melon said:
This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:
It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.
That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.
Thank you.
The notion that bisexuals need to marry two people to be emotionally and sexually fulfilled is bizarre, at best.
In theory, marriage is a legal, sexual and emotional commitment to one person. If you need to involve more than one person in a marriage scenario, then bisexual people (or people of any sexual orientation, really) shouldn't marry, they should fulfill their needs by dating more than one person.
The best analogy I could come up with is, what if, hypothetically, a straight person didn't feel fulfilled as a sexual being unless s/he took part in two different sexual acts, but it was impossible to find an opposite-sex partner who would perform both acts? Well, this person would either suck it up and make due with just the one act within marriage with one person, or seek out the two acts with two different people without marriage. You could use the same analogy with any personal trait - your ideal person needs to have two different traits for you to be fully emotionally fulfilled, but you can't find them within one person? You date two people, then. Seems pretty simple to me. If you need something that you can only get from two people, don't get married. This holds true for all orientations.
Also, the argument that bisexual people are at an advantage because they can still marry an opposite sex partner strikes me as kind of irrelevant. Certainly, they can be sexually and emotionally satisfied by either sex, but we all know that finding someone to commit to for a lifetime is far more complex than that. What if the person they do meet and want to take that step with is of the same sex? The fact that they can marry someone of the opposite sex isn't really helpful then if that's not who they want to commit to, is it?
Besides, are there any bisexual people who even
want to marry two people?
I suspect that outside of this new poster's mind, it's really not an issue.
ETA:
Diemen said:
To me it would be no different than arguing that since heterosexual Jim is attracted to both Jane and Jill, that he should be able to marry both, so it seems like you're really arguing for polygamy before anything else.
We were posting at the same time, and you said essentially the same thing I'm saying.