Bisexual marriage, should we have it?

[Durain]

Hello everyone, I'm brand new to the forums and have been reading a lot trying to get as much info and such as possible and everything so far has been great.


But lets get back to the topic at hand. I was reading the comic "Choices" and in page they mentioned why there could be gay marriage but not bisexual marriage.

Now I know that some people might only want this for the sexual nature, others would want it for love, frankly I'm on the side of love because sharing your life with one person you love is wonderful enough, but to have two people whom you love, plus the fact they would be both a man and women you can have anytime you wish....*melts*......ok so maybe it would a little for the sex as well, I'm only human :P.

But I also went into thinking if bisexual marriages did exisit, it would fix some problems with some marriages as well. For example, today sometimes the income from two people can bearly support a home, with an extra person or 2 (with bisexual marriages, I'll be fair and say it could be 4 people, 2 men and 2 women) the combined imcome would be great to help pay the bills.

And with kids, lets say in your bisexual marriage that its 2 men and 1 wife, both men and have a baby with that wife, and not only would the child have extra support, but its been shown that the more people in a child's in terms of family, the happier then normally turn out. And the case can be said with 2 women and 1 man. I'm not saying it would be perfect but its all a plus if you ask me.

So theres my take on it all. So Id love to hear what you all think about this, should there be bisexual marriages, and if so would you do it, and what would you love your marriage to consist of, like 2men 1 women, 2women 1man, 2women 2men, or even if you would go up to having 4 people (for balance reasons and because its a bisexual site, lets just leave 4 people at 2men and 2 women)

Thanks in advance for your input :)

[Lisa (va)]

With the rate of failed marriages I think it is rather hard for two folks to be inlove with each other and make it work: and adding a third, or even forth member to the marriage just seems to me to over complicated things. Realistically I can not see myself having the same feelings to an equal depth on all levels, thus making it not truely a marriage after all.
In a perfect (Eutopian) world things seem to make sense, but in the real world things are a bit more complicated. And for those poly folks, more power to you if you can make it work. Just my opinion.

Lisa

hugs n kisses

[12voltman59]

Well, being married to more than one person is polygamy. We might get gay marriage--but I would not push things too far---to try to get "bisexual marriage" with several partners would play into the criticisms made by those who oppose same sex marriage who rhetorically ask--"what next--does that mean people will want to marry their brothers or sisters, marry a dead body, marry their dogs or other animals--where does it end??'

In this case--they would have a point I think--and I do have to agree with Lisa---the thought of having a three way relationship sounds good----and it might worlk for a very small number of people---but I really don't think that in the long term---human beings can sustain having a really intense relationship with more than one person----I know in my life--even though I never married--in my relationships that went a pretty good stretch---as soon as a third party became involved---that was it---we were done!

Now I might get flamed and piss someone off---but i really believe this is the case----you might be able to juggle the balls for a time of a threeway or even a fourway relationship---but that can only go on for so long---I bet that those who do have a bisexual relationship with several people---I'll bet ya dimes to donuts that there was the paired couple and the third or fourth person(s) sort of were in "orbit" as it were of the primary couple.

Nope----I don't think there can be such a thing as a bisexual marriage---at least as long as human society is structured as it is--maybe if we don't kill ourselves and such and in a few thousand years we go on to morph into some other form of being and we leave behind being human as we have known it with us probably becoming sort of a hive like creatures or some thing that sci-fi writers have contemplated. I really do think that if human beings do live long enough---gender differences are going to be meaningless---and that in league with our technology---we won't need gender for procreation any longer---we will become more or less an androgenous race of beings, with procreation more or less being done by non-sexual, mechanical and technological means---I really do think the model of The Borg from the later versions of Star Trek is sort of what we will become.

[biguy3113]

I completely support a three way marriage and so does my wife. We have discussed it and agree if we found the right person for her and I we would embrace it and would be happy to have another husband.

We are not living in olden days anymore and compared to some of things that go on in our world today having a marriage or relationship that works for all the parties involved is not such a trivial thing.

[Long Duck Dong]

while I can see the merits of it in working relationships, what happens when one partner decides to call it quits...... you have more of a mess to clean up and well, you become a divorce lawyers best friend

its hard enuf with a couple,.... a threeway / fourway makes it messier, and then you have the issue of kids....
kids have enuf issues without going to school and having to explain how they have 4 parents and their dads and mums are sleeping with the other dads and mums.....

