Slog Comments
Letter from a Bisexual Plunged into "Invisible Darkness"
1
There are polygamist persons who want to get married too; or who are married, who have lives and relationships; hopes and dreams. We deserve to be included. By leaving us out of her speech, she relegates us to an invisible darkness; to shame and isolation; to pain and suffering. We deserve to be included in this. And as much as I support and love my gay and lesbian friends, our brothers and sisters, I love myself too. Please support MARRIAGE EQUALITY and not just same sex marriage or marriage for gays and lesbians.
3
If you wanted to marry a woman, how the hell would that not be same-sex marriage? You want a special certificate that says "bisexual" on it or something?
Sounds to me like another bisexual who thinks "plunged into invisible darkness" means "not talking about MEEEEEE".
No offense intended to bisexuals without this personality disorder.
Sounds to me like another bisexual who thinks "plunged into invisible darkness" means "not talking about MEEEEEE".
No offense intended to bisexuals without this personality disorder.
4
Nobody ever prevented bisexuals from marrying their opposite gender partners. Now nobody will prevent them from marrying their same gender partners. What the hootenanny is she complaining about? If it's just verbiage in a press release, GET A GRIP ON REALITY, honey.
5
The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking.
6
How do you say "potato"?
The bill will not be exclusionary; the LW will be able to marry either gender preferred. She can marry a man now in a "straight" marriage, no matter how she defines herself or they define their marriage. Soon she'll be able to marry a woman in a "gay" marriage and she can still define herself and her marriage however she'd like.
She cannot/will not be able to enter into a "bi" marriage, since currently-defined marriage requires you choose one person. So, is LW looking for polygamy? Is that what she's suggesting we make legal?
The bill will not be exclusionary; the LW will be able to marry either gender preferred. She can marry a man now in a "straight" marriage, no matter how she defines herself or they define their marriage. Soon she'll be able to marry a woman in a "gay" marriage and she can still define herself and her marriage however she'd like.
She cannot/will not be able to enter into a "bi" marriage, since currently-defined marriage requires you choose one person. So, is LW looking for polygamy? Is that what she's suggesting we make legal?
7
Isn't this the same issue that Rick Santorum raised?
What if 2 women and 1 guy want to get married?
What if 2 women and 1 guy want to get married?
10
Actually,with any luck we can all just get plain old married, instead of hetero/same-sex/gay/lesbian/homo/or whatever married.
11
It sounds like she would rather bitch about semantics than support same sex marriage. Being able to marry either a man or a woman is a pretty sweet deal, gay marriage would allow me that option. It would also allow transgender people to marry members of the same or opposite sex.
Stop whining because you weren't called out specifically in a speech, gay marriage and marriage equality mean the same thing. Perhaps that invisible darkness comes from having your head stuck in your ass.
Stop whining because you weren't called out specifically in a speech, gay marriage and marriage equality mean the same thing. Perhaps that invisible darkness comes from having your head stuck in your ass.
13
Oh please. Gregoire just didn't mention all of the concomitant permutations allowed by same sex marriage because she actually wants to support this thing. If she starts talking transgendered/bisexual/whatever, that will only erode support. Let's just get this thing passed and perhaps she can somewhat salvage her legacy as a Republican, excuse me, Democrat.
14
What a fucking whiner. The right to marry who you want is by definition an inclusive idea. If marrying anyone you want, regardless of gender, is legal, that pretty much makes your options entirely open. Did you want the governor to come to your house to give you special personal permission? Did you want your own private amendment to the state constitution?
Goddammit, Dominic, why'd you post this whiny self-absorbed tripe? Now I'm mad at bisexuals, and I am one, so that's a problem.
Goddammit, Dominic, why'd you post this whiny self-absorbed tripe? Now I'm mad at bisexuals, and I am one, so that's a problem.
16
It must be very effective "invisible darkness". I don't think that anyone with an ounce of reason can find it.
