Dr. Scott Lively is the founder and president of Defend the Family International and has been since 1997. An attorney, pastor and human-rights consultant, he has promoted and defended the biblical view of marriage and family in more than 30 countries. He is the author of five books, including "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party."More ↓Less ↑
The next time you’re at a “gay ‘ wedding with political, media or other important pro-gay-marriage celebrities, and one of them gets up with a glass of wedding punch to toast Partner A and Partner B for their courage to “be themselves,” here’s a question to shout out (in a feigned drunken slur) from the back: “Hey, Dude, why don’t you support bisexual marriage too? Are you some kind of bigot?”
Chances are if you’re reading this article, you’re not the sort of person likely to be found at such an event, but the point is that bisexual marriage is the very last thing that any of our opponents want to discuss, and we pro-family conservatives should really be forcing them to do it at every opportunity.
Think about it. A bisexual marriage would require an absolute minimum of four people. You’d have same-sex partners A and B just like in the “gay marriage,” but you’d also need to have a heterosexual partner for both A and B.
You couldn’t get by with the same heterosexual partner for both A and B since that would mean Partner C wasn’t really a bisexual, but a polygamous heterosexual. (And we all know from “gay” activist rhetoric that polygamy can’t be a true sexual orientation. There’s never been a P in LGBT!)
So, for example. Male Bisexual Partner A would be partners with both Male Bisexual Partner B and Female Bisexual Partner C, While Male bisexual Partner B would be partners with Male Bisexual Partner A and Female Bisexual Partner D.
I know it’s confusing, but bear with me because this is important stuff. We’re talking essential human and civil rights for one of the four key groups in the LGBT community! In fact, one could argue that bisexuals are the most important sexual minority because they are the most neglected, even more than T’s (transvestites and transsexuals). No one ever seems to talk about the rights of the Bs, not even their fellow Ls, Gs, and Ts.
Lets try it again with real names. We start with a bisexual base couple Albert and Bob. Albert chooses Carla as his female bisexual partner, and Bob chooses Dorothy. That’s four people in the “marriage.”
But here’s where the real confusion comes in. Suppose (and this seems more likely than not), that Carla and Dorothy don’t love each other (really, what are the odds that they would, since they were picked by Albert and Bob, not each other?). You can’t force them to accept each other as a marriage partner. After all, wasn’t that the problem with assuming that “gays” should be forced to marry opposite-sex partners in the dark ages of exclusively heterosexual marriage? So to be fair to Carla and Dorothy (and avoid a nasty anti-discrimination lawsuit), you’d have to let each o them choose their own male bisexual partner.
So therefore we need to add Partners E and F. We’re now up to six people in the marriage.
But wait. Now you’ve got two new marriage partners with the right to choose their second partners (which partners are likely not already part of the group). So we have to add Partners G and H. That’s eight and counting. You see the compounding nature of this problem.
So the only real way to implement true “bisexual marriage” is to remove all restrictions on the number of partners in a marriage. Such a simple answer, but still completely untenable to the vast majority of Americans.
Thus we now know the reason it has never been addressed by our opposition, and the reason we pro-family advocates should all immediately begin raising “bisexual marriage” in every public conversation about “gay marriage.”
Is “bisexual marriage” really relevant? Of course it is! Bisexuals are a core constituency of the LGBT movement. The other side CAN’T disavow them! They are the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Or, if you will, the t–d in the punchbowl.
I debated whether to use that phrase, it being so crude, but in the end that’s the main reason I finally adopted it. “‘T–d in the punchbowl” is a long-standing working-class metaphor for something dirty that completely ruins something clean. Once the crowd realizes what’s in the punchbowl, nobody is going to drink the punch. Ever. No matter what you do to it.
Marriage as God designed it is a clean and holy institution that sanctifies the sexual union of a man and a woman united as “one flesh.” It produces blessing for them and for society.
Marriages based on various forms of sodomy are unclean counterfeits that destroy true marriage by invalidating its central purpose, which is to enclose the procreative natural family in a socially unique protective cocoon. Once marriage stops being unique to the “one flesh” male/female procreative union, the concept of marriage loses all meaning.
Importantly, the arguments for “bisexual marriage” are exactly the same as for “gay marriage,” and bisexuals are already in line for it as a core constituency of the LGBT coalition.
Abolishing the limitation on the number of marriage partners is thus the logical and inevitable next step in marriage “reform.” That’s what bringing up “bisexual marriage” proves, and why it should be the No. 1 talking point for our side to put every pro-”gay” politician, celebrity and media figure on the defensive.
Here’s the game plan, crew. Put them on the spot in every public forum. They’re liberals so you know they’re going keep drinking the Kool-Aid, but maybe if we’re diligent in this truth-exposing tactic we can deter a few of them (and most the members of the audience) from drinking the punch.