"Bisexuals built for two," they called us in the '60s. In the '70s we were bicentennial. Nondenominational seems to be the bi-word of the '80s. Bisexual itself may not be especially pejorative, but it does have a certain bias, which you can see if you turn the tables: I think most bisexuals think of themselves simply as fully sexual persons, so that everybody else is really hemisexual, in excluding on principle half the people they care about from intimate relationships. A hemisexual is someone who always wonders how the other half loves. (You probably know some hemi/demi/semi/sexuals, who would just as soon forget about it altogether.)
It's really great to be here, especially when there are still so many people who maintain we don't exist. Some people say we can't call ourselves bisexual unless we're absolutely indifferent; a 51% preference would qualify us for the hemisexual club, assuming we wanted in. Others think we're all closet gays who lack the courage to come out all the way.
But just try identifying yourself as bisexual, and you may find that that's what takes more courage. Like other bicultural individuals, we bear the stigma of the oppressed minority without the benefit of support from either it or the mainstream culture--which is the main reason we've formed the National and Bay Area Bisexual Networks, and why we're here today, offering our support to you. Bisexuals, of necessity, and by our nature as universal donors and receivers, are a pretty tolerant bunch of folks; all the bisexual organizations we know of across the country are open to people of all orientations. So be sure to stop by our booth, and give us a call at 564-BABN.
As some bisexual friends of mine have pointed out, the fact that bisexuals form a bridge community puts us in a position like that of political libertarians. Where we draw from the ranks of former hemisexuals, gay and straight; they draw from hemi-libertarians of the left and right--those who believe in civil but not economic liberties and vice versa.
The two groups have further in common that they are "politically incorrect": You're just as unpopular whether you believe in "Live and let live" or "Love and let love." If we can't all be politically incorrect, let us at least work together on what we agree on. If we are going to have governments--and some people think they do us more harm than good--then let us at least get rid of heterosexist discrimination in laws on custody and adