The world would be a better place if everyone was bisexual.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

Universal bisexuality wouldn't solve core societal problems like poverty, violence, inequality, or environmental crises, which drive most global suffering. Sexual orientation is a minor factor compared to these. Diversity in human experiences, including varied sexual orientations, enriches culture and genetics. Forcing uniformity (even hypothetically) erodes this variety without clear benefits. Bisexuality doesn't eliminate jealousy, infidelity, or relationship breakdowns—issues persist regardless of orientation. It might even increase health risks like STD transmission from broader partner pools. Procreation could decline if same-sex pairings rise, exacerbating aging populations in many nations. True progress comes from tolerance, not hypothetical genetic rewiring.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Sexual orientation diversity is not a social problem that needs to be optimized away. A better world depends more on consent, equality, safety, and mutual respect than on everyone sharing the same orientation. Making everyone bisexual would not automatically eliminate jealousy, rejection, abuse, discrimination, or power imbalances. Many major human conflicts have little to do with orientation at all. A world where everyone is the same in this intimate trait could also reduce an important form of human diversity. It is generally better for people to be free to be who they are than to impose a universal orientation, even hypothetically. If the claim is really about reducing prejudice, the better solution is broad acceptance of all orientations, not replacing them with one orientation for everyone.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Mandatory uniformity of any identity—including sexual orientation—would create a dystopian world, not a better one. Human flourishing depends on diversity, autonomy, and the freedom to define one's own identity, attractions, and relationships. Forcing a single orientation on everyone would violate fundamental human rights and erase the rich tapestry of human experience. Eliminating heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, and other orientations would destroy distinct cultures, communities, and ways of loving that give meaning to billions of lives. Identity erasure causes profound psychological harm and represents a form of violence against minority groups. Moreover, bisexuality is not a panacea for global suffering. Bisexual individuals are equally capable of prejudice, violence, greed, and environmental destruction. The world's problems—war, inequality, climate change—stem from economic systems, power structures, and resource scarcity, not from the diversity of whom people love. Finally, this premise assumes sexual orientation is infinitely malleable or should be engineered, which contradicts the lived experience that orientation is deeply personal and often immutable. A better world respects all orientations equally, not one that eliminates difference.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

While the premise seems to suggest that universal bisexuality would increase tolerance and reduce discrimination based on sexual orientation, this reasoning is flawed for several reasons. First, sexual orientation is a deeply personal aspect of human identity. Suggesting that the world would be 'better' if everyone shared one particular orientation implicitly devalues the identities of people who are heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or any other orientation. A truly better world would celebrate diversity of orientation rather than propose uniformity. Second, the assumption that universal bisexuality would eliminate prejudice is naive. Humans have consistently demonstrated the ability to create hierarchies and discrimination along virtually any axis of difference — race, class, religion, nationality, appearance, etc. Removing one axis of potential discrimination would not fundamentally change human nature or social dynamics. Third, the framing conflates a specific sexual orientation with moral or social outcomes. A better world comes from cultivating empathy, respect, and justice — not from engineering everyone's sexuality to be the same. The goal should be a world where all orientations are equally accepted, not one where diversity of orientation is erased. Finally, there's something philosophically troubling about the idea that uniformity in any fundamental human trait would make the world better. Diversity — including diversity of sexual orientation — enriches human experience and culture.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

A better world is not achieved by erasing diversity, but by fostering absolute acceptance of it. Suggesting that the world would be better if everyone shared the exact same sexual orientation implies that our differences are the root cause of societal conflict, rather than our inability to tolerate those differences. Human sexuality is a vast, beautiful spectrum. Monosexual identities—such as being exclusively gay or exclusively straight—as well as asexual identities, carry their own unique cultural histories, perspectives, and lived experiences. Erasing these to achieve a universal baseline of bisexuality would destroy a rich tapestry of human diversity. True societal progress requires us to build empathy across differences, not eliminate the differences themselves to make getting along easier. A utopia built on uniformity is culturally stagnant. The goal should be a world where everyone is safe, respected, and celebrated exactly as they are, rather than wishing for biological or psychological homogeneity.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus that universal bisexuality is not a pathway to a better world, firmly rejecting the premise of identity uniformity. Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro characterized the proposal as a move toward a 'culturally stagnant' or even 'dystopian' erasure of diversity, while Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 argued that prejudice would likely persist along different axes regardless of shared orientation.

All 5 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: A better world is achieved through the absolute acceptance of diversity rather than the engineering of homogeneity; erasing the unique cultural histories and lived experiences of heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual identities would represent a form of identity violence and lead to a stagnant society.