18
I demand a separate press release for every point on the Kinsey scale ! Plus a reading of a list of every possible gender identity and variation in all future speeches regarding marriage equality.
19
How about 'civil unions' for everyone and leave marriage to the couple - and government as far as possible out of the bedroom.
20
Whining aside, 'marriage equality' is much better political-speak than 'same-sex marriage.' She's annoying as fuck but she's got a point.
21
wah wah wah wah wah.
This whining might carry more weight if said letter writer wasn't in a marriage-track LTR (at least based on what she said) with someone she can already legally marry ... like seemingly 90% of all bisexual women.
Actually, no, it would still be weird if she was in a relationship with a woman and crying over the wording of a law that would enable her to marry her gf.
This whining might carry more weight if said letter writer wasn't in a marriage-track LTR (at least based on what she said) with someone she can already legally marry ... like seemingly 90% of all bisexual women.
Actually, no, it would still be weird if she was in a relationship with a woman and crying over the wording of a law that would enable her to marry her gf.
23
I don't think bisexuals are excluded, as Felder will have the right to marry a woman. But marriage equality is a better, more inclusive term. The argument is that calling for same-sex marriage or gay marriage suggests that there's a movement for special rights. Anyway, when Dan and Terry get married, they're probably not going to refer to each other as "my gay husband"; it will be "my husband." And what they're (and we're) after is marriage, not "gay marriage."
24
"Why not support Marriage Equality instead?"
This is Marriage Equality.
"Why not frame the words in a way that does not make the LGBT marriage campaign strictly for gays and lesbians?"
Because bisexuals can already get married to opposite-sex partners and trans individuals are covered by this movement. All rights are being fought for.
@5: "The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking."
Right. Fight for your rights, then fight for the public to use the most appropriate language.
This is Marriage Equality.
"Why not frame the words in a way that does not make the LGBT marriage campaign strictly for gays and lesbians?"
Because bisexuals can already get married to opposite-sex partners and trans individuals are covered by this movement. All rights are being fought for.
@5: "The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking."
Right. Fight for your rights, then fight for the public to use the most appropriate language.
25
@20 - i agree with blip. this woman needs to get a grip, but marriage equality is a better term to use than same-sex marriage--not because of leaving bisexuals out, or whatever, but because marriage equality sounds more like stopping a discriminatory practice and same-sex marriage sounds more like creating a new/separate thing for certain people. marriage equality just makes it easier to play the semantics game.
26
If you marry a member of the same sex, it's a same sex marriage regardless of your orientation. If you marry a member of the opposite sex, it's already legal. Yes, even for bisexuals. It's not "Straight people only" marriage.
27
If the words in a governor's speech are enough to plunge you into shame and darkness, perhaps you shouldn't listen to governor's speeches?
At some point we have to take responsibility for our own lives; fighting for marriage equality is right and good, but allowing one's sense of self worth to be dependent on the wording choices of a politician is a bridge too far.
At some point we have to take responsibility for our own lives; fighting for marriage equality is right and good, but allowing one's sense of self worth to be dependent on the wording choices of a politician is a bridge too far.
28
There's actually a very simple answer for all your questions: It's difficult to discuss sexual philosophy from the 90's to people whose heads are still locked in the 50's. Heck, they've been on non-stop squawk-box ever since a black man became our president. How are they going to parse the nuances of sexual attraction? These people have money & they vote, although they are dying out, which is all to the good.
So while we can discuss sexual mores here on the Slog at an adult level (for the most part-- lookin' at you, SB), Gregoire still has to address the rest of Washington like they're pre-schoolers.
So while we can discuss sexual mores here on the Slog at an adult level (for the most part-- lookin' at you, SB), Gregoire still has to address the rest of Washington like they're pre-schoolers.
