This entire article is hilarious

[LemmingofGlory]

That is one way to look at it.  I'd rather not watch, personally, but then, I have been to a real live dog and pony show, and it ain't pretty.

I suppose you could also look at it as "mental problem" or "immoral" (or other ways I haven't thought of?), but then it leaves the realm of "Could you not do that anymore?" and enters the realm of "You've got a problem." I prefer the former. It's more direct and solution-oriented rather than accusatory.

Lem, you might want to add to your list the problem of how people handle affairs outside the context of the relationship.  Some people are more possessive than other, or are dead set on the monagomous relationship being the only suitable model.  Relationships of any sort can founder on such grounds. 

Yup, "discovery of opposing theory of relationship dynamics" is another subset of "relationship dealbreakers." My purpose wasn't to examine all possible deal-breakers, just only those directly relating to "discovery of kink" or "discovery of sexual orientation" since the analogy between "discovering beastiality" and "discovering homosexuality" was what I disagreed with. So, I didn't consider it necessary to cover all potential relationship-enders.

The problem to deal with on the second reaction is the problem of breaking the trust in the relationship.

Or is that what you were getting at with this?

Unless the bisexual partner was committing adultery (or something else that's actually objectionable)...

Adultery is normally confinded to a discussion involving marriage, though one doctrinal definition is any sex outside of marriage, which would put all homosexual sex into adultery (or more properly fornication) unless the couple are operating under conventions where same sex marriages fit within norms/doctrinal limits.

"Adultery" was just specific case I used as an example; explaining adultery is unnecessary. The idea I was getting at is what's nested in my parenthetical.

As an aside, use of "fornication" with respect to homosexual sex is loaded language that carries a negative connotation. I don't see any point to using the term in situations where same-sex marriage is not an option, because then it's a way of sneering at homosexuals for unwed sex when their relationships can't be recognized as "wed" anyway, and that's elitist horsespit. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

On the other hand, if the lady loves the family horse, there are likely to be some endowment insecurities leaping to the fore in any discussion over resolving that excursion outside the box . . . so to speak.

That's assuming she loves Mr Ed. What if it's Mrs Ed?

-Lemmy