Quote# 93236

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 bi-sexual 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 bi-sexual 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 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.

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.


Is “bi-sexual 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-lb gorilla in the room. Or, if you will, the “turd” 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. “’Turd in the punchbowl” is a long-standing working-class metaphor for something dirty that completely ruins something clean. Once the crowd realizes there is a turd 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.

Scott Lively, Scott Lively Ministries 85 Comments [3/20/2013 3:38:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 112

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 | bottom

TB Tabby

Uh...what you call "bisexual marriage" is polygamy, and that's been done many times throughout history and today. And considering the sorry state some "traditional" marriages are in, if four people can find a way to make that work, I'm all for it.

3/20/2013 3:50:11 AM


This person is so stupid it's actually offensive.

3/20/2013 4:00:03 AM

Percy Q. Shunn

3/20/2013 4:01:13 AM


"Turd in the punchbowl"?

You have no right quoting George Carlin, especially when that metaphor was originally used to describe the bullshit surrounding 9/11.

3/20/2013 4:04:25 AM

Bisexuality does not work that way.

(As a “B”, I should know.)

3/20/2013 4:11:41 AM


Hmmmm...sounds like my relationship. I'm bi, my partner is male and I'm also involved with his wife, who has another male partner also. Now, we're not married (except partner and wife) because it's illegal. But we are all very happy and unlike Scott Lively, enjoying life (without a supreme deity involved, too).

3/20/2013 4:15:51 AM


I'm sure that you thought this was very clever when you wrote it.

3/20/2013 4:28:13 AM


So many words, so few braincells...

3/20/2013 4:40:34 AM


Well Scott, You know what they say. If everyone is a consenting adult...

But what you're describing wouldn't be a bisexual marriage, everyone would have to be bi-sexual to make it so.

Oh btw, marriage as God designed.

3/20/2013 4:41:01 AM


Oh, and for even suggesting that someone mock the couple at a wedding just because YOU happen to be a supercilious douchebag...

3/20/2013 4:41:12 AM

Doubting Thomas

Why don't you just define marriage as being between two adults and be done with it?

It's funny how ridiculous these people are making themselves in their zeal to condemn homosexuality.

3/20/2013 4:48:23 AM


Where the hell do you get a four member minimum? One person in a relationship may be bi but that doesn't mean the other is, nor does it mean the bisexual is obligated to form a lifelong emotional connection to more than one person. Neither sexuality nor marriage work that way. Just because you're sexually attracted to both men and women doesn't make it a requirement to sleep with both at the same time as often as possible or set up a fucking quota for the altar. That's like saying every straight person has to launch themselves groin first at anyone of the opposite sex they find mildly attractive and buy engagement rings in bulk because obviously since they're still attracted to more than one person that means they're gonna need them.

3/20/2013 4:53:40 AM

Seeker Lancer

First of all I would say "what the fuck is bi-sexual marriage" and then when you explained that you actually meant polygamy (which in most cases is heterosexual) I would say I don't really give a fuck what consenting adults do.

And your Bible is pretty pro-polygamy by the way.

3/20/2013 5:31:32 AM


How can this person possibly be so ignorant? Bisexual people are people with the potential to be attracted to either sex, not people who are in love with a man and a woman at the same time. Marriage for bisexuals only requires two people, who may be a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple.

3/20/2013 5:46:27 AM


And I would ask in response why is it that you are framing marriage to mean nothing more than sex between people?

3/20/2013 5:50:51 AM

Deep Search


So nice to be called a "turd in a punch bowl." Same sex marriage encompasses bisexuals, since then a bi person could marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. Poly marriages and relationships are a whole different... thing... and you can be gay or straight or bi to be in one. So, conversely, why doesn't anyone scream about polygamists at hetero weddings? They were in the bible, too, yanno...

3/20/2013 5:56:19 AM

Filin De Blanc

You can can bleat about "bi-sexual marriage" all you want, but until you start claiming that infertile heterosexuals should be unable to marry, nobody with half a brain is going to take your "marriage is about procreation" shit seriously.

