What about us???

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 9:39am

In homage to some politically charged posts I've seen recently.... I want to throw something out there.

I've noticed that gay people tend to feel as though they are being persecuted, and straight people tend to feel that they are being accused of being bigots. The rhetoric between the two orientations prompts me to stand up for the "little" guy. The bisexual community.

I am a bisexual female. I am engaged to be married to a man, so I do value the sanctity of a union between a man and a woman. My fiance is wonderful and I love him very much. I am really looking forward to spending the rest of my life with him. But "the one that got away" was a woman with whom I had a completely satisfying relationship for 5 years. She left me, because at that time, we could not even imagine a time when we could even THINK of taking the next step in our relationship, and here in the south, lesbians don't get to adopt children. I've moved on and found someone wonderful, but here's the problem. Now, gay people can get married. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not against gay marriage. But with all this talk about freedom and equality and being fair to everyone, I think it's important to note that bisexuals, due to laws against bigamy will ALWAYS have to surpress their sexual tendancies in order to be able to have equal rights to everyone else. There isn't really any way to be fair to everyone. Bisexual people have to choose between the loves of their life (which, as all straight and gay people know, is like choosing between apples and oranges.... Men and women are completely different), yet I hear very few bisexual people speaking up and taking ownership of their sexuality. Any thoughts from either side on this? Or even from a few fellow "fence-straddlers"?

-Tea

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 9:52am

Gay people can get married in one state out of 50 and that's still being challenged. Plus if the Governor of that state gets his way,nobody living outside Mass. will be able to come there and get hitched. To say that "There isn't really any way to be fair to everyone" is a dangerous thing to say because there is a way. It's called equal rights. It's what we are supposed to be guaranteed by the Consitution of the United States. Unfortunately right now it's being pissed on by a group of very misguided people who for one reason or another don't understand that I did not wake up and decide that I was not sexually attracted to women. Because they don't understand this and because of people having attitudes that "One state is enough","they already have civil unions" or "They don't need special rights to protect them", our rights are still on the fence. States can still freely pass discriminatory laws against us at will it seems, so if we are a bit defensive nowadays and feeling persecuted you'll have to excuse us. We are.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:16am

OH NO!!!!! Please don't think that I am against gay people or that I believe the right-wing propaganda that continues to squash your rights. That's TOTALLY not the point of what I wrote, and I want to make that very clear. I just want to make the point that at least advances ARE being made in the field of gay rights. But bisexual people are still in the dark ages, and I think it's primarily because people view us as trying to have it both ways. Our moral integrity is attacked (I feel) in a more aggressive way.... Ignorant people simply refuse to even acknowledge our existence. Because of the nature of bisexuality, moral standards of monogomy are difficult for us to adhere to (albeit, not impossible.... I'm living proof of that, I suppose) and until the majority of Americans actually change down to the root of what a "normal, healthy relationship" is, equal rights will not be afforded to bisexual people. I should not have said it's impossible. Perhaps extremely improbable would have been a better phrase. people who prefer 1 sex or the other, even if they are gay, still have the opinion that being with more than 1 person is fundementally wrong (assuming that you're trying to have a real relationship), while bisexual people can love two totally different people equally and with huge respect. But that's not OK with today's society. That's all I ws saying.

-Tea

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:16am

I'm not sure I see your argument as valid. The fight for gay marriage is so that one person can commit to a lifetime with another one person. Marriage, be the participants gay or straight, are signing on to an exclusive relationship. As a bisexual, once gay marriage is universally accepted, you will have the best of both worlds. But by entering into a marriage contract, you are still making a choice. Of course, you still have the option, like the rest of the world, to engage in extramarital affairs, but that's a different issue.

You seem to be arguing the monogamy vs. polygamy question, not marriage rights.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:30am

"As a bisexual, once gay marriage is universally accepted, you will have the best of both worlds."

That is EXACTLY the attitude I am talking about. that is a mis-statement. And I know it doesn't come out of resentment, but from misunderstanding. Gay people are angry that their fundemental right to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love is challenged. I am angry about the same thing. Gay and straight people have 1 thing in common.... They prefer 1 sex.... Only 1. Bisexual people can find equal footing with BOTH. Is it fair to tell a bisexual person that they have to CHOOSE 1 sex or the other? Wouldn't that come dangerously close to telling gay people they have to be straight? Can't a bisexual person commit their life to 1 man AND 1 woman? It's a fundemental question. It's the world view of the nature of COMMITMENT, not the nature of sexuality, that needs to change in my opinion.

But just to make this clear to EVERYONE.... I'm just throwing the question out there for debate. I'm looking forward to becoming Mrs. Joey Meadows and hanging up my lesbian tendancies (although, to be honest, isn't it every straight man's fantasy to have two women at one time?) to enter into a monogomous relationship with only 1 person. I'm just trying to speak up for all those bisexual people out there who DON'T feel the same way I do, and are being ignored by a public that can't even wrap their brains around their sexuality. That's all.

