Bi Same Sex Marriage Invisibility

[tenni]

Congratulations to the gay and lesbians in New York State as they have legal "gay marriage" now. What about bisexuals?

Gays and lesbians were referenced in the media but no comment or use of the word bisexual in relationship to this legislation that I could read on AP, New York Times, BBC and even in Canada's Globe and Mail.

Apparently, bisexuals do not marry same sex people? So much for the belief that GLBT organizations support bisexuals.

Did the actual legislation use the term "gay marriage" or is this an omission to exclude bisexuals based in the media?


BI INVISIBILITY


The term "same sex marriage" was used later on in some articles but "gay marriage" was dominate. Same sex marriage is inclusive to bisexuals without proclaiming them as gay.

I noticed that two threads were started using the term "gay marriage" and not "same sex marriage". Bi invisibility-erasure used right on the bisexual.com site?

What does this mean to a bisexual who decides to marry into a same sex relationship? Are they then gay in the eyes of New Yorkers? (clearly they remain bisexual but invisible ?)

Does this media/ legislative invisibility treatment matter to anyone on this site or is it all political nonsense for you?

[Diva667]

They bisexuals in a same sex marriage.

That flag that everyone loves to complain about :rolleyes: yeah that one. It symbolizes the one thing about being bi that seems to be universal. Our bi-identities are damn well invisible.

Until we start standing up and being counted that's the way it will remain. The only way to make the world a safer place for bisexuals is to be an honest and out bisexual.

Not that I would ever out someone... but that's the way I feel.

[tenni]

Diva

Are you stating that the reason that the media didn't mention bisexuals as being one of the groups to benefit from same sex marriage is because bisexuals are not out and public enough? What happened to the umbrella and gays and lesbians supporting bisexuals? I would agree that it may be true that bisexuals are systemically invisible because they do not have a unite voice though. There is no organization speaking on behalf of bisexuals clearly enough to have the word bisexual be included in the media reports and possibly even in the legislation if it was called officially "gay marriage" instead of "same sex marriage". The media or the legislators too don't count bisexuals at all.

Invisibility is not about whether X number of bisexuals are out.

The term "Invisibility" is about systemic omission that bisexuals count or in this case are people who might marry their own gender. It is connected to the idea that there is political (maybe unintentional) omission of bisexuals in politics (as this law), society and history among other aspects. Bisexuals just don't count or matter.

A few threads have referenced the explanation of bisexual invisibility and bi erasure.

http://visible.bisocialnetwork.com/bisexual-invisibility-report-makes-history/

[Diva667]

Like it or not, only bisexuals can speak for bisexuals when it comes to claiming our rights.

[tenni]

I completely agree with you Diva.

Where is this so called "bisexual community" that is speaking on behalf of us?

This media reporting on same sex marriage and possibly the New York State legislature may be a clear indication of a lack of unity and representation. It isn't the first though. There was the report last year from San Francisco pointing out how bisexuals are invisible and their power erased. Yet, there are slightly more bisexuals than gays and lesbians combined as has been reported in several studies.

[Diva667]

Where is this so called "bisexual community" that is speaking on behalf of us?



That would be you and me honey...

As someone once said "Be the change you wish to see in the world"

[Katja]

There are enough bisexual people in marriages and civil partnerships on this site and throughout the world. They are either in a heterosexual or a homosexual marriage or civil partnership. These actualities recognise that they are either a union of two people of the opposite sex, or a union of two of the same gender. In neither case do these terminologies take account of the specific sexuality of the individuals concerned. In neither case should this be a matter of concern.

Whether or not a person is of a particular sexuality should not matter in either kind of marriage. It does not where marriages are between two people who have been honest with their partner as to just what their sexuality is. It may where that honesty was not there from the beginning. Forums is crammed with threads on just this issue.

Can you seriously be asking for a form of marriage to be called 'bisexual' marriage, where in fact the facility already exists in either a same gender or opposite gender scenario? What you are really saying is that because bisexuals are less open about their sexuality they become subsumed by their heterosexual or homosexual partner and the identity handed them by calling these institutions homo or hetorosexual when in fact they are simply marriages between two people.

The law does not say and will not say hetero or homosexual. It specifies by gender not by sexuality. It is human beings out of common usage of the lnguage or out of prejudice who specify what kind of marriage (or civil union) two people happen to enter as being straight or gay.