29
This person wants to marry a man and she has the right to do that already. The new law would also allow her to have her second choice of marrying a woman. Is she seriously getting all uptight just because the governor didn't list every potential group of people that would be helped by same sex marriage? Can you picture the governor getting up and saying "we must support marriage for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trisexuals, transgendered people, intersexual people (whatever the fuck those are), hermaphrodites, shemales, guys with small dicks, women with large clits, asexuals, women who spell women womyn..." and on and on and on. It would have taken forever, sounded idiotic and lost a ton of support. Some people get so hung up on terminology they completely miss what's important.
30
Apparently "Shaunita" is obsessed with labes. She can currently get married 50% of the time, she just doesn't want to be called a lesbian if she chooses to marry a woman. That argument holds no water, a gay man and a lesbian woman can currently marry and they don't automatically become "straight" do they? Marriage equality will not iterate sexuality, two members of the same sex could marry for economic reasons and never have sex, just as some opposite sex couples do today. As for transgendered people, I know couples who married before one partner transitioned who are still married so thay have, in effect, same-sex marriages already, no one has forced them to get divorced and their marriages have remained legally binding.
31
@19 – I agree.
I have long believed that we as a society should give the religious dweebs what they want: ownership of the word marriage. And 'we the people' should only issue "civil union" licenses. Any adult could choose one other adult to legally bind themselves; romance and the ideals of marriage might have nothing to do with one’s choice. Then people can feel free to toss around the terms husband, wife, gf, bf, partner, marriage, as they wish to – it would be a self-defined term and the religious nut-jobs could claim ownership of its definition all they want.
I have long believed that we as a society should give the religious dweebs what they want: ownership of the word marriage. And 'we the people' should only issue "civil union" licenses. Any adult could choose one other adult to legally bind themselves; romance and the ideals of marriage might have nothing to do with one’s choice. Then people can feel free to toss around the terms husband, wife, gf, bf, partner, marriage, as they wish to – it would be a self-defined term and the religious nut-jobs could claim ownership of its definition all they want.
34
Oh, f*** me. This is why some people dislike those of us who do, or have, sat on the fence, sexuality-wise.
Shut the f*** up, as people have already said. This bill lets you marry whoever the hell you want.
Oh, you want a triad marriage? A (whatever it is past that) marriage? Great. Rewrite all the freaking property laws and inheritance laws to deal with when your stupid ass hasn't left a will. Then we'll talk. Otherwise, everything else is set up so that when two PEOPLE marry, pretty much everything else is gonna get handled.
I'm all for this bill. I'm all for any single person being able to marry any other single person they f***ing want to. This is NOT a trans issue. This is NOT a bi issue. This is straight up f***ing equality.
You're wanting special rights, not equal rights. Get in line.
Shut the f*** up, as people have already said. This bill lets you marry whoever the hell you want.
Oh, you want a triad marriage? A (whatever it is past that) marriage? Great. Rewrite all the freaking property laws and inheritance laws to deal with when your stupid ass hasn't left a will. Then we'll talk. Otherwise, everything else is set up so that when two PEOPLE marry, pretty much everything else is gonna get handled.
I'm all for this bill. I'm all for any single person being able to marry any other single person they f***ing want to. This is NOT a trans issue. This is NOT a bi issue. This is straight up f***ing equality.
You're wanting special rights, not equal rights. Get in line.
37
@30, I know you meant "labels", but forgive me if at first glance I thought you were saying "labia".
40
The governor actually did include bisexuals and transgendered people in her speech.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/speeches/spee…
http://www.governor.wa.gov/speeches/spee…
43
I would like to announce my support for same sex marriage.
That is, if you want to get same-sex married. That is to say I support same sex marriages for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Of course the bisexuals can also marry someone of the opposite sex, unless they don't want to. Not that I want to categorize everyone rigidly, I also support the right of the intersexed and pansexual to marry...uhm...whoever it is they marry. Not that you have to be sexual, I also support the rights of asexuals to marry and not have sex. I am fully supportive of the rights of transgendered men who are bisexually asexual to marry in any and all configurations.
Fit THAT on a headline.