I am the sort of person that looks at it from the point of view, that what we want for ourselves, can impact on our kids as we are making them live our lifestyle too....
its a bit like parents that live in the backwards of nowhere, have kids and then the kids grow up with very little social skills... because the parents wanted a certain lifestyle

we call communal marriages a form of cult marriage and yet, at the same time, we seek it ourselves... it goes to show how easy it is to judge others lifestyles, while in our eyes, our own choices are fine....

yes, I can see a lot of pros with the idea, but a lot of cons with the idea....
and personally, I am not the marrying type, to me its a profit making aspect of life and a legal benefit....and very few couples I know, actually last the distance..... thats not to say it doesn't work, but I see a lot of divorce lawyers with bmws and broken families with mass debt and broken hearts

[void()]

Have to concur with biguy. We aren't in the stone age now. Shoot they can clone sheep. Not much longer before it is applied to people, legal / ethical / moral or otherwise.

Not saying it may not have adversities. But anything in life worth its weight is worth the effort. And yes, some of us find love is worth its weight. Besides that you got the benefit of the sex. :)

LDD, me and the wife got the debt less the lawyers. We're still making it work. And I believe we could possibly add a third and / or fourth, keeping it working. As for children, leave them out of it altogether. Don't want or need them. Plenty of furry kids to nurture.

[Durain]

Thank you all for the input, you all made alot of points that I have to agree with. In a perfect world it could work, but not now.

[mikey3000]

I think it can work, and must say for many it already is. I would definitely try it, and it is something we are in the process of setting up right now. I'm a bi guy, my BF is a bi guy, and my wife would absolutely love to have two husdbands. But how do we tell the kids?:eek:

[dickhand]

Yes !

[bensonhurstbiguy]

I'm definitely not against the idea of "bisexual marriage" being legal or whatever, I mean frankly as long as you do it responsibly it shouldn't hurt anybody (this is where kids come into play, and it is great to see couples with kids taking them into account so strongly here) so there is no good reason in my eyes why if three people want to try making it work for them that they can't.

Personally though, it is not something I would want to try. My girlfriend, who frankly is basically my wife at this point (we're together for 5 years, living together for 4 and change, we just don't get the tax breaks :tong:) is open to me exploring my bi side, but she has no interest in being with other men or women herself. Trust me, we've had threesome conversations a plenty, and at this point she is entirely not into it. So I know adding somebody to our relationship wouldn't work in any way, shape, or form. Heck that's why I look for hookups/friends with benefits and not boyfriends on the side, because I know she would never want me sharing actual romantic feelings with another person. And I wouldn't want that either. I also couldn't imagine loving somebody else as much as I love her, honestly.

[tenni]

I think that arguing that couple marriages have a high rate of failure is not a sufficient reason to reject a threesome marriage. There may be truths to that point but that should not be a determinant factor. It should be a factor for anyone entering any relationship whether a legal marriage or not. The divorce rate has not stopped people from entering legal state sanctioned marriages nor common law couple marriages. It may have increased the numbers of common law marriages but the ending of a relationship can be difficult even if not legally state sanctioned married.

I suspect that it will take bisexuals time and discussion to begin to accept this as a valid option for any bisexual. Threesomes in a live in situation may be a valid option for some bisexuals. First, bisexuals must accept it before a more public discussion begins. Coupledom is fairly engrained in our society and polyamour is not. It is almost as if this is two separate issues. Sexuality and polyamour. They may be successful though for some people. As bisexuals, hopefully we do not close the door to the possibility. Just as there is a process for accepting our bisexuality ourselves. This may be a taboo that needs exploring as well. Then when generally accepted and promoted by bisexuals as a valid option for us, a more public discussion may begin. I understand that polyamour is generally believed to be illegal in Canada but charges that were recently laid against a polyamour religious sect were dropped suddenly. It is believed that it would not stand up in a court of law on the religious aspect and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same sex marriages are legal here and so that issue is not a problem. State sanctioned polyamour relationships are not a legal option at the present time. I'm not sure if our Charter would stand up to support it unless the vast majority of bisexuals argued that it was a valid option for bisexuals. Then the sex (sexual orientation ) and equality issue may be argued successfully in the Supreme Court. So, lets begin to accept this as an option for us. It isn't a requirement of bisexuality but an option amongst other options for us to have a happy life.