If bisexuals within any kind of marriage do not wish to be invisible, then that is easily rectified by telling the world thats what they are. I am a bisexual woman in a same sex relationship with another bisexual woman. Were we to marry would we enter into a lesbian marriage? People may say so but we will have entered a marriage of two people who happen to be of the same sex. It does not define our sexuality any more than does our present relationship. It will not alter the fact that we are both bisexuals, but we will have exercised our right in law to marry as human beings the person of our choice. Sexuality should be no consideration.

Even legalising polygamy would not make a marriage of any number of bisexuals a bisexual marriage, for any new polygamy law will apply equally to all people irrespective of sexuality within those polygamous unions. Therefore we come back to the same problem of invisibility.

It is bisexuals themselves who, if they wish, have to act and make themselves more visible. It is not the gay movement or the heterosexual world which has made bisexuals invisible, it is bisexuals themselves for often very good reason. If they want to have greater visibility it is up to them to make it so, not whinge about how invisible they are made by others and then complain when the law is changed to give them something they have been demanding for decades - the right to marry the person of their choice.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol katja, I was about to say the same thing......

[tenni]

"Bisexual invisibility manifests itself in the studied omission of bisexuality in discussions of sexual orientation. One example among many is an
anthology of essays on sexual orientation entitled Homosexuality/Heterosexuality.

This elision carries over into the law, where discussions of sexual orientation almost invariably privilege the straight/gay binary."

from The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure.
Stanford Law Review - January 1, 2000
Kenji Yoshino

[tenni]

"Evidence of bisexual invisibility.

Such a demonstration is easily made. On-line searches for the words "homosexuality" and "bisexuality" in mainstream newspapers, newsmagazines, and academic abstracts reveal a striking discrepancy in the incidence of the two terms. In the period from January 1, 1990 to November 30, 1999, the Los Angeles Times had 2790 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and 121 documents mentioning "bisexuality";(54) USA Today had 1768 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and twenty-nine documents mentioning "bisexuality"(55) and The Wall Street Journal had 396 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and nine documents mentioning "bisexuality."(56) In the same time period, Time magazine had 240 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and fifteen documents mentioning "bisexuality"(57) U.S. News and World Report had 120 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and three documents mentioning "bisexuality";(58) and The New Republic had 144 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and three documents mentioning "bisexuality."(59) While I expected much less of a discrepancy in moving from popular to academic sources, this proved not to be the case. In the same time period, the Social Sciences Abstract Database on Wilson Web had 1122 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and eighty-seven documents mentioning "bisexuality"(60) the General Sciences Abstracts had 221 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and six documents mentioning "bisexuality"(61) the Humanities Abstracts had 962 documents mentioning "homosexuality" and twenty six documents mentioning "bisexuality."

from The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure.
Stanford Law Review - January 1, 2000
Kenji Yoshino

[Diva667]

"Bisexual invisibility manifests itself in the studied omission of bisexuality in discussions of sexual orientation. One example among many is an
anthology of essays on sexual orientation entitled Homosexuality/Heterosexuality.

This elision carries over into the law, where discussions of sexual orientation almost invariably privilege the straight/gay binary."

from The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure.
Stanford Law Review - January 1, 2000
Kenji Yoshino

It isn't a "studied omission" more like laziness. Laziness in thought and in action.

People do what works for the least effort. Newspapers print what sells the most papers.

[tenni]

That would be you and me honey...

As someone once said "Be the change you wish to see in the world"

I'm doing my part by raising this to bisexuals on a bisexual web site. Educate the bisexuals first. It seems some blame bisexuals for systemic invisibility and bi erasure?

"studied omission" Uh...I think that you are not understanding the sentence? Study as in there was a study on heterosexual/homosexuality. Bisexuality was omitted from the study. Do you believe that the author was writing about individual bisexuals? It is not writing about individuals...let alone laziness?

[Realist]

I'm visible to those I want to be and visible to, and invisible to those I want to be invisible to.

I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks, I am OK with who and where I am.

I understand that many others want to be more flamboyant and social, but for me to be less conspicuous is natural.

I'm OK with anyone being who they want to be, as long as they aren't trying to force their opinions on me.

[DuckiesDarling]

There are enough bisexual people in marriages and civil partnerships on this site and throughout the world. They are either in a heterosexual or a homosexual marriage or civil partnership. These actualities recognise that they are either a union of two people of the opposite sex, or a union of two of the same gender. In neither case do these terminologies take account of the specific sexuality of the individuals concerned. In neither case should this be a matter of concern.

