The Instigator
michelleaneoous
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Imperfiect
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are bisexuals capable of being in a monogamous relationship or marriage?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 64246
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

michelleaneoous

Pro

Bisexuality is often misunderstood has having equal attraction to both sexes (50/50). It is also misunderstood that they cannot have a monogamous relationship because they will be "yearning" for the uninvolved sex. However, bisexuality is defined as the attraction to both sexes, meaning either sex. They choose their partners regardless of gender. Straight people exclude the entire population of their same sex when it comes to choosing a partner, while bisexuals exclude no one. Meaning all men and women become a potential choice as their partner. Bisexuality cannot be considered as a 50/50 attraction to both genders, rather, a 100-100 attraction to both genders. Let us look at it through the straight perspective. Let's say you are a straight man who gets into a relationship with a woman. Are you automatically unattracted to all the other women around you? Not necessarily. No matter how exclusive you consider your relationship, the both of you will always be attracted to other people because it is human nature. This does not imply acting on the attraction. Going back to the bisexual perspective, a bisexual may choose EITHER a man or woman to be in an exclusive relationship with and still be attracted to other people. Now, being a bisexual does not imply being attracted to EVERYONE, rather, a bisexual can be attracted to ANYONE. They are people too, and have their standards when choosing a partner. When you truly love someone, you choose to be loyal to them regardless of your sexual orientation.
Imperfiect

Con

Now I think when most people read this they find three issues with the resolution:

1) It's a question, not a resolution.
2) It's a truism, and is indisputable for Con.
3) This is unfairly biased to Pro as LGBT rights have had huge media coverage and propaganda in their favor over the past 3 years or so.

When people who actually have a well-functioning brain look at the resolution they notice some more things as well as how the majority of readers are wrong:

1) It's a question, not a resolution.
2) It's a truism, and is indisputable for Con. It's completely impossible to answer yes and non-debatable for Pro.
3) LGBT will all cheer for Con because what Con is about to do is demolish the evil Republican outlook once and for all.

Why 1 is true:

It's a question, it's not a resolution. Pro cannot uphold a question as true as a question cannot be true only the answer can. Pro has already lost the debate by supporting an impossible side. BoP is inherently on the one proposing the resolution as true, by default Con wins.

Why 2 is true:

The question asks "Are bisexuals", this is already a flaw in and of itself as it doesn't specify if the resolution relates to some, all or just 2 particular bisexuals. On top of this after asking if multiple bisexuals "are capable of being in a monogamous relationship" which is impossible as only 1 person can be in a monogamous relationship with another and this means that the moment you ask if more than 1 person is capable of being in such a relationship it leaves the question of a 3-way monogamous relationship or even 4-infinite monogamous relationship and this is impossible. It states "relationship" not "relationships" which is the only way that more than 2 bisexuals (and since it's unspecified it leaves one to assume it is referring to all bisexuals as a whole which most certainly consist of more than 2) to be in one, single, monogamous relationship and this is definitely impossible. If all bisexuals are married to the same person then that person will have to ignore one gender since they are either homosexual or heterosexual and thus the bisexuals of the other gender lose out and prove the resolution wrong. Pansexuality is merely an extensive form of bisexuality and all pansexuals are bisexual but pansexuals merely are the 50/50 form of bisexuality since they have no preference of gender and do not even take it into account whereas bisexuals, who are attracted to the exact same scope of people as pansexuals are, merely admit to being slightly bias to one gender. So one pansexual marrying all bisexuals is not a counter-argument as pansexuality is an extended form of bisexuality and is completely compatible with it. All pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexual. As for "marriage" the same issue applies but actually this is even more interesting as even if Pro states that one pansexual can engage in a relationship with all bisexuals, they can't argue that anyone can marry more than one person at once.

Why 3 is true:

For Pro to state that all bisexuals are capable of a monogamous relationship is to say that all bisexuals want a monogamous relationship. There are a multitude of individuals, some of whom are bisexual, that support polygamy. These are more commonly known as swingers. Such groups of people are not capable of a monogamous relationship as to be capable of a monogamous relationship means that the parties must both agree to not have sex with anyone outside of that relationship. Thus, the bisexuals in this category are having not only their rights taken by Pro but their very existence wiped out form consideration and this is so disrespectful.

I conclude that Pro has been utterly demolished and must demand an apology from me for being so amazing.
Debate Round No. 1
michelleaneoous

Pro

michelleaneoous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
michelleaneoous

Pro

michelleaneoous forfeited this round.
Imperfiect

Con

Imperfiect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
michelleaneoous

Pro

michelleaneoous forfeited this round.
Imperfiect

Con

Imperfiect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
michelleaneoous

Pro

michelleaneoous forfeited this round.
Imperfiect

Con

Imperfiect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Who thinks bisexual people can't have monogamous long-term relationships?
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
Anyone can be monogamous, its ridiculous to think otherwise. To say someone who is a bisexual cannot be monogamous is just an unproven conjecture, people have the ability to freely choose to make the decisions and act however they want. Though I do not support LGBT, they are still people and to condescend their intellect by saying they cannot be monogamous only shows bias which is never good (unless its against something morally wrong). To say bisexuals have a 50/50 chance of being attracted to either sex is another conjecture (actually if mentioning a certain individual, an argument from ignorance) since Jimmy for example can tolerate dating men & women, but prefer women over men. So I agree with your argument that they like anyone else can, be monogamous.
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
Try the book "ethical slut". Very clearly there are individuals who maintain a monogomus relationship but are bi-sexual. Dating men or women, 1 at a time only, and don't cheat.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
I am Bisexual and to be honest, I would never have a relationship with a man, or even engage in any sexual acts with another man. Do I have attraction to men? Do I become aroused from watching male/gay pornography? Yes, but would I ever act upon these instincts, no.
Reasons included from religious reasons to possible humiliation or exploitation for my actions. I also do like women equally as much and just fine sticking with them and eventually being fruitful and multiply.
No votes have been placed for this debate.