I think that Pasa raises an interesting road block for some bisexuals to fully accept themselves and how to live their life. It is more than children and the Boy Scouts. It is community standards and permitting those hetero couple standards to define who and how bisexuals live their life. I think that a lot of bisexuals who enter a couple marriage are accepting a community standard that is not really "them". So be it. As some have argued a friend with benefit may work for some bisexuals who enter a hetero marriage with kids. For others, they may find a polyamour marriage more appropriate. Will the hetero married bisexual with kids defend and argue that polyamour is a suitable option for others? Probably not but maybe at least amongst other bisexuals.

[Annika L]

This is an interesting question. Here's how I see it.

First, I assume the OP is referring to *legal* marriage (civil union) rather than religious marriage...something that would confer the legal rights, tax status, etc. that married people enjoy to a *group* of people who commit to one another.

So I ask myself, "why should a government establish such a construct", beyond the fact that there are some people who want it? Well, why does it have the current construct of protections and rights?

The answer is: to support values and goals that it considers to be in its interest: namely, to support stable unions and families, with a particular eye toward creating safe and stable environments for children, so they are more likely to become well-adjusted and productive members of society.

Now by that reasoning, it makes sense to me that we should have same-sex marriage. Study after study has shown that same-sex unions are just as stable as heterosexual unions, and that children raised in such families are every bit as likely to grow up well-adjusted, functional, and productive. In fact, given this research, and since there are so many same-sex couples with children anyway, I think it is not in the government's interest NOT to support same-sex marriage.

I have, however, never seen studies suggesting that groups of 3+ people are just as likely to be stable as 2-person unions (in fact, I believe I've seen some studies to the contrary). I also believe that there is evidence lacking to show that children raised in 3+person families are as likely to be successful as those in 2-person families. In fact, I've heard quite a few reports of increased incidence of abuse in such families. I'm not saying that child abuse and instability are inherent in such families or are inevitable in such families...just that from the scant evidence I've heard of, they are more likely. But I also completely believe that this area is not well-studied.

Nonetheless, until it is better studied, and until we have a good platform of evidence that says that such unions are stable and can produce healthy happy and productive children, I think it's unrealistic to ask the government to support them...nor is it really in our longterm interest to have them.

BUT, nothing to my knowledge *prevents* a union of any kind from inviting others into it to share deeply, spiritually or sexually, to pool and share resources, and generally to act as if they were married. So I think that's a better place to start...and if the notion catches on, and there become more such arrangements, and data starts to suggest that these extended unions are statistically likely to be stable, and raise healthy children...THEN I'd be all for extending rights of marriage to them. (But they'd better not receive rights before same-sex marriages do!! :tong:)

[tenni]

"I have, however, never seen studies suggesting that groups of 3+ people are just as likely to be stable as 2-person unions (in fact, I believe I've seen some studies to the contrary). I also believe that there is evidence lacking to show that children raised in 3+person families are as likely to be successful as those in 2-person families. In fact, I've heard quite a few reports of increased incidence of abuse in such families. I'm not saying that child abuse and instability are inherent in such families or are inevitable in such families...just that from the scant evidence I've heard of, they are more likely. But I also completely believe that this area is not well-studied."

Annika
I propose if you remove the aspect of the sexual relationship between the polyamour marriage, your argument begins to falter when discussing child rearing. You would need to include what was once a very common phenomena of multi (related) adults raising the children. The grandparents would often live under the same roof and parent the children. In indigenous cultures the village of adults would actively participate in the child rearing. Three plus adult families are actually very traditional in raising children. It is the sexual relationship between the triad and not child rearing that is not only contentious but novelly threatening to our mainstream belief system.

[FalconAngel]

I was reading the comic "Choices" and in page they mentioned why there could be gay marriage but not bisexual marriage.


How would you propose to make it work without it being Polygamy (which is very illegal in this country, anyway)?

Not that I am opposed to it, but it is a tricky thing to propose.

[Annika L]

"I have, however, never seen studies suggesting that groups of 3+ people are just as likely to be stable as 2-person unions (in fact, I believe I've seen some studies to the contrary). I also believe that there is evidence lacking to show that children raised in 3+person families are as likely to be successful as those in 2-person families. In fact, I've heard quite a few reports of increased incidence of abuse in such families. I'm not saying that child abuse and instability are inherent in such families or are inevitable in such families...just that from the scant evidence I've heard of, they are more likely. But I also completely believe that this area is not well-studied."