That is, if you want to get same-sex married. That is to say I support same sex marriages for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Of course the bisexuals can also marry someone of the opposite sex, unless they don't want to. Not that I want to categorize everyone rigidly, I also support the right of the intersexed and pansexual to marry...uhm...whoever it is they marry. Not that you have to be sexual, I also support the rights of asexuals to marry and not have sex. I am fully supportive of the rights of transgendered men who are bisexually asexual to marry in any and all configurations.
Fit THAT on a headline.
44
Running low on page-views this week, so you had to haul out this red meat? (It's working.) Next, please.
45
@40: BUT SHE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT BIMARRIAGE AND TRANSMARRIAGE!
My guess is that it wasn't explicit enough for her liking.
My guess is that it wasn't explicit enough for her liking.
46
It seems to me that the problem is the idea of binary sexual identity (gay or straight rather than gay/straight/queer/bisexual/barsexual/pansexual/asexual/etc.) which is a real problem that makes bisexuals & others invisible -- not the specific language around marriage law that Gregoire used in that one speech. This isn't how I would have phrased the argument, nor is this particular argument the hill I would choose to die on, but I can see why she's upset.
47
@46: It is certainly a problem, but she is not being excluded by this movement, and her issue is social in dynamic, not legal.
" this would not qualify me under her speech. There are also my transgendered friends, who do not fall under the premises of her speech, who would not be considered nor consider themselves "same sex" as her support explicitly states"
This legislation ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to redefine marriage as not requiring a "man and woman". It is the first step, not the entirety of the struggle.
" this would not qualify me under her speech. There are also my transgendered friends, who do not fall under the premises of her speech, who would not be considered nor consider themselves "same sex" as her support explicitly states"
This legislation ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to redefine marriage as not requiring a "man and woman". It is the first step, not the entirety of the struggle.
49
She's right that it's better to frame the issue in terms of equality rather than an LGBT issue, but wrong / annoying in how SHE frames HER argument. She's making it all about her own perceived marginalization and either ignores or doesn't understand the benefit of using language that will have a greater impact on public opinion.
56
Is there some sort of check box on the WA marriage certificate to indicate the type of sex you will be having or what exactly will be going through your head while you're having it? Otherwise it hardly matters what your orientation is. Nasty sex -check!
57
What an odd complaint. Supporting same-sex marriage IS supporting the end to marriage discrimination based on sex (cause opposite-sex marriage is already recognized everywhere). I support equal marriage too, but I'm not going to bitch about someone who was previously a marriage bigot finally seeing the light and saying that they no longer oppose same-sex marriage.
In 2003, Canada recognized the constitutional civil right of gay people to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of the sex of the person they wanted to legally marry...and all the gays and lesbians and transgendered folk who live here and wanted to get hitched didn't get "same-sex married", or "trans-married", the just got MARRIED .
In 2003, Canada recognized the constitutional civil right of gay people to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of the sex of the person they wanted to legally marry...and all the gays and lesbians and transgendered folk who live here and wanted to get hitched didn't get "same-sex married", or "trans-married", the just got MARRIED .
58
@20 and @25, agreed...in all the mire of her shitty writing, and self-importance, she inevitably stumbles on a good point. Marriage Equality should be easier to sell and sounds a hell of a lot better than Same Sex Marriage.
The rest of it...ZOMG. I feel dumber for reading it.
The rest of it...ZOMG. I feel dumber for reading it.
61
And I want to marry 2 women. It's not a sarcasm, I really do. Why is nobody fighting for my rights?
62
@48: Got it at the convention. Don't tell me you let your Amalgamated Oppressed Carpet Munchers and Sausage Swallowers Union membership lapse and missed the convention notifications! Surely you remember our motto, at least? "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed?"
Snort. Some deviant you are.
Snort. Some deviant you are.
63
I'm (a heavily lesbian-leaning) bisexual. My fiancee's bisexual. Our relationship would be classified - and our marriage is going to be classified - as a lesbian relationship/marriage. The last I checked, we're both still bisexual. What the fucking fuck is this fuckery about bisexual invisibility? Jeez, complain much?