Whether or not a person is of a particular sexuality should not matter in either kind of marriage. It does not where marriages are between two people who have been honest with their partner as to just what their sexuality is. It may where that honesty was not there from the beginning. Forums is crammed with threads on just this issue.

Can you seriously be asking for a form of marriage to be called 'bisexual' marriage, where in fact the facility already exists in either a same gender or opposite gender scenario? What you are really saying is that because bisexuals are less open about their sexuality they become subsumed by their heterosexual or homosexual partner and the identity handed them by calling these institutions homo or hetorosexual when in fact they are simply marriages between two people.

The law does not say and will not say hetero or homosexual. It specifies by gender not by sexuality. It is human beings out of common usage of the lnguage or out of prejudice who specify what kind of marriage (or civil union) two people happen to enter as being straight or gay.

If bisexuals within any kind of marriage do not wish to be invisible, then that is easily rectified by telling the world thats what they are. I am a bisexual woman in a same sex relationship with another bisexual woman. Were we to marry would we enter into a lesbian marriage? People may say so but we will have entered a marriage of two people who happen to be of the same sex. It does not define our sexuality any more than does our present relationship. It will not alter the fact that we are both bisexuals, but we will have exercised our right in law to marry as human beings the person of our choice. Sexuality should be no consideration.

Even legalising polygamy would not make a marriage of any number of bisexuals a bisexual marriage, for any new polygamy law will apply equally to all people irrespective of sexuality within those polygamous unions. Therefore we come back to the same problem of invisibility.

It is bisexuals themselves who, if they wish, have to act and make themselves more visible. It is not the gay movement or the heterosexual world which has made bisexuals invisible, it is bisexuals themselves for often very good reason. If they want to have greater visibility it is up to them to make it so, not whinge about how invisible they are made by others and then complain when the law is changed to give them something they have been demanding for decades - the right to marry the person of their choice.

Well said, Katja. It's been said in here on another thread that people want to know if someone is bi or gay when they see two people walking down the road hand in hand. What they are, are two people that care enough about each other to show what they feel. What there sexuality is or if it is different from their partner is nothing that matters to them. They are doing what they want, the same thing with this argument that calling it something other than marriage somehow demeans anyones rights to say what they are.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I think a lot of people are misreading the situation. And it is because od a difference in culture. In the GLBT world, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered are all importNt distinctions ( and we argue about their meanings constantly).

In the straight world, however, the term gay is an umbrella term, as is homosexual. It covers anything that isnt straight. It isnt that we are invisible. They know about bisexuals (bisexual women are still the #1 fantasy among "all American highschool boys). But, using umbrella terms is easier for people, especially those uncomfortable with the subject to begin with.

What floors me though is that New York passes gay marruage and you still bitch. Gessus Mary and Joseph people. Really?

Pasa

[tenni]

If mainstream (heterosexual) society calls bisexual's gay and do not distinguish between gays and bisexuals, that is bi erasure and bi invisibility. It is practising a hetero/gay binary instead of a tertiary hetero/bi/gay.

It is not a matter of downplaying the same sex marriage law in New York state as much as stating that bisexuals are invisible systemically in New York state. In New York state or any legislative place stating that bisexuals are the same as gays is practising bi erasure and considers bisexuals invisible. No funding or any other help is needed for bisexuals because society gave the gays the money, medical help, legal protection etc.(contrary to what the San Francisco Human Right commission study stated...read it if you have not)

[drugstore cowboy]

I think a lot of people are misreading the situation. And it is because od a difference in culture. In the GLBT world, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered are all importNt distinctions ( and we argue about their meanings constantly).

In the straight world, however, the term gay is an umbrella term, as is homosexual. It covers anything that isnt straight. It isnt that we are invisible. They know about bisexuals (bisexual women are still the #1 fantasy among "all American highschool boys). But, using umbrella terms is easier for people, especially those uncomfortable with the subject to begin with.

What floors me though is that New York passes gay marruage and you still bitch. Gessus Mary and Joseph people. Really?

Pasa

Among Heterosexuals their use of the terms "Gay" and "homosexual" are not umbrella terms for everyone that's gay, bisexual, lesbian, or somehow not heterosexual.

Heterosexuals are not that ignorant about human sexuality and they know about bisexuality and they use "gay" as a way to mean gay men and sometimes lesbian women even in the media.

