog post, above
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/same-sex-marriage-campaigners-distance-themselves-from-polyamorists-demands/story-fn59niix-1226366157709
Another interesting one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/#.T8jrMCGKy8c.twitter
We need to incorporate this into a discussion of marriage as it relates to religion and sexual orientation.
Wow.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
The above is about a devout Mormon, married for 10 years, and identifies as homosexual. He wrote it with his wife. Discusses family life
Here’s an interesting development in social science data and Supreme Court relevance:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5634
I like this, Everett. A lot. And thank goodness for emoticons when navigating a conversation like this online.
Thanks Sarah. I’m not a huge emoticon junky, but that may be because recently I’ve lost a lot of weight. This is a topic I’ve presented to hundreds of college students (probably thousands at this point). So, I’ve gotten a sense for how the dialogue goes, or how it should go when we thinking our best. (BTW, I think my wife and I walked right by you on Sunday). Thanks for the comment. I just clicked your name and it sent me to your post about your dad and the fleas. Nice. See you around. LJEV
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when you present this argument to your students. I may try it out on my students. I used one of your PH articles in one of my courses last semester. It really helped a number of my students—some of them even quoted it in their essays!
Can you, by chance, divulge where you might have seen me on Sunday? I would love to say hi if it happens again.
And thanks for checking out the ol’ blog.
California Bill would allow a child to have more than 2 parents:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12543099-california-bill-would-allow-children-to-have-more-than-two-parents?lite
Anyways, 3 person civil union now legal in Brazil. The next move is to call that “marriage”–especially if you read it in light of Finding of Fact #54 (also 52-53) in Judge Walker’s Perry v. Schwarzeneneggar’s decision overturning Prop. 8 in 2010 in California.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508
Put 82 in the nytimes page box to get to the correct page number.
http://documents.nytimes.com/us-district-court-decision-perry-v-schwarzenegger
And, again, from the UK Guardian: “Why shouldn’t three people get married?”
I called it a LONG time ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple?fb=optOut
Pay careful attention to this development, especially the language of discrimination, discrete, distinct identity as a class, and “equitable acceptance”–those are marriage policy predictors for the Marriage Equality movement’s next step of
development, one I predicted a long time ago (I don’t think I get credit for its development, I’m not that powerful–I am prescient on it, though).
Here is one of the set of articles on the city of Berkeley officially acknowledging Bisexual Day:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/berkeley-becomes-first-us-city-to-declare-bisexual-pride-day-support-marginalized-group/2012/09/18/8556fd92-0208-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=Berkeley+bisexual&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/berkeley-bisexual-pride-day_n_1900566.html
From the Salon article: “And while bisexuals are part of the acronym that makes up the LGBT rainbow, some activists protest that gays are some of their harshest critics.
“They think we have `straight privilege,’ and we hide in that,” Martin Rawlings-Fein, a director of the Bay Area Bisexual Network, told the Chronicle. “We get pushed to the side in the LGBT community and told we don’t exist, that we’re actually gay or lesbian and just not totally `out.’”
The resolution approved Tuesday states, “While many advancements have been made with respect to equitable acceptance of bisexual people in our nation, the bisexual community remains a distinct one from the gay community and seeks acceptance as such “–In http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/berkeley_founds_first_official_bisexual_pride_day/
It seems to me that if a bisexual man or woman feels they will probably want to switch up partners often because their orientation isn’t satisfied with one gender, they probably shouldn’t get married. What’s the point? Maybe just give a ring to show their level of commitment for the time they choose to stay with this person. Or maybe register it as a civil union to avoid the complications of divorce every time they want a change.
Now if three or more people want to be in a relationship together simultaneously, that’s a different issue. I can see the definition of marriage expanded in the future to allow for this.
Hi Peter,
You may benefit from this argument about what Marriage is, before figuring out whether it is something that can be expanded:
http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/01/what-is-marriage
Enjoy!
L. James Everett, III.,
I’m not saying that I want marriage to be redefined and I’m not saying that marriage should be redefined. What I’m saying is that I can see marriage being redefined in the near future as the majority of Americans move further and further away from morals you and I see as true and right.
In spite of its long history, and in spite of the negative consequences that would follow redefinition, the definition of marriage can be changed. Those who desire a lifelong union with a single partner of the opposite sex could still have it; expanding the definition wouldn’t outlaw this.
Of course, calling it “polyamory”–which is a stupid word–disguises the view that it is a possible marriage combination. And if it is a possible marriage combination, then, by the Court’s reasoning in Perry v. Schwarzeneggar (2010), it must be allowable by law.
I won’t say I told you so, but I told you so.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-sexual-revolution-polyamory
Check this clip out. Compare the hostility and hypocritical biaphobia in the hosts with the patience of the interviewee.
http://www.iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/default.aspx?ClipID=45b5d160-24a4-4b14-a2eb-1d5190d4d2a4&PN=knAdm5ZmNA9ignlucXtDRA%3D%3D