Are there bisexual people who want to be in relationships with more than one person? Yes! There absolutely are! Nobody has denied that. Do all bisexual people want to be in a relationship with more than one person? No! Most bisexuals are happy with monogamous relationships. Do only bisexuals want to be in relationships with more than one person? No! Lots of heterosexuals and homosexuals also want to be in relationships with more than one person!
Therefore, because only some bisexuals want to be in relationships with more than one person, and because lots of non-bisexuals want to be in relationships with more than one person, laws forbidding relationships with more than one person are not prejudiced against bisexuals.
OK. I’m not trying to offend. But the word bisexual means something that is not meant by other terms or identitys. It is in the nature of the state being referred to that there are two distinct (potential) love objects. The leveling out of any possible causes for or consequences of this, so that one can say “everyone is the same all the time”, seems a little unrealistic to me, .
Well, no, that’s simply not correct. Bisexual just means “attracted to two genders.” It doesn’t mean “attracted to two people.” There’s a different word for that: polyamorous. Some bisexual people are also polyamorous, but not all. Many polyamorous people are not bisexual. Bisexual people may be statistically more likely to be polyamorous than other sexual orientations, but the distinction between the two groups is significant.
Could you just tell me what statement I made that was incorrect? I’m not made of straw here.
I said this: It is in the nature of the state being referred to that there are two distinct (potential) love objects.
Maybe my meaning wasn’t clear. I meant, to clarify, that “there are two distinct genders as (potential) love objects.” Which is exactly what you said. Which is exactly what I said…
I’m sure the rest of your position is true, but it isn’t arguing against anything I said.
I wonder how much of the (very small) demand would be fulfilled by allowing both one man several wives and one woman several husbands. If you do, I think rights would accrue to each partner, and if you did that the more complicated relationships would not be hard to handle. The real problem would be deciding how to balance the various rights, not the technicalities.
Interesting. Do you think this is a result of more recognition of women’s rights or fewer average men who can afford several wives?
Just like heterosexual or homosexual, it refers to the people that the person identified by that label is attracted to.
That that group is (potentially*) larger is not an actual difference in type.
Just like every heterosexual or homosexual isn’t necessarily attracted to every person of their preferred gender, every bi- (or pan-**) person is not necessarily attracted to everybody.
** The difference between bi and pan is a whole other kettle of fish.
I already said I’m not made of straw here so calm down. I said it means at least two distinct possible gender love object choices. (It may also be fluid).
Please tell me what I said that was incorrect. or why this is a controvertible point for you.
I can’t understand most of what you said after “No it doesn’t” but it doesn’t look familiar to my convo.
This sentence, literally, with no wiggle room, whatsoever, means that ‘bisexual does not simply refer to who you are attracted to’.
If you’re going to use some off the wall definition, which makes bisexual somehow different from heterosexual or homosexual, it is up to you to explain what you mean by it, it is not up to us to somehow figure out what you mean and then explain how you are wrong within the framework that you have established, rather than pointing out that, no, within the actual framework of the actual English language, as used by other people, that it is not, actually, something different.
It’s been stated clearly already. I would note that you are projecting things into what I said that are your baggage. You say “no wiggle room whatsoever” and proceed to put words (Quoting me actually!) in my mouth that I never have used. The onus would be on you. To actually read what I said and respond to that and not something else.
You, literally, said that ‘bisexual means something different than other identities’. You do not get to pretend that that doesn’t mean that ‘bisexual isn’t a word that refers to who the group is attracted to’. Because, that is exactly what it means.
This isn’t Looking-Glass Land, and you are not Humpty Dumpty. Words do not mean what you want them to mean, they mean what the actual real world consensus uses them to mean.
But, because I am nice, I will, once more, explain what that is.
A bisexual is a person who is attracted to other people, regardless of their gender.
A heterosexual is a person who is attracted to other people who are of the opposite gender.
A homosexual is a person who is attracted to other people of the same gender.
Literally the only difference between the three is that they are attracted to different (overlapping) groups.
So, do you actually care to try to define bisexual in a way that actually in line with that, but still, somehow, makes it ‘different’?
What argument to what end do you think you’re having? And with who? I am not a sexologist, but you are really tripping out on taxonomies, in service of nothing, seemingly. Good luck on your vision quest.
Look at your posts. These are the words you put into my mouth:
‘bisexual does not simply refer to who you are attracted to’.
The distinctions have been noted before and are not in dispute here, by me anyway. Unless you have an actual point to make.
Probably the former, combined with improved economic opportunity. If a young woman can find gainful employment or can be otherwise self-sufficient, being wife number 4 to some richer geriatric looks much less attractive.
I haven’t read anything else in this thread, but I’m just going to come out and say this: I have absolutely no issue with polygamous marriage.
Honestly, it’s probably good that I’m not a major figure in the gay marriage movement. Because whenever I’d be expected to say “gay marriage does not mean polygamy will be legal”, I’d want to say “yeah, sure, why not?”
You question where your words are being skewed. Here are some parts that most likely contributed to the view that others are holding of you (bolding and underlining added by me):
In the first quoted part you qualified with the word “many”, but your words in the second and third quoted parts strongly implied you define bisexuality as wanting simultaneous relationships with at least one man and at least one woman.
I was attempting to answer where that straw was originating from, since you genuinely seemed to not remember what you had previously typed. Just pointing out why you were initially being misunderstood. Heck, I was only able to figure out what you really think bisexuality entails after reading comment #99 of this thread.
There, now I will leave you alone since I have satisfied my urge to respond to an unanswered question. Bye bye.
I don’t get why this is confusing for some. Just start with the assumption that any human is capable of fucking any other human, then whittle it down by preference.
In fairness to Kamino Neko, it’s really difficult to understand what you’re talking about at any given time. I’ve been mostly responding to you based on guesswork and inference. Apparently I’m doing better at it than some, since I haven’t got a “Don’t put words in my mouth!” response, but Kamino’s reading is pretty easy to glean from what you’ve written here.
Anyway, getting back to the actual issue, you wrote:
“It is in the nature of the state being referred to that there are two distinct (potential) love objects.”
So, this describes pretty much everyone on the planet who has any sort of sex drive or interest in romantic relationships. Some people are lucky enough to meet a person who is perfect for them in every way. Most of us have to do some degree of settling. Maybe you like Cindy’s sense of humor enough to overlook the fact that she never went to college. Maybe Chet’s kindness and generosity makes up for the fact that he looks a bit like a shaved ass. Maybe you like Pat’s dedication to helping others enough to overlook that the two of you don’t share the same faith. Every time a person settles on spending the rest of their (monogamous) life with another person, they’re closing the door on having a relationship with people who are different in some way. Every time someone marries a Betty, they’re giving up on their shot at a Veronica. Bisexuals aren’t any different in this regard than anyone else - it’s just that we’re more flexible on a trait that, for most people, is non-negotiable.