GAME ON!

-Tea

[orion59]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:40am

I understand what you are saying and, on the surface it may sound to some like a legitimate argument. However, as a bisexual you really would be no different than anyone else when it comes to marriage. You, like anyone else, will make a choice in who you want to spend the rest of your life with. Any heterosexual or gay person choosing to be married is making a decision to committ themselves to one person. The gender doesn't matter. It's the fact that two people are committing to one another. You seem to be advocating the right to marry both a man and a woman.

I think Iflit's comment about the best of both worlds means that you, as a bisexual, would have the choice to marry either a man or a woman. It would be completely open to you to marry whomever you fall in love with. That's very different than being able to marry two people at once.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:55am

For the record.... I personally aggree with all of the statements made about marriage being between 2 people, not 3. But that's MY opinion (and that of most people in the world), not fact. Our legal system defines marriage as being between only 2 people, but there are many countries who advocate polygamy for various reasons, primarily religious, so marriage CAN, in fact, involve more than 2 people.... Just not here. My point is.... the fundemental root of bisexuality is the fact that bisexuals do not belong to one sexual orientation or another. They belong to BOTH. The differences between being gay and straight are boundless, and I don't think it's necessary to outline them here, but the fact is that the relationships and the benefits and drawbacks of them are totally different. That is why straight people don't really understand the gay lifestyle, and vice versa. So bi-sexual people, without the right to have both a gay AND a straight commitment in their life, are really being asked to be half of who they are. The point is that the very legal definition of marriage only being between two people steps on the rights of bisexual people, just like the "between a man and a woman" phrase steps on the rights of gay people. It's about equality that is based on nature, not morals or religious rhetoric. Nature is unbiased... And she made some of us incompatible with societal norms. THAT is the question. And YES... For the sake of argument, I AM arguing for polygamy, but not for people who claim it as their freedom of religion.... For people who claim it as their NATURAL right.

-Tea

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:55am

Polygamy is a horse of a totally different color.
If you want to be with more than one person, then that's called being 'single'. Or be in one of those relationships so popular with Jerry Springer fans where 3 people live together openly.

Updated On: 5/21/04 at 10:55 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 10:56am

Bisexuality happens. Anyone with a pet (well, a mammal) knows nature is basically built on bisexual behavior. Try telling a happy dog whom to hump. In fact, the right Windsor chair, in certain light, can be damned cute to a randy beagle.

I believe that ultimately, people can behave the same, given circumstance, opportunity. Bisexuality is controversial in this society, particularly to the boomer gen, because in post-Stonewall America it is a political term--infamously code for the closet. It mostly provokes skepticism, despite evidence on a case-by-case basis, of love, desire, choice. (I mean, pu-leeze, let Barry and Diane Von F. design sheets together and count his money; talk about a waste of eyebrow raising.) In my experience, I've noticed that women are always allowed more freedom to self-identify, for myriad reasons. It was a big moment in the movement when the Gay Pride celebrations began to includ the B word. Still, the predominate attitude can be summed up by Maggie Smith in CALIFORNIA SUITE, "If there's one thing I hate, it's a bisexual homosexual..."

Updated On: 5/21/04 at 10:56 AM

[orion59]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:10am

No matter what definition is put on marriage, there are going to be people who fall outside of that definition. "Between a man and a woman" leaves out millions of same sex couples. "Between two people" leaves out anyone of any sexual orientation that belives in polygomy. To take all definitions and restrictions away and say marriage is whatever the people involved want it to be, opens all kinds of potential legal issues.

Leaving aside the religious beliefs, a marriage between three people, legally, becomes complicated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist and that people who want taht should'nt advocate for it. it just isn't something taht you can expect to happen very quickly or easily in this country.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:11am

ck.... That's the point. I believe that it IS possible for a bisexual person to be equally commited to a straight relationship AND to a gay one. It is possible for a bisexual person to completely commit their enitre STRAIGHT life to one person and their enitre GAY life to another, different person. One would have to find every understanding partners for it to work, but I think it is possible.

There are wonderful, committed bisexual people all over this country who don't have a right to be with the PEOPLE (not person) they love. BI-sexual means TWO sexualities, therefore shouldn't two commitments be possible without being "single" or demeaned by ignorant rednecks on Jerry Springer? Why should bisexual people be labeled that way? Sorry, but that was rather tasteless, and I found it offensive. I'm not trying to be oversensitive here, but that was (in the words of my 16 year old soon to be brother in law) "SOOO not cool."

-Tea

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:12am

Orion clarified what I was trying to say. I have no problem alternative unions...or frankly, with the number of people involved. But I think that redefining marriage to include more than two individuals is gonna be a hard sell, and one of which I am not in favor.

Jeesh, making one marriage work is difficult enough. You want to try your hand at two simultaneously? Yowzah.

