Saturday, July 30, 2016

Who's looking out for the B's?

I'm sure you've seen the acronym, LGBT. Maybe it was spelled differently. I don't know the rules. Often there are added letters, like LGBTQ or LGBTQa or something. I've seen LGBTQIA. I've even seen LGBTQQIP2SAA. Way too much to figure out. But in the shorter versions I do okay. Let's see, the "L" is for lesbian and the "G" is for gay. Now, to be honest, I'm not actually clear on the distinction there. I thought "gay" referred to anyone with same-sex attraction, but, hey, what do I know? The "T" is clearly for transgender (or transsexual, I suppose). The "Q" can be confusing because some sources say it refers to "queer" which, as I understood it, was the same as "gay" which, as I understood it, referred to anyone with same-sex attraction, but, as we've already seen, what do I know? Others say the "Q" refers to "questioning", which is equally mysterious since everyone asks questions. But let's assume it's about someone not sure if they are any of the other letters or maybe just an H (heterosexual). In the "IA" version the "I" is for "intersex" which, as far as I can tell, is, in the final analysis, no defined gender at all, and the "A" is for "allies" of the LGBTQQIP ... well, you get the idea.

If you were paying attention, I skipped one. No, not one of the obscure ones. Not even one of the extended ones. Given the "standardized" LGBT acronym, I skipped the "B". Now, defining it is pretty easy. It refers to the bisexual, people who are attracted to both sexes. Fine. We understand the concept. But what I'm wondering is this. In all the work that the LGBT groups and organizations and movements are doing, who is looking out for the B's? We've all seen where the LG groups have come out of the closet in order to push all sorts of new rights (like the right to redefine "marriage" into oblivion) while wielding unprecedented power of the courts and the lawmakers until the public has been swayed to set aside their minds and embrace their feelings instead. Morality aside, the only way this could take place is by, well, putting morality aside. And they have managed to do that by simply defining it away and sweet talking some and bullying others into agreeing. We've recently seen the shift for the so-called "T" group, where now their gender is so well defined that no one knows anymore what it actually means ... but it is well protected. Now they can use any bathroom they feel like. If you doubt the mainstreaming of the gender insanity issue, just look at the American winner of the 1974 Olympics men's decathlon -- "Call me Caitlyn, please" -- and we have mainstream "T" with a vengeance. You had better get your pronouns right. (So, is he going to return those medals from the men's events he competed in as a girl?) In these and many other ways we see that the LGBT has worked hard for the L and the G and the T. What about the B?

If the bisexuals were to get their rights secured, wouldn't we need to allow for polygamy and/or polyamory? (Polygamy would be one gender married to multiples of the opposite gender. Polyamory is mixed genders -- say, three guys and four girls married. Or not married. And it's not new.) If one of the key aims of the LGBT is to secure equal rights, this would have to be key. Somehow it hasn't been. Somehow even the LGBT crowd seems to prefer to define "marriage equality" as "what we say it is" and not "what works for the bisexual as well". They seem to say, "That 'only a husband and wife' thing? It's out. Any two will do. But, no, not more than two. Why? Because we say so." So, who is looking out for the B's?

Did you know there exists in the community that calls themselves "homosexual" a condition known as "biphobia"? (The source -- a gay pride location -- says it's "rampant in the LGT community.") That's right. There is a condition of discrimination among the LGBT (minus, of course, the "B") against the B's. So, who is looking out for the B's?

Well, I will if no one else will. I will -- and will encourage my fellow believers to -- give them the gospel just like anyone else. I'll encourage my fellow Christians to embrace the sinner without embracing the sin just like everyone else's sin. Someone has to look out for them. Clearly the LGBTLMNOP's aren't. But we know a Savior who will, don't we? We need that Savior. The "LGT" folk need that Savior. And the B's need that Savior, too. Total equality!

2 comments:

Doug Evans said...

Actually poligamy is marriage to multiple partners, there's actually a committment involved. Polyamorous is not the same thing, there's not even a thin veneer of commitment.If you notice in the article we both linked (great minds etc etc right?) one of the women in a poly relationship (put air quotes around each word) is married to and and living with another man and has been for 16 years. Polyamorous is simply narcissistic adultry

Stan said...

Yes, indeed. Like I said in the text, "...married. Or not married." They'd like to "mix and match" -- some marriage, some not, whatever suits their fancy at the time.

But, of course, it is my contention that for most of America "whatever suits their fancy at the time" is the definition of morality today.

However, in terms of "legal rights", these people would like to have their sensual, consensual, cross-gender, multiple partner relationships legally recognized with all the rights and privileges of "marriage". (I put that in quotes because our society has de-defined it so far that it has little meaning anymore.)