64
@54 - whaddya mean, NSFW-ish? Show tunes are ALWAYS fully-NSFW. Jeez, you trying to get a guy fired????
65
cant see the forest for the trees.
"is there a way we can make this more about me? that's be great. thx."
p.s. seattleseven, @50 - LOVE IT.
"is there a way we can make this more about me? that's be great. thx."
p.s. seattleseven, @50 - LOVE IT.
66
WTG Shaunita for voicing what so many bi folks feel when gay marriage is discussed! Our voices matter too even though it seems quite a few comments on this site have issue just being inclusive. Must be nice to be monosexual!
67
@66 - Gregoire didn't say "gay marriage" once.
Please explain how the term "same-sex marriage" is not inclusive, and also say what term you'd prefer.
I'm not trying to be snarky here - I'm just bewildered that you find injury in this.
Please explain how the term "same-sex marriage" is not inclusive, and also say what term you'd prefer.
I'm not trying to be snarky here - I'm just bewildered that you find injury in this.
69
@46 What is a "barsexual"? A person who only has sex with people they pick up in bars? Or maybe they only have sex in bars? Does gender matter in barsexual relations, or is it an equal opportunity Happy Hour for all? Maybe I've not been going to the right bars . . .
70
I had no idea bisexuals were apparently their own gender as well. Letter writer, take note: this is why people don't take you seriously.
71
@68 Where's the problem here? When all the other bisexuals call out this one for being totally unreasonable and self-centered and nitpicking something that objectively increases rights because it isn't perfect enough? Yeah, we're so fucking mean. As a bisexual, I'm going to chime in with the advice to get the fuck over it.
72
Hmmm . . . interesting that a bi-identified person would not find language like "same-sex marriage" inclusive. Bi the way, just so you know, for the last few year bi activists like Sheela Lambert, founder of the Bi Writers Association, have been pushing for the media and public officials to get away from the language of "gay marriage" and use "same-sex marriage" instead, so that bisexuals would be more aptly included in the movement for marriage equality and not erased.
So I guess, Shaunita, that you can blame bisexual activists for the language that the governor uses. I suppose you think bi activists have not gone far enough? Frankly, the issue of bi visibility is fraught with all kinds of semantic pitfalls, sometimes without any conscious intent. In my opinion, "marriage equality" is a great statement--by implication, it includes gender variance more than "same-sex marriage"--but I still don't think that in all cases it makes gender variant bisexuals significantly more visible. Something to work on.
So I guess, Shaunita, that you can blame bisexual activists for the language that the governor uses. I suppose you think bi activists have not gone far enough? Frankly, the issue of bi visibility is fraught with all kinds of semantic pitfalls, sometimes without any conscious intent. In my opinion, "marriage equality" is a great statement--by implication, it includes gender variance more than "same-sex marriage"--but I still don't think that in all cases it makes gender variant bisexuals significantly more visible. Something to work on.
73
What I don't get about this, as a bisexual, is that "same-sex marriage" is precisely the term you use when you want to emphasize that not everybody in a same-sex relationship is necessarily gay. How on earth does it leave out bisexuals? Yes, we are also attracted to the opposite sex, but opposite-sex marriage is already legal! If she ends up marrying the guy she is currently with, her marriage won't be affected at all by the legality of same-sex marriage in Washington. That kind of marriage is already recognized.
And this sort of confusion really doesn't help bisexual activists at all. One big complaint that gays and lesbians have is that bisexuals don't acknowledge how society privileges us when we're in opposite-sex relationships. Even those of us in OS relationships who are very open about the fact that we're bi, not straight, and fight against bi erasure, still get our relationships recognized and celebrated by the state and society in a way they wouldn't be if they were same-sex. Acting like her opposite-sex marriage needs to be roped in with the same-sex marriage cause is the kind of myopia that rightly gets called out by LGs.