Annika
I propose if you remove the aspect of the sexual relationship between the polyamour marriage, your argument begins to falter when discussing child rearing. You would need to include what was once a very common phenomena of multi (related) adults raising the children. The grandparents would often live under the same roof and parent the children. In indigenous cultures the village of adults would actively participate in the child rearing. Three plus adult families are actually very traditional in raising children. It is the sexual relationship between the triad and not child rearing that is not only contentious but novelly threatening to our mainstream belief system.

Tenni,

(a) We're not talking about parents marrying their parents and raising a family as a quad. Such an arrangement would not constitute a "bisexual marriage" in any case (unless there's stuff going on that the State and most of society rightly considers abhorrent anyway), which is the topic of discussion. So no, I do not "need" to include that scenario.

(b) I believe it is precisely the sexual nature of the arrangement suggested by the OP that often leads to the child abuse that I hear is sometimes found there.

(c) I stand by my claim that until there is data indicating that such arrangements as the OP suggests are likely to be stable and to produce healthy happy children, society should not grant special legal advantages to such arrangements.

[tenni]

Annika
I was not stating parents marrying their parent but the child rearing aspect of grandparents living in the same home and raising the children. I may have misunderstood you.

I'm a bit surprised that you are supporting an argument that a sexual nature between adults will encourage sexual abuse of children. Isn't that an argument used to oppose same sex marriages and such unions being involved in child rearing? The argument that same sex marriages are deviant and the children will become deviant or sexually abused? Only recently have studies proven that same sex unions do not lead to the children becoming homosexual or negatively impacts the children's health. It was stated in one recent study that it is the number of parents involved in the child rearing that played a more significant role than the gender of the parents.

I have not read studies indicating that triad unions lead to sexual abuse of children but I am aware of polygamist religious groups marrying off female children as young as 13 or 14 to older men. I am aware of polygamist situations that have been mixed with cultism and sexual abuse of children has happened. If such similar cases were used to come up with stats about child abuse of children in polyamour relationships I can see how it would be squewed to a negative interpretation. It may become a chicken and egg debate. Was it the cultist aspects that lead to child abuse or polyamour relationship?


Tenni,

(a) We're not talking about parents marrying their parents and raising a family as a quad. Such an arrangement would not constitute a "bisexual marriage" in any case (unless there's stuff going on that the State and most of society rightly considers abhorrent anyway), which is the topic of discussion. So no, I do not "need" to include that scenario.

(b) I believe it is precisely the sexual nature of the arrangement suggested by the OP that often leads to the child abuse that I hear is sometimes found there.

(c) I stand by my claim that until there is data indicating that such arrangements as the OP suggests are likely to be stable and to produce healthy happy children, society should not grant special legal advantages to such arrangements.

[Annika L]

Annika
I was not stating parents marrying their parent but the child rearing aspect of grandparents living in the same home and raising the children. I may have misunderstood you.

I'm a bit surprised that you are supporting an argument that a sexual nature between adults will encourage sexual abuse of children. Isn't that an argument used to oppose same sex marriages and such unions being involved in child rearing? The argument that same sex marriages are deviant and the children will become deviant or sexually abused? Only recently have studies proven that same sex unions do not lead to the children becoming homosexual or negatively impacts the children's health. It was stated in one recent study that it is the number of parents involved in the child rearing that played a more significant role than the gender of the parents.

I have not read studies indicating that triad unions lead to sexual abuse of children but I am aware of polygamist religious groups marrying off female children as young as 13 or 14 to older men. I am aware of polygamist situations that have been mixed with cultism and sexual abuse of children has happened. If such similar cases were used to come up with stats about child abuse of children in polyamour relationships I can see how it would be squewed to a negative interpretation. It may become a chicken and egg debate. Was it the cultist aspects that lead to child abuse or polyamour relationship?

The child-rearing aspect of grandparents living with their children is not relevant to the discussion, tenni. Nobody is suggesting that this is either a good or bad thing. We're discussion bisexual marriage.

I also have never seen studies suggesting that "triad unions lead to sexual abuse of children". In fact, I never mentioned *sexual* abuse at all. I only said I had heard "reports" of abuse. Quite different from claiming the existence of studies, thanks.

I am not supporting "an argument that a sexual nature between adults will encourage sexual abuse of children." There is a sexual nature between adults in a heterosexual union, too, y'know. Nothing I said implied that abuse of children has anything to do with "deviancy" of the household in which they are raised. My point (poorly stated) in #2 was that *I believe* (I'm not claiming proof or even evidence) that *if* there is in fact increased abuse in 3+ person families, it would be less likely to occur where the 3+ people are not all hooking up sexually, than in instances where they are. That is not a strongly examined belief, and I'm open to being proven wrong...but not to being simply argued or bullied out of it.