3/20/2013 5:57:28 AM

Mister Spak

Fundies are the turd in the American punchbowl.

3/20/2013 5:57:52 AM


Oh wow, that's stupid.

Most bisexuals are monogamous, so that there would be no such thing as "bisexual marriage", cause it would be still one body to love, not several. Everything more than two people is polygamy, no matter if same-sex or opposite-sex or some kind of mixture of the two.

But, let's actually take the bullshit procreational argument at face value right now, it would mean that:
a) Any kind of marriage that does not result in procreation, no matter if same- or opposite-sex would be void. So a straight couple that gets married but doesn't want to have children, should not be married - and if same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, a widow(er) of opposite-sex zero-children marriage would have to not get any benefits by the state unless procreation was actually, ehm, "concluded" and a child would be born.
b) Any kind of medical advancement that would make it possible for same-sex couples to procreate would make same-sex marriage just as legit as opposite-sex marriage.
c) Any straight person that was for some reason not be able to have children, should not be allowed to get married. They can't reproduce, so the holy institution of marriage would be bedraggled.
d) Would adoption be a viable way to procreate in a marriage? If yes, it would also be a viable option for same-sex couples which makes their marriages just as legit. If no, the legal consequences would be great, for example it should be just as hard for opposite-sex couples to adopt as it should be for same-sex couples.
e) What would that mean if you are adopted and you adopted parents die? Do you get anything? Should their biological children get more, because they came from a relationship that was more legit than you?
f) How does that reflect on single mothers that choose to get a sperm donor? Or for single fathers that decided to adopt? If marriage is a "socially unique protective cocoon", then those children should be less protected from whatever the marriage of their parents protects "normal" children from.
g) If marriage is only that, for procreation, why not go all the distance and outlaw marriage for all couples that don't share a biological child - of course that would mean that pre-marital sex is required, which would according to Christian dogma be a sin.
h) If the only reason to be married - not love or the will to spend the rest of your lifes together - is only for procreation, than polygamy should be loved by the proponents of this argument - that is of course if these kinds of polygamous relationships results in more children being born. If a man impregnates three women one after another you have three children, if a man only impregnated one woman, well then you have one child. Now on the other hand if wife has several husbands that lowers birth rates (as so observed and practiced for thousands of years), which means one-male-many-female polygamy would be totally legit, but one-woman-many males polygamy can't be. While n-male-n-female polygamy would be just as legit as opposite-sex marriages. But if that happens in a group, it would also be same-sex marriage, as two men would be married to one another and two women would be married two one another.

It's relatively nice argument when you first hear it, but if you examine it closer it falls apart on all imaginable levels - like most conservative arguments to when you look at them from egalitarian standpoint.
Now, I believe in marriage because two or more people love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lifes, that I think is what makes marriage marriage, not whether you are able to reproduce.

3/20/2013 6:01:41 AM


"Hettie marriages lost all meaning the first time a couple had anal"
Scott Lively

3/20/2013 6:04:18 AM

Dr. Razark


As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, why limit marriage to only two people?

3/20/2013 6:20:19 AM

Homeschool Hero

Bisexuals do not work that way, Scott. Please do some research next time.

3/20/2013 6:21:12 AM


Quite frankly, I find the idea of a polyamorous Bisexual group marriage to be just tops!

Also, most Bis are usually monogamous and may get into either a Hetero marriage OR a Gay marriage.

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.


Look, Scott, just come out of the closet, okay? You're obsessed with Gayness. My Gaydar's exploding! COME OUT! You'll feel much better.

3/20/2013 6:38:58 AM


We have had a clear and unwelcome view of the prurient state of your imagination.

3/20/2013 6:45:01 AM

Broton of Loch Ness

"Chances are if you’re reading this article, you’re not the sort of person likely to be found at such an event,"...

Unless you are reading it on FSTDT.

3/20/2013 6:58:02 AM

1 2 3 4 | top: comments page