Bisexuality, Slippery Slopes, and Multipartner Marriage

ABSTRACT

This article explores the position of polyamory in slippery slope arguments directed against the campaign for same-sex marriage rights in the United States. In the rhetoric of right-wing opponents granting same-sex marriage rights is seen as the first step on a long spiral downwards toward moral decay, which will successively normalize a whole range of problematic and ‘unwanted’ practices. Polygamy and, in its close proximity, polyamory are usually the first items on a list that may also include adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. The article highlights the mobilization of racist and nationalist tropes at the heart of antipolygamy sentiments and considers the impact of this legacy for poly politics. Concentrating on the analysis of essays published by the Conservative journalist Stanley Kurtz, the article explores the connection between bisexuality and polyamory in some slippery slope arguments. slippery slope arguments have been a constant feature of the debates about same-sex marriage rights in the United States. Their relative prominence and strong hold within the public imagination have also affected the discourses deployed by poly activists, resulting in common disassociations from polygamy and an a reluctance to engage with questions regarding the legal recognition of multipartner relationships at all. Understanding the slippery slope dynamic is important for grasping the conditionality that contributes to the persisting hostilities against polyamory, polygamy, and LGBTQ intimacies and that shapes social movement politics.

KEYWORDS:

• bisexuality
• polyamory
• polygamy
• same-sex marriage
• multipartner marriagel
• race and racism

Notes

1. ‘LGBTQ’ is an umbrella term that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. I use it occasionally for the sake of brevity to refer to a cluster of identities, intimacies, and diverse forms of political activism. I also use the term ‘LGBT’ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) when I talk about more “formalized forms of lobby politics” that have been salient in the U.S. American campaign for same-sex marriage (Whitehead, 2012). It does not make sense to include a reference to ‘queer’ here, because queer activism has been mostly opposed to same-sex marriage and representative identity and/or lobbying politics (Conrad & Nair, 2009).

2. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalised oral and anal sex between consenting adults on moral grounds.

3. I have used the term ‘same-sex marriage’ throughout this article. The formulation ‘gay marriage’ is problematic for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the term ascribes a specific sexual orientation to those who may decide to enter a marriage with a person of the same gender (i.e., gay or lesbian). It therefore renders invisible bisexual, pansexual, or queer-identified people in same-sex marriages. Using the generic term ‘gay marriage’ further enters an androcentric bias, because in its contemporary usage ‘gay’ is mostly used to refer to gay men (rather than lesbians). Organizing the debate on same-sex marriage under the heading ‘gay marriage’ is thus exclusive with regard to several registers (see Hackl, Boyer, & Galupo, 2013).

4. In this article I use Black with a capital B to refer to African Americans and all others who do not identify as white and share a history of being subjected to colonialism and racism. Black is frequently used as a consciously chosen positive ethnic/racial and/or political identity. I use white with a lower case, because whiteness has been less salient as politicised identity (i.e. outside of white supremacist political movements, whose ideologies I do not condone). I consider both ‘Blackness' and ‘whiteness’ as socially constructed references.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christian Klesse

Christian Klesse is Reader at the Department of Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Christian's research interests include sexual politics, social movements, nonmonogamies, and body modification. Recent publications include work on nonmonogamy, such as “Marriage, Law and Polyamory. Rebutting Mononormativity with Sexual Orientation Discourse?” (Ońati Socio-Legal Series Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(6), 2016), “Polyamory – Intimate Practice, Identity or Sexual Orientation?” (Sexualities 17(1/2), 2014) and “Poly Economics – Capitalism, Class, and Polyamory” (International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 27(2), 2014).