Tweet
Scott Lively
Anti-LGBT activist Scott Lively has revealed in his new blog post “The Bi-Sexual Turd in the Gay Wedding Punchbowl” that he does not understand what is means to be bisexual.
Mr. Lively believes bisexuality to be synonymous with non-monogamy or polyamory. He is sorely incorrect.
A bisexual person is open to having a relationship with a person regardless of that person’s sex, while a heterosexual person will only have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex and a gay or lesbian person will only have a relationship with a person of their own sex.
Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian or gay, has nothing to do with the number of concurrent mates a person may wish to have.
Mr. Lively illustrates his misunderstanding of what it means to be bisexual in his blog post:
A bi-sexual 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 bi-sexual, 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 Bi-Sexual Partner B would be partners with Male Bi-sexual Partner A and Female Bi-Sexual Partner D.
It would be tempting to simply laugh and walk away muttering “ignoramus” after reading Mr. Lively’s blog post if his wasn’t a very common misconception about bisexuality.
I’ve had the privilege of speaking to hundreds of school and college kids over the years about sexual orientation and gender identity. During those discussions I’ve learned that bisexuals are frequently the most misunderstood subpopulation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The misconception that bisexuals wish to have a relationship with a man and a woman at the same time is, unfortunately, all too common.
For this reason I’m happy to turn Mr. Lively’s blog post into a teachable moment. I hope that others can learn from his show of ignorance.
13 Comments
He is an ignoramus, absolutely.
I’m Bi. I’ve also been married to another woman for over 14 years, and I have no desire to leave our monogamous marriage, nor do I pine for men. (Which isn’t to say I don’t swoon a little every time I see a George Clooney grin…but hey, I’m married, not dead.)
It’s interesting though: For decades, gay men had to fight the false stereotype of being incapable of forming lasting relationships. Sadly, we Bi’s still have to deal with it.
I don’t understand how people can be so stupid
I’s annoying as hell, I have been in relationships with men and relationships with women. But always one at a time. I was born bi, I am bi, and I’ll die bi. He really is confused. And kind of stupid.
The correlation with obnoxious stereotypes is obvious, and a convenient direction for Lively to go.
I can’t escape the sense that it’s less about Lively’s ignorance and more about maliciousness. He’s determined to slime bi people side-by-side with the rest of the community as unprincipled and incapable of committed relationships.
Isn’t polygamy the form of marriage that God intended? It’s in the bible, why do he and so many other “Christians” think that they can redefine marriage and go against God’s will?
It’s definitely about maliciousness. He wants to attack marriage equality and apparently thinks he’s found the key to undermining it via his incorrect definition of bisexuality.
My but Mr. Lively has an elegant way with words.
Your faux outrage is pretty weird. He says there’s never been a “P” for polygamy in LBTG, so that it must be a completely constructed cross-sectional rectangle – 4 people. That might be serious or humor, but your ignoring it is strange – note “tongue in
groovecheek. Yes, he probably understands the traditional definition of bisexual which can be either monogamous or multi-partner.I’d also guess (haven’t studied it) that liberals might be inclined to condemn bigamy (frequently sexist, no?) while supporting polyamory (letting free flag fly among grownups), even though they might kinda mean the same thing. Sometimes different labels produce different results (right-to-life/freedom-of-choice?)
Why does this guy think it’s any of his business?
As a bisexual, I completely endorse all of your commentary.
The total misconceptions based on complete ignorance only make me roll my eyes and I try to flip them off. The small errors seem to be the more annoying. Sometimes it’s characterized as “over-sexed” and sometimes as “confused, half in the closet and half out”. Those really bug me.
The worst is probably the conception that we NEED to have the other gender than the one we’re with. Which leads to distrust from both straight and gay persons. So stupid.
Scott Lively is not stupid. Blindly religious, yes. Understands the concept of “lying for god”, yes. Knows how to push the buttons so he gets the donations, yes.
Much as with Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of NOM, they know where they get their money from and they are interested in continuing to get money from them as long as they can.
ANYTHING Scott Lively, Maggie, Brian, Peter LaBarbara, Tony Perkins, etc. do, THEY DO FOR MONEY. Nothing more.
Scott Lively was an Oregon religious piker from the Lon Mabon days of the late ’80s. He’s a fuckin’ mooch and a hack preacher from Dogpatchville. We kicked his bullshit out of here for good, 15-20 years ago. But he did plenty of damage in spite of our best collective, ” whatever, dude. ” I’m sorry for the rest of the world, but shit does eventually land, somewhere. I thought this particular turd fell to earth in Orange County.
I post this purely for the entertainment value. Many years ago I was attending a school in Atlanta. A young middle-eastern couple just coming to the U.S. moved in across the hall, and one night the young man came over with a bottle of something alcoholic. We had a few drinks, when he confided to me he liked Atlanta because he thought he was “bisexual.” Well, as a gay man living in Atlanta in the ’80s, I could understand that. But after a bit more discussion I was a bit confused by some of his comments. So I asked a few pointed questions, and learned that he thought being bisexual meant also finding African-American women attractive. I admit to getting a good laugh over that.