And for the record, being straight and married doesn't preclude someone from feeling intense desire or attraction, or even from forming a strong bond with someone who is not the spouse.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:14am

Right on, orion.... That's what I'm thinking.... It's not that it's impossible, but it's complicated, which is what I meant when I said that it's "highly improbable" that this country will ever be fair to EVERYONE. thanks for your intelligent response. I like you. :)

-Tea

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:40am

Sorry, but that was rather tasteless, and I found it offensive. I'm not trying to be oversensitive here, but that was (in the words of my 16 year old soon to be brother in law) "SOOO not cool."

I personally think it's "SOOO not cool." to make a connection that to be bisexual one should argue for polygamy... It's hard enough as it is.

Bravo for getting married. I did it too. But it is YOUR choice. No one is telling you you have to do it. If you want the constructs of marriage for a third person, you've got a long road ahead. In my opinion (which I believe is allowed here, without being labeled "not cool") it is not the best argument that you make.

Yes, we should ALL be able to live and love equally, sure... But seriously, bisexual polygamy legalized? You'd have an easier time passing legislation making it legal to marry your poodle. Oh I'm sorry, did I start your next thread for you?

Nothing is impossible, I agree. But please speak for yourself only.

Updated On: 5/21/04 at 11:40 AM

[orion59]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 11:50am

In thinking more about this, I can just image the numerous complications. There are leagl issues like who makes the decisions for you if you become unable to and have two spouses? This may be taken care by requireing all parties to make a leagl document outlining what should be done and who ha sthe decision making authority. Another issue is that of divorce. if I want to divorce you but not her, what the hell happens?

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:02pm

ckeaton, this thread was started after I had a discussion with one of my bisexual friends who happens to be in a long term relationship (13 years to be exact - most MARRIAGES don't last that long) with both a man and a woman. I wanted to find out opinions of other people and to advocate his fundemental right to be committed to BOTH of them. I do not PERSONALLY aggree that polygamy is the answer, as I have REPEATEDLY said in this thread. I wanted opinions, and hopefully practical solutions to the complicated problems in bisexual relationships, because while I do not believe in polygamy, I don't see any OTHER methods to ensure that bisexual people get equal rights. Your "Jerry Springer" comment categorized 3 way relationships as a freak show, but to many bisexual families, they are normal and healthy, therefore, YES.... I think comments that advocate discrimination and judgement are "uncool". Perhaps I'm out of line for that, but they're my feelings, and I don't think a feeling can be "wrong". you can disaggree, but there is no "right" or "wrong" way to feel. All I'm saying is don't demean my question and keep it a healthy debate. There is no need to personally attack anyone by implying that their sexuality should be the subject of a joke or a talk show.

As for your "poodle" comment.... that doesn't even dignify a response.

-Tea

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:04pm

I believe it was the great Suzanne Sugarbaker that once said

"BiSexuals are just greedy! The rest of us have to choose - Why don't they?!"

When in doubt, quote Suzanne.

[SweetTea]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:04pm

Orion, that's why I can't advocate polygamy.... But what can be done??? I mean, really, how can we afford equal rights to bisexual families without changing EVERYTHING about the institution.... Thoughts to ponder, and my reason for starting the thread.

-Tea

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:10pm

Tea-
I think comments that advocate discrimination and judgement are "uncool"
I'm not sure where you got the idea that my comment was advocating judgement and discrimination. In fact, I was pointing out reality. Those types of relationships are most often in the public eye on talk shows. I wasn't saying it was good or bad. Just saying it is a fact.

Perhaps you are just a bit oversensitive.

All I'm saying is don't demean my question and keep it a healthy debate.
Ah, but darling, you demeaned my honest response to your "debate".

As for your "poodle" comment.... that doesn't even dignify a response.
Ah, but you did respond. And it fills me with joy.

- C "fence-straddler" K.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:13pm

• YES... For the sake of argument, I AM arguing for polygamy
  
• Orion, that's why I can't advocate polygamy....
  

Seems like you are on the fence in your argument too.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:14pm

I have a question...are we talking about a "threesome" equally committed to each other? Or one person being married to two separate individuals who do not have a relationship with each other?

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:20pm

I like threesomes.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:23pm

Are we planning something?

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:23pm

Nope, just taking over the thread.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/21/04 at 12:24pm

i'd also like to be heard here on the fact that this debate on marriage and relationships as it now stands needs to include an honest discussion of changing the age of consent to a more reasonable age, like say, 12. it's time to acknowledge that children understand much more today than ever before and that antiquated fear based laws are now punishing too many innocent people for expressing their love. it's time to tear down the establishment's hold on morality and re-define our lives for a new generation.

tune in later to hear me argue for bestiality friendly statutes for those who really love animals.

for the record this was satire. i do not now, nor have i ever advocated sex with children. sex with the child-like is sometimes impossible to avoid, but only if they're over 18. unless you're in an open minded country like thailand that has transcended our nazi-like regime of bias against the different.

oh man i'm going to hell now for sure. eddie, save me a good pitchfork.