Even highschool kids are NOT nearly that ignorant about human sexuality as you want to claim that they are.

Gay/straight alliances are in schools all across the United States even in rural schools in Texas and the kids know what it means to be bisexual, gay, lesbian, or trans.

I do agree with Tenni that calling it "gay" or "lesbian" marriage instead of "same sex marriage" is biphobia and bisexual erasure, and it's offensive not to mention bisexuals in the fight for GLBT rights, same sex marriage, or GLBT equality and just to mention "gays" and "lesbians" only.

It's like how when Don't Ask Don't Tell was abolished how the media would only say "Gay and lesbian" and not mention bisexuals at all.

[Annika L]

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as "biphobia", but bisexual erasure (likely caused by disregard and ignorance), yes.

I disagree with Pasa that bisexual women are a fantasy of most males...a *straight* woman getting it on with another chick is the fantasy. Seems to me that if a straight guy finds out his gf is *actually* bi, his taste for her having sex with other women (particularly if he's not invited to join) may be somewhat tempered by reality.

But I do agree with Pasa that straight culture flippantly uses the word "gay" as a shorthand for anything in the LGBT spectrum. But that doesn't make it ok with me. They are wrong to do that, as it does erase/diminish/invalidate the B and T components of that spectrum.

More to tenni's OP, though, I think having a special term for same-sex marriage (calling it "gay marriage") sets it apart as something other than (and therefore less than) marriage. I don't want the right to gay-marry, or to have a gay marriage. I friggin want the right to *marry* the person I love, the person with whom I've spent the past 25 years of my life, and the person with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life (and for those who are counting, those are all the same person).

Bottom line, though, Pasa, I'm not bitching about what we've gained. Just bothering to also acknowledge how far there is yet to go. When you're making 40k a year less than a coworker with the exact same skill set, background, and responsibilities, and then you're given a 10k pay raise to help close the gap...y'know, it's nice, but you can't get so swept up in the good feeling that you don't remember that you're still being treated as less than an equal.

[shewolf50]

Ya see this is why I hate labels, just hold hands and love one-another and all these problems will work themselves out in the end!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Drugstore...I'm well aware of Gay/Straight Alliance in schools. I happen to sponsor and created the one in my school.

Using the term gay as an umbrella is common. For one thing, it's easy to say. For another, it's not as derogatory to the kids as the term queer. The kids arent ignorant. What they are is progressive. They don't get hung up on it. If someone says gay to mean "not straight" it doesn't bother them, especially when there is no malice in the intent.

I guess I just don't get the "bi-ereasure" idea. I see far more about bisexuals today than ever before. I see far more acceptance than ever before. It's really only when I see a few trolls on this site or in a few gay bars that are militant that I ever run into the "bi now/gay later" ideas. And for the most part it's from the same people who have no tollerance in the first place, who use terms like "breeder" and such.

But in my school? This conversation would be laughed at. They just don't give a shit as long as they are able to be with the person they choose.

Pasa

[drugstore cowboy]

I disagree with Pasa that bisexual women are a fantasy of most males...a *straight* woman getting it on with another chick is the fantasy. Seems to me that if a straight guy finds out his gf is *actually* bi, his taste for her having sex with other women (particularly if he's not invited to join) may be somewhat tempered by reality.

I agree with you on how Hetero/straight men fantasize about a "hetero" woman having sex with another woman.

I have hetero male friends who have told me how they personally do not want to date, sleep with, or get involved in any sort of relationship or even marry a bisexual woman since they want a completely monogamous relationship and monogamous marriage and they do not want her pining for women or wanting a woman later on in their relationship or marriage.

We as bisexuals know bisexuality does not work this way but Hetero/straight men do not want to be involved with bisexual women because they don't want an open marriage or an open relationship at all with anyone not even a hetero woman.

[Darkside2009]

Like it or not, only bisexuals can speak for bisexuals when it comes to claiming our rights.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't agree with this for one moment, history is littered with exponents for causes in which they were not personally affected. William Wilberforce was instrumental in getting slavery abolished in Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

A Presbyterian Minister was responsible for the resurrection of the Irish Gaelic language, when it had all but died out.

There are those of us on this site, that spoke out vehemently against circumcision in a recent thread, who are neither circumcised ourselves or ever likely to be. We did so because we seen, what we perceived to be an injustice to others, and wanted to put it right.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the thirty-three politicians who voted in favour of this bill becoming law in New York, were not all homosexuals. That the bill passed by one vote more than the minimum necessary might indicate that it is likely to be challenged in the future.

