[FascistLibertarian]

I cant count the number of times here we have talked about homosexuality. I cant recall there every being a discussion about bisexuality. My view is (and im sure this will be shocking) that there is nothing wrong with bisexuality. Bisexuals clearly can reproduce and kinsey and other studies have shown that a large % of the population will have some same sex experince at some point in their life. So is bisexuality good or bad or netural in your view?

[RUEZ]

I'm neutral on it. I don't care what consenting adults do in private, as long as it's kept from view of those that don't want to see it.

[Winston2004]

Time to move on?!?

[SFrank85]

I have to question those studies that you are talking about.

[Riley W]

I don't care what people do in their bedroom as long as:

A) All partners are above 18
B) They are all consenting
C) In privacy and out of sight and hearing of others who are not interested in viewing or hearing it.
D) To an extent that all participants are of sound judgment (not under the influence)

[Craig]

So long as I don't see Bisexual Pride parades or "Judy loves Jack and Julie" books in my kids public school library I'm fine with it.

[Mac]

[Hasdrubal]

The topic fits in well with pologamy. If you want the best of both worlds it's simple: Judy loves Julie, Julie loves Ted, Ted loves Judy; were one big happy family so let Judy wed Ted, Ted wed Julie, & Julie wed Ted. :roll: But hey atleast Ted is one happy man. :P

[Triple_R]

The very existence of bi-sexuality is one of the reasons I'm inclined to not believe that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature.

Bi-sexuals clearly enjoy having sex with members of either gender, and that begs questions like...

1. If there is a homosexual gene, is there also a bi-sexual gene? And if so, can you prove the existence of three sets of genes (one for homosexuals, one for bi-sexuals, and one for heterosexuals)?

2. Is sexual orientation not a black/white all-of-one/none-of-the-other sort of thing in which we're all on an axis of sorts, instead of squarely in one category (heterosexual) or the other (homosexuality)?

I have yet to hear or read the proponents of homosexuality being purely genetic in nature tackle these bi-sexuality issues.

Ethically and morally speaking, I strongly object to bisexuality.

There's something inherently promiscuous and sex-obsessed to me with a person potentially being able to sexually objectify every signle adult person that's not a blood relative. I think that it's better when one gender or the other is strictly within the bounds of plutonic camaraderie/friendship. There's a certain comfort zone that you can only gain with people that you know have a sexual orientation that means they could never possibly be sexually interested in you (I've often heard that this is one of the reasons why many straight women like gay men).

All of this being said, it's not a matter for governments to be concerned with.

Still, in my personal view, bisexuality is bad, even if it's rooted in genetics. Please choose one gender or the other to be the one you'll search out sexual partners within.

By the way, the Kinsey studies are infamously flawed (and hence unreliable), due to how they surveyed only particular groups of people that have a greater propensity towards sexual activities that fall outside strict heterosexuality than the adult population as a whole.

[radicalcentrist]

I don't care about bisexuals or homosexuals in the fact of their sexuality. I believe that homosexuals could be taken advantage of in society. If I was the Conservative government here's my take.

1- Homosexuals cannot reproduce, they need to adopt. Adoption is good, especially if these are rich homosexuals.
2- Saying good things about homosexuals will get those gay activists off our ass.

[mrsocko]

[KPK]

Bisexual - a lying homosexual

[Cool Blue]

[KPK]

[Craig]