I understand the "takes a village" concept and the studies related to it. Precisely the aspect that was *not* addressed by such studies, to my knowledge, was "degree of sexual connectivity" within said village. So whereas "takes a village" might be said to constitute a shred of evidence, it's not sufficient evidence for me to start leaning one way or another.

[Long Duck Dong]

I think that arguing that couple marriages have a high rate of failure is not a sufficient reason to reject a threesome marriage. There may be truths to that point but that should not be a determinant factor. It should be a factor for anyone entering any relationship whether a legal marriage or not. The divorce rate has not stopped people from entering legal state sanctioned marriages nor common law couple marriages. It may have increased the numbers of common law marriages but the ending of a relationship can be difficult even if not legally state sanctioned married.

I suspect that it will take bisexuals time and discussion to begin to accept this as a valid option for any bisexual. Threesomes in a live in situation may be a valid option for some bisexuals. First, bisexuals must accept it before a more public discussion begins. Coupledom is fairly engrained in our society and polyamour is not. It is almost as if this is two separate issues. Sexuality and polyamour. They may be successful though for some people. As bisexuals, hopefully we do not close the door to the possibility. Just as there is a process for accepting our bisexuality ourselves. This may be a taboo that needs exploring as well. Then when generally accepted and promoted by bisexuals as a valid option for us, a more public discussion may begin. I understand that polyamour is generally believed to be illegal in Canada but charges that were recently laid against a polyamour religious sect were dropped suddenly. It is believed that it would not stand up in a court of law on the religious aspect and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same sex marriages are legal here and so that issue is not a problem. State sanctioned polyamour relationships are not a legal option at the present time. I'm not sure if our Charter would stand up to support it unless the vast majority of bisexuals argued that it was a valid option for bisexuals. Then the sex (sexual orientation ) and equality issue may be argued successfully in the Supreme Court. So, lets begin to accept this as an option for us. It isn't a requirement of bisexuality but an option amongst other options for us to have a happy life.

I think that Pasa raises an interesting road block for some bisexuals to fully accept themselves and how to live their life. It is more than children and the Boy Scouts. It is community standards and permitting those hetero couple standards to define who and how bisexuals live their life. I think that a lot of bisexuals who enter a couple marriage are accepting a community standard that is not really "them". So be it. As some have argued a friend with benefit may work for some bisexuals who enter a hetero marriage with kids. For others, they may find a polyamour marriage more appropriate. Will the hetero married bisexual with kids defend and argue that polyamour is a suitable option for others? Probably not but maybe at least amongst other bisexuals.

i can not help but notice that you are continually removing the aspect of self choice for people....and avoiding a number of aspects of marriage and married life.....

there are many bisexuals that freely choose one partner and marry, because it suits them, and they are happy like that..... but your posts in this thread and others often imply that its a choice that is made for us, by society, and that we should realize its a enforced choice, not a freely made one
it appears that you are not willing to see or accept the fact that many people including lgbt people, have no interest in more than one partner in a marriage....

with using the argument that it will take time etc for bisexuals to realise things... its implying that while many of us choose to have coupledom, there are others that seek the choice of 3/4 partner marriages, but that we are not aware of their desires and wishes, and need to open our eyes

I, myself, are not opposing multi partner marriage... I am questioning if there is really that great a desire for that type of marriage .... bearing in mind that I know that a number of people are in multi partner relationships.....and they may like the chance to a multi person marriage....

now to make something clear.... I am actually anti marriage, I see no benefit to marriage outside of a financial and legal aspect.....
to me a declaration of love is made to my partner, every day, not just when I could sign a marriage cert.....

I perfer a handbinding of the olde ways.... which is a joining of two or more people in the nature of a union with the understanding that its a union of support, strength, guidance, understanding etc
or in simple terms, a single poplar tree is not a forest.... but add a elm, a willow, a oak and a apple tree..... you have medicine, food, shelter, warmth, support etc......
but that aspect of clan life and handbinding are long past.... and that is why coupledom has become the norm

[ohbimale]

Your really talking about poly marriages and I am all for them. Personally I have been involved with two different men who I would have liked to have added to my marriage as my husbands in an ideal world. However due to societies perceptions, laws, etc one would never have went for it and the other probably would have. Then there is the current wife who never would have anything to do with it. In an ideal world I would have a husband and wife whom I live with, sleep in the same bed with and get up together every day. It all depends upon the people involved in the marriage. First it has to be legal to have more than one spouse. Someday I hope it is.

