Comments on: Marriage as a “Couple” Discriminates Against Bisexuality (You Biaphobes!) - by L. James Everett, III.

By: L. James Everett, III.

L. James Everett, III. — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:55:45 +0000

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

By: L. James Everett, III.

L. James Everett, III. — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:24:14 +0000

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

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:04:20 +0000

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.

By: L. James Everett, III.

L. James Everett, III. — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:49:26 +0000

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!

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:42:38 +0000

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.