Why can’t you compromise on equal protections and recognition in all other areas, without making the absurd demand for equal procreation rights, since it can’t even be done and might never be possible?

If sexuality could be described merely in binary terms, Jay, I’d find it much easier to support some form of same-sex marriage. As I see it, the fact that it cannot constitutes a major problem for what it (SSM) will mean down the line; it is this which makes it not just same-sex marriage or gay marriage but neutered marriage. If everyone was 100 percent gay or 100 percent hetero and knew it from childhood on this would be a much easier question. It’s the gray areas; the marginal cases, which make this problematic.

Two of my closest friends, who are also my roommates are a lesbian couple living together. One is all women all the time, the other displays more of a pan-sexualism.

I think more “femme” lesbians often enjoy the spectrum, much like Jules.

Here are some links to relevant articles at glbtq.com, the online encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexuality, and transgender culture:

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex.html

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/situational_homosexuality.html

And here is one to the related phenomenon of straight men who have sex with men:

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/straight_men_who.html

Arguably, Greeks and Romans who are having sex with women and men probably weren’t all that heterosexual but there was just no place to be gay, as we know it.

The reason men wouldn’t be more likely bisexual, again, is because sex with both men and women requires an anatomical and physiological response that is much more controlling for men that the physiological response that women have during sex.

There’s the old joke that the strange thing about bisexuals is that they all seem to end up spending most of their lives with men, whether they are women or men. There’s some truth in that anecdote.