Mere Stupidity or myth and lies; Lively’s lack lustre impact in the LG community denotes time to tackle the BT community – Read this article and indulge in a big LMFAO
By Melanie Nathan, March 04, 2013.
“Is “bi-sexual marriage” really relevant?” asks fervently anti-gay pastor Scott Lively, in a recent post which appeared on his Blog, presupposing that if you are LGBT, you would not likely be reading it. He goes on to note: “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.”
Lively wrote this rambunctiously idiotic post on his blog which began with:
“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?“”
The post is a worthy read. Only because it is so funny. We note the desperation. He is either severely lacking in the mental capacity to understand what bisexuality is or purposefully imparting untruths in yet another and familiar endeavor to spearhead myth.
Scott Lively is the lawyer turned Evangelical (or was it the other way around -GOOOOOOOGLE ?) who is credited with stirring gay hate in Uganda and conspiring to Kill the Gays in Uganda with his direct involvement in the drafting of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, after losing the war against LGBT in America. Now he is resorting to this – after his feeble attempt at calling President Obama “gay” yielded little interest and no traction.
Allow me and sorry to burst the Lively bubble. His entire premise is foresaken with one simple truth: Bisexual does not mean multiple partners at any given time. (So sorry so sorry to inform the brilliant Pastor ….)
Truth of the matter? Bisexuality simply means: ONE person, male or female identified, has the capacity to be attracted to EITHER another ONE person of the same gender or another ONE person of the opposite gender Yes it is an – either/or – ONE PERSON attracted to ONE PERSON of either gender, at a given moment. AND then, when they are so attracted to that ONE person and they fall in love with that ONE person and decide that they want a marital relationship with that ONE person – they get married into a monogamous marriage with that ONE person, whether it is a male or female. Like most people bi-sexual people are well able to choose one person when they decide to marry.
Nowhere in any dictionary or definition is bi-sexuality described as polygamy and nowhere in any dictionary or definition does bisexuality preclude monogamy. It would seem that the very turdious mind of Scott Lively presumes that BI means both at the same time.
It would seem then that if we are to accept the Scott Lively version of bisexuality, one would assume that heterosexuality would also mean numerous marital partners, and that under the Lively myth, a heterosexual person is equally incapable of monogamy. What Lively seems to want to create and /or impart is yet another myth – that being attracted to either a man or woman at any given time means that one cannot be monogamous. Which seems to divulge a blimp in his mind – in his ability to perceive – that it is perfectly possible for a bisexual person to only want to sleep with their chosen mate, male OR female, to the exclusion of all others, for as long as married to such person. There is no difference to heterosexuality or homosexuality for that matter when it comes to a decision through marriage to remain monogamous. What Lively does not get is that adultery, polygamy, polyamory is equally applicable to any form of sexual attraction whether gay, straight or bisexual.
But of course this is nothing but a desperate attempt to disparage and I say desperate because he has lost the war.
Lest you have to travel to his odious site where you cannot comment anyway, here is the article re-posted in its entirety for your – er- edification- um defecation- urgh (now what word am I looking for – THESSSAAAAURUS?)
So here is the lovely Lively logic and just in case you get confused please refer to Cathy Kristofferson from O-Blog-Dee’s brilliant graphic (on the left below) depicting Scott Lively’s version of what marriage should look like for a bisexual persons:- ENJOY
“The Bi-Sexual T**d in the Gay Wedding Punchbowl
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.
Lets try it again with real names. We start with a bi-sexual 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 “bi-sexual 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 “bi-sexual marriage” in every public conversation about “gay” marriage.
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.
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 “bi-sexual marriage” proves, and why it should be the number one 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.”
And even though my mother told me never to laugh at the insane, I toast my kool-aid to THIS, our own game plan, crew – “To laughter: hahahahahahahahahaha!”