There is a good conversation to be had about how the use of GAY marriage and GAY rights excludes the bisexuals to whom it also applies. (One that particularly irks me is the tendency lately for anti-bullying activists to refer to "gay and transgender" or "gay, lesbian and transgender" students, as though specifically leaving out the B in LGBT.) But this isn't that conversation.
And this sort of confusion really doesn't help bisexual activists at all. One big complaint that gays and lesbians have is that bisexuals don't acknowledge how society privileges us when we're in opposite-sex relationships. Even those of us in OS relationships who are very open about the fact that we're bi, not straight, and fight against bi erasure, still get our relationships recognized and celebrated by the state and society in a way they wouldn't be if they were same-sex. Acting like her opposite-sex marriage needs to be roped in with the same-sex marriage cause is the kind of myopia that rightly gets called out by LGs.
There is a good conversation to be had about how the use of GAY marriage and GAY rights excludes the bisexuals to whom it also applies. (One that particularly irks me is the tendency lately for anti-bullying activists to refer to "gay and transgender" or "gay, lesbian and transgender" students, as though specifically leaving out the B in LGBT.) But this isn't that conversation.
74
Pretty much the only good point she makes is the one about transgender people (in that, in states that recognize transgender people it's their gender, not their sex, that determines who they can marry - since two gay men where one is trans would technically be of opposite biological sexes, but the same gender).
75
I can't help but think this letter was chosen (out of all the kazillion letters the Stranger gets) because it's ridiculous and irrational, and paints people complaining about Bisexual invisibility as irrational, so us sloggers could take the piss out of the letter writer.
I'm guessing Dan would approve too, since he's the one who pokes fun of us whenever we complain about invisibility.
I'm guessing Dan would approve too, since he's the one who pokes fun of us whenever we complain about invisibility.
76
@75: Well, I didn't post the letter, but... in the final accounting... Dom's choice to post it 1. made it possible for lots of reasonable, sane bisexuals -- the overwhelming majority, in my experience, but underrepresented among the authors of letters claiming to speak on behalf of the bisexual community -- to weigh in and make it clear that this sort of buttsore inanity does not, in fact, represent the bisexual community and 2. made it impossible for this letter writer to complain, in a subsequent letter, that the Stranger didn't publish a letter she sent us once long ago about a bisexual issue of some import because the Stranger is committed to silencing the bisexual community, we do everything we can to make the problem of bisexual invisibility worse, blah blah Dan Savage is mean to us blah blah blah, etc.
I'd say publishing this letter was worth it just to read Whoop Di Do's interesting and informed comment.
I'd say publishing this letter was worth it just to read Whoop Di Do's interesting and informed comment.
77
I like the phrase "marriage equality" because I think it also helps emphasize that both parties in the marriage are equal to each other.
Obviously far and away the most important thing about removing the sex/gender restriction on the parties to a marriage is the equality of access to marriage for all people including same-sex couples. But as a straight woman, I will admit to enjoying it from a feminist perspective - because I am convinced that some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" So in that sense, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage might indeed destroy their conception of what marriage is, by redefining it as a relationship of two equal partners.
Just a little bonus.
Obviously far and away the most important thing about removing the sex/gender restriction on the parties to a marriage is the equality of access to marriage for all people including same-sex couples. But as a straight woman, I will admit to enjoying it from a feminist perspective - because I am convinced that some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" So in that sense, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage might indeed destroy their conception of what marriage is, by redefining it as a relationship of two equal partners.
Just a little bonus.
78
@tau >>> some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" >>>
This. Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.
This. Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.