[sammie19]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't agree with this for one moment, history is littered with exponents for causes in which they were not personally affected. William Wilberforce was instrumental in getting slavery abolished in Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

A Presbyterian Minister was responsible for the resurrection of the Irish Gaelic language, when it had all but died out.

There are those of us on this site, that spoke out vehemently against circumcision in a recent thread, who are neither circumcised ourselves or ever likely to be. We did so because we seen, what we perceived to be an injustice to others, and wanted to put it right.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the thirty-three politicians who voted in favour of this bill becoming law in New York, were not all homosexuals. That the bill passed by one vote more than the minimum necessary might indicate that it is likely to be challenged in the future.

I see what you're getting at but Wilberforce was speaking for an entirely disenfranchised and enslaved population who had no voice. I dont know enough about the Irish language to make a comment, but do agree thereare times when people can and do act out of a sense of decency or speak up against injustice.

But in the 21st century west we are not disenfranchised and we have certain things we want to see. Sympathetic non bisexual people have their place in our camp and we should welcome their support and help, but it is we surely who should decide what we want from society?

We don't want imposed on us by non bi people a vision of what they think we want or is good for us but that is what we often get because of the way our world is. That's what slaves got after beeing freed for all Wilberforce's humanity and in many other countries such as the United States. We live with the consequences of emancipation of the slaves even now.



.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I agree with you on how Hetero/straight men fantasize about a "hetero" woman having sex with another woman.

I have hetero male friends who have told me how they personally do not want to date, sleep with, or get involved in any sort of relationship or even marry a bisexual woman since they want a completely monogamous relationship and monogamous marriage and they do not want her pining for women or wanting a woman later on in their relationship or marriage.

We as bisexuals know bisexuality does not work this way but Hetero/straight men do not want to be involved with bisexual women because they don't want an open marriage or an open relationship at all with anyone not even a hetero woman.

Huh. This is almost exactly opposite of my experiences. I am not discounting your experiences, but yours almost always seem to have far more homo/bi phobia and hangups involved than mine.

I wonder why that is.

Pasa

[hgf33]

I wouldn't think so far into it. Everyone is talking about the "gay marriage" law, but it was actually written as the Marriage Equality Act. I may not be straight, but if I married someone of the same sex, that falls under gay marriage. If we're judging the media for simply not being mentioned (it's not as if they specifically mention lesbians and trans either!), then we're losing sight of the progress we've just made! I, for one, am extremely happy for the entire LGBT community. Yes, we are bisexual, but guess what... in New York, some other states, and hopefully soon, everywhere else, we can marry either sex. Would we rather NOT have that option? Regardless of "what" we label ourselves as, the outcome is the same. Our rights have been acknowledged. Labels are for soup cans, anyway.

Next, they are going to mention bisexuals in the media, and someone is going to say "they didn't refer to us as pansexuals, this is a conspiracy!" And then someone else is going to say "I'm not pansexual, I'm a Kinsey rating!" Seems like everyone wants something to complain about. Step back and count your blessings sometimes. We've made progress in human rights and equality. I sure as hell am not going to bitch about that.

Cheers to New York!! :bipride:

[Diva667]

FWIW Dan Savage on Bisexuals (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/bisexuals/Content?oid=8743322)

[drugstore cowboy]

FWIW Dan Savage on Bisexuals (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/bisexuals/Content?oid=8743322)

Someone else posted this link before.

He's STILL biphobic and his little rant there just shows how little he knows about bisexuals, and he himself claims to "like bisexuals" yet spreads false information about us and practices bisexual erasure.

If you don't believe me look up what he's written about bisexuals in the past or watch the documentary that was on LOGO called "Bi the Way" where on camera he says how bisexuals don't exist, that we're a subset of heterosexuals (and therefore he has the excuse to bash us), and he even pulls out the flawed J. Michael Bailey study to claim that male bisexuals don't exist.

Doesn't anyone do their homework? A simple internet search could have easily told him how Bailey is a eugenicist who is all for discovering that sexuality is genetic so parents could then abort any future child of theirs that is discovered to carry the gene and not be heterosexual at all.

