New York Gay Marriage

Who's getting the most attention on this thread by far, and who is behaving in a bizzare and contradictory manner that could be well explained by attention seeking?The only other thing that I can think of that might explain your extraordinary behaviour would be the hypothesis that you're a closet bisexual in denial.Are you?

How can we take your word for it? That's the trouble. You've given us the opinion that "out" bisexuals are an attention-seeking subset of gays, which means you're really judging them as having a distorted view of what they really are.And for all we know, the same sort of thing could apply to you. A bisexual in denial wouldn't really know what he was, and would be expected to reply "nah" to my question. Ah! A clue. Perhaps you're an attention seeking closet "gay" who would call himself a bisexual if he wasn't in double denial.

But your claim that bisexuals are "attention seekers" implies that people who are attracted to both sexes all seek attention far more than other groups, does it not? If not, you could have said "all humans are sometimes attention seekers". And how many people replying to you on this thread have described themselves as bisexual? Not necessarily. You could be in denial about your own bisexuality, and also in denial about what the generally accepted English language description of your group is.

No. You could argue that for promiscuous people.Bisexuals are just attracted to individuals from both groups. No. At the end of the day, it comes down to the difficulty of making psychological or behavioural generalizations about groups other than those included in the definition of the group.I think that's what underlies much of the excessive attention you've been enjoying on this thread.However, I won't entirely rule out my closet bisexual hypothesis. It sometimes does seem that those who would like to divide the complex of human sexuality into just two distinct compartments seem to have something in themselves to be frightened of.

My comment related to your views on bisexuals being "attention seekers." It was nothing to do with marriage. They have no need to be described as "gay" legally. Same sex marriage, when made legal, is open to everyone. See above. And "they" for you always seem to be acting in unison as one group.A bisexual can pursue his or her right to marry someone of the opposite sex without being called "straight" by you, can't they? Yet you seem to have massive problems the other way around. Why? Not literally true (indecision), and that doesn't address my point about human sexuality. It is in no way easy to divide humans into two distinct groups according to their sexual orientation. (We could go to a science thread on this subject and look at psychology papers). There's no need to. Where same sex marriage is recognized, it's available to all adults regardless of their sexuality. You could have a marriage of convenience for money with a male Mexican immigrant who wanted citizenship. If you do, I promise I won't start pretending you're homosexual rather than either heterosexual or a closet bisexual, which are the current favourites.

It's same sex marriage. Like you and your Mexican. I think that if you want to discuss subjects like this, your English needs to be good enough to distinguish between phrases like "sexual orientation" and "sexual history". It's used to describe orientation when referring to people. A gay person can be celibate. What phrase do you think courts and legal documents use? No-one has to be gay in order to have a same sex marriage. People are under no obligation to call their same sex marriages "gay marriages" because you want them to, or because the writer of the O.P. uses slang. But would you and your Mexican, with your same sex marriage of convenience, be having a gay marriage?You seem to want to back up your desire to call bisexuals "gay" by deciding that all same sex marriages (the correct legal term) have to be called "gay marriages".If someone's sexual orientation is bisexual, it remains so whether they marry someone of the opposite sex or the same sex. That applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals as well.

It's about both. Click into the article linked to in the O.P.

quote:

---

Midtown Mayhem As Anti-SSM Groups Send Mixed Messages

​

Same-sex Sunday was anything but a day of celebration for the groups that remain adamantly opposed to gay marriage, and whose protests collided in midtown in the afternoon. A rally organized in part by the National Organization for Marriage, but where the main draw seemed to be State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., perhaps New York's most vocal opponent of gay marriage, collided with two smaller but slur-hurling groups -- a five-person contingent from the Westboro Baptist Chuch, and a few dozen members of the Williamsburg Satmars.

​

Just a month after Governor Andrew Cuomo signed New York's same-sex marriage bill, the NOM march aimed at de-legitimizing the new law by calling for a popular referendum on the issue. Diaz told the Voice after the rally that New York and the five other states with same-sex marriage have it only "because a judge or a legislature imposed it" -- suggesting that only a popular vote could validate the change.

---

The article uses the same casual language as you and the O.P. author. Although New York and five other State legislatures have passed "same-sex marriage bills", the journalist uses the casual term "gay marriage". So, when you have your same-sex marriage of convenience with a heterosexual Mexican immigrant, you're welcome to call it, casually, a "gay marriage" if you want to. I'm using the correct phrase. Because people have got into a discussion on labels, that's the best thing to do. Go for the phrase used in the marriage laws that led to the protests, the article and the O.P.Do you accept that bisexuals and heterosexuals do not suddenly have a homosexual orientation merely because they participate in a same-sex marriage?Now, think about adjectives and nouns. Surely you accept that someone could engage in homosexual (gay) sex without being a homosexual? And that people can engage in heterosexual sex without being heterosexuals? I think it was probably your description of bisexuals as being homosexual attention seekers that led to most of the controversy. Did you mean "the same" or matching? Keys match locks. Where do closet gays, closet bisexuals, and voluntary celibates of all sexual orientations fit into that?It's always complex. Far from it. There's nothing wrong with those terms. And, as I've pointed out, the article above not only uses them, but also has your casual use of "gay marriage" as interchangeable with "same-sex" marriage. It's only because the thread got onto the subject of bisexuals and because you seemed to be making all kinds of sweeping generalizations about things related to the highly complex subject of human sexuality that it was necessary to get more precise with terminology. Do I? You don't actually think that I think that, so it's a rather odd thing to say. And we haven't established that you're not bisexual yet.I'm sure there are bisexuals who describe themselves as gay, and there are bisexuals who describe themselves as heterosexual. There are also bisexuals (and others) who'll point out that people whose sexual orientation includes being attracted to members of both sexes are best described as "bisexuals", because that's literally what they are, and calling them homosexuals (or gays) is no more technically correct than calling them heterosexuals (or straights).Modulous gave you a good analogy with omnivores. While they can be carnivorous and herbivorous, they are not actually carnivores or herbivores.Bisexuals could have homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships, but their sexual orientation is not actually homosexual or heterosexual.I know language is sometimes confusing.Edited by bluegenes, : minor addition for clarification