80
Wow, it's no wonder so many conservative people are afraid of letting us have a political say - we can't even have a basic discussion about terminology without ganging up on each other.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
81
Wow, it's no wonder so many conservative people are afraid of letting us have a political say - we can't even have a basic discussion about terminology without ganging up on each other.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
82
Yikes, the utter cluelessness and whiny, pissy, hostile, disgusting, pathetic, self-hating and biphobic (and polyphobic) nature of most of the comments on this thread is astounding. From my perspective, you can all eff off and die. Equal marriage or marriage equality has been the right term since day one, with declining levels of acceptability down to "gay marriage" which our effing pathetically non-inclusive national organizations still haven't managed to get eradicated fom the lexicon of our "allies" because their asimilationist accomodationst agenda puts access to heteronormative privilege via marriage above everything else, while sissies, queens, butch dykes, transgendered folks and non-gender conforming people of all orientations continue to put their lives at risk just walking down the street and regularly get the holy living crap beaten out of them. Get over yourselves. Get over your biphobic hate for women who love women and men and happen to fall in love with a man (which is the real motivation for much of these comments). For the bi folk on this thread, grow a spine and develop some self-respect. Get this: not one bloody effing penny, not one, went to any bi-specific programming and services in 2008, 2009, 2010 from our "progressive" national GLbt orgs. The gay and lesbian establishment wants you (and every other "sexual minority" within the queer community) to STFU and not frighten the mundanes so they can grab the brass ring of heteronormative assimilation and deliver NOTHING in return to any of us. The *least* we can do is demand that we not be excluded from the discussion. Seriously: do the bi fols on here really not get that the most fundamental pre-requisite for tolerance and maybe acceptance is acknowlegement that we exist?
83
@82: Have you read any of the comments us "bi folk" have been making on this thread? I agree with you about the term "gay marriage" not being inclusive, but that's not the case with "same-sex marriage," which is what the LW is bitching about here. Reading comprehension - it helps!
Secondly, why do you assume that because we disagree with the LW, that we put up with people saying shit like "bisexual people don't exist"? I call out biphobia all the time, and in fact, a big part of my beef with this letter is that it makes it so much harder for us to get real, genuine biphobia taken seriously when people see bis like this LW complaining about nothing and claiming to speak for the entire bi community when they do.
TL;DR - If you're such a great bisexual activist, actually read what your fellow bis have to say and stop being so fucking condescending.
Secondly, why do you assume that because we disagree with the LW, that we put up with people saying shit like "bisexual people don't exist"? I call out biphobia all the time, and in fact, a big part of my beef with this letter is that it makes it so much harder for us to get real, genuine biphobia taken seriously when people see bis like this LW complaining about nothing and claiming to speak for the entire bi community when they do.
TL;DR - If you're such a great bisexual activist, actually read what your fellow bis have to say and stop being so fucking condescending.
84
I unfortunately agree with most of the sentiment. This is nearly a non-issue. I do think Marriage equality is a better term. However bisexual people need to complain about much more real issues. For example by being out as bisexual I have been harassed at work and school by both gay and straights and legal advocacy is actually necessary to sue the pants off idiotic people. OR the lack of education amongst professional medical workers including therapists, couples therapist etc. on bisexuality. OR the fact that when I was in a same sex relationship I was punched by a homophobic straight guy but I could NOT prosecute a hate crime because the courts decided that if I said I was bisexual the offender could have thought I was "straight" - even though he called me a faggot, and said I just want to suck cocks now etc. (i was dating girls before this but told him I was bi). OR the Mental health effects unique to bisexual people in regards to stigma (at a recent book signing a bi author who ran a bi men's group informed us of the suicides amongst bi men within one group over the years including THAT very day!) OR the lack of a bisexual community and lack of funds to build community to create safe places for bi people within LGBT. OR sexual harassment issues - I was harassed by a straight female teacher in undergrad and a bi male friend was harassed by a gay male teacher - in both instances we were asked to have sex to prove our professed sexual orientation. There are REAL bisexual issues. The other issue is of course there are actually only a handful of out bisexual people in my city and of those only a few who want or can be politically involved. So let's not waste time on Bullshit and remember that some newly out bisexual men and women are actually dying or in dispair, depressed and stigmatized. And whole lot more are afraid, closeted and isolated and don't know what to do about it.
More...
Comments (84) RSS