Savage is also a major hypocrite and should NOT be the grand marshall of NYC's GLBT pride parade, or the founder/spokesperson for the hypocritical "It gets better" project when he trashes adult trans and bisexuals and then tells bisexual teens in the article you posted that they don't exist and that they're going to eventually come out as being gay or lesbian when they're an adult.

It can also be argued that he started the whole "It gets better" project not to actually help GLBT teens but for fame, money, self promotion, and a reality TV show on MTV.

It's not just us bisexuals and trans people who are tired of Dan Savage's bigoted viewpoints about us.

I have gay male friends who are from Seattle and don't like how he's a media whore and does nothing to actually help gay men or GLBT people, and they don't like how he's Poz phobic either.

He also went on a racist tantrum when Prop 8 passed in the state of California blaming it entirely on African American or Black voters completely and he supported the current Iraq war.

[tenni]

Thanks Diva
That is the first time that I've seen the Savage reference on this thread. It may have been posted on another thread but it is important for this thread.

"And here's another thing that is: Most adult bisexuals, for whatever reason, wind up in opposite-sex relationships. And most comfortably disappear into presumed heterosexuality.." (Dan Savage June 21, 2011)
There seems some truth to that comment on this website but it is not all applicable to all bisexuals on this site's forum let alone the world. I'm a bit surprised by the little understanding and empathy that some bisexuals on this website examine bi invisibility and bi erasure. Some posters here do not seem to understand that it is an institutional systemic problem rather than individual. If many bisexuals do end up in some form of cross sex relationship and accommodating or ignoring their same sex needs/desires, they have no reason to be concerned about bi invisibility and bi erasure(which in not quite the same as bi phobia imo) They may never consider themself in a same sex marriage..therefore call it gay or whatever gays want to call it. Doesn't affect me...type of thinking.

"bisexuals need to recognize that their being closeted is a huge contributing factor to the hostility they face." (DS)
Not so according to those who research bisexuals and other sexual orientations. Being in the closet is not a major factor as to why there is bi invisibility and bi erasure is.

Its systemic.... stupid...lol


"And if bisexuals did come out in greater numbers, they could rule... well, not the world, but they could rule the parallel LGBT universe." (DS)
This may be very true? In that sense, being in closet is not good for us. I think that I may be contradicting myself though...lol Just a dumb bi guy who is only partially political within the safety of this site...so true. Shoot me.

"If they all came out tomorrow, you could put an end to bi-phobia, take over the LGBT movement, and kick my ass out of it." (DS)
However, bi invisibility and bi erasure are not about coming out as individuals. What do you do when "da man" controlling this is not part of your group? You fight to be recognized ...we don't seem to have sufficient activists to organize us...lol According to the San Francisco report, GLBT organizations get money for bisexual programming but do not spend it on bisexuals. They have no bisexuals on their board etc. Why not? There seems to be no organizational structure within the SF GLBT organization that requires the inclusion of a bisexual on their Board. It may also be that none have demanded representation..dunno?

It shows me that we do not really have a bisexual community...just a group of people willing to internet "chat" and support those in distress.

[MarieDelta]

tenni, where I live (in boulder county) the main blgt organizasion has a bisexual woman on the board. She is out to everyone, and she does a wonderful job raising awareness of bisexuals in the community.
I see her everywhere Outboulder has an event.

WHich brings up another point. Do you folks honestly believe that anyone cares what your sexuality is? If you show up at a lbgt event, no one will care, at least not in the judgemental way. Who knows, you might find some resources and friends.

Partly the reason I feel that men are unwilling to come out is that the are afraid of losing their "straight male" status. Because that will cost them.

[JP1986UM]

there is some truth to that Maria. My BF is really afraid of coming out because he is a firefighter/EMT.

Not a very hospitable environment for a guy like him.

Shame too.

[tenni]

I agree with you Marie and that is great that there is a bisexual on the GLBT board. I'm just writing what the report stated out of San Francisco.

I still think that this is not about "being out" though. Some are attempting to combine apples and oranges.

I am inclined to think (no reason though) that the GLBT 519 Toronto Board probably has a bisexual on it. There are meetings for bisexuals, men, women and jointly. I doubt that would happen if the Board was intentionally against bisexuals. Systemic discrimination may not be intentional on any one Board member's mind. In Canada, we do not refer to such a marriage as a "gay marriage". Those who used the wording when it first became legal seem to have changed the use of the term. It is "same sex" marriage or just marriage. How this changed, I don't know. The media used "gay marriage" this past week because it was from an AP release...I think...could be wrong though.