What about us???

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Are we planning something?

---

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.

---