[darkeyes]

Bisexual marriage will involve at least 3 people from 2 sexes making a pledge of marriage to each other.. around the world we have enough trouble getting same sex marriage between two people accepted. In the west polygamy is not accepted, and in those countries where it is, it is one person marrying more than 1 of a different sex and they don't look kindly on same sex relations anyway, far less marriage.. one thing at a time.. I'm not opposed, but if it ever happens it will be a long way off.. and the lgbt world has much more pressing things to deal with in any case..

[tenni]

bimalewitch and darkeyes
Yes, I suppose that we are discussing poly marriages but if I may offer that within western societies polygamy carries the weight of interpreting marriages that are not bisexual in nature. Generally, when I think of a polygamous marriage I associate it with a more partriarchal polygamy. There is one man who is married to at least two other women. The women are involved in a heterosexual relationship with the man. There is not usually any homosexual activity. I don't think that is what a bisexual marriage may be.

Yes, darkeyes, there is much resistance to same sex marriages in some parts of the world but that doesn't mean that bisexual poly marriage needs to wait its turn. If bisexuals withhold discussion and awareness of this option until same sex marriage is accepted everywhere as legal and morally acceptable, there will be no broadening of our understanding of ourselves between bisexuals. Hetero monogomous couple marriages, hetero open couple marriages, same sex marriages, bisexual marriages and other forms of non exclusive relationships are all valid and morally acceptable options for a bisexual. We need to embrace our awareness and acceptance of these options rather than waiting until some verdict is found as Annika seems to desire.

[darkeyes]

bimalewitch and darkeyes
Yes, I suppose that we are discussing poly marriages but if I may offer that within western societies polygamy carries the weight of interpreting marriages that are not bisexual in nature. Generally, when I think of a polygamous marriage I associate it with a more partriarchal polygamy. There is one man who is married to at least two other women. The women are involved in a heterosexual relationship with the man. There is not usually any homosexual activity. I don't think that is what a bisexual marriage may be.

Yes, darkeyes, there is much resistance to same sex marriages in some parts of the world but that doesn't mean that bisexual poly marriage needs to wait its turn. If bisexuals withhold discussion and awareness of this option until same sex marriage is accepted everywhere as legal and morally acceptable, there will be no broadening of our understanding of ourselves between bisexuals. Hetero monogomous couple marriages, hetero open couple marriages, same sex marriages, bisexual marriages and other forms of non exclusive relationships are all valid and morally acceptable options for a bisexual. We need to embrace our awareness and acceptance of these options rather than waiting until some verdict is found as Annika seems to desire.

I'm not saying don't discuss it and keep the idea alive.. I'm not saying don't try and spread the word.. I am simply saying it is well down my priority list, as it is right down the list of the lgbt movement.. if it is there at all.. what I am saying, with everything else that is going on, we have to prioritise and accept we can't get everything we want at once regrettably.. and bisexual marriage is quite some way down the line..

.. I am not a single issue kind of person.. I have many interests and many different things with which I involve myself.. while sexuality and advancing the rights of those of us who are not straight is important to me my activities in environmentalism and conservation, animal welfare, work, family and living my life do not allow me the time to devote to every issue which is of importance to other people.. I no longer have an active party political life for reasons I explained elsewhere in these forums and I miss that enormously.. yet my time has been filled up all the same by the business of everyday living and other interests. Bisexual marriage seems to be important to you and I think that is great.. you have my support for the principle and the idea.. forgive me if it is not my number one priority Tenni, not everything can be..

[BiSpirit69]

I think it can work, and must say for many it already is. I would definitely try it, and it is something we are in the process of setting up right now. I'm a bi guy, my BF is a bi guy, and my wife would absolutely love to have two husdbands. But how do we tell the kids?:eek:

I would agree with you. I'm bi, my husband is str8 and I'm willing to fall in love with a bi or str8 woman. When that happens, we plan to leave the country to do a private nuptial exchange between the three of us. We sure ass hell can't exchange vows here in the States, "we are commenting a sin" in their eyes. Our children would know her as Auntie, until they are old enough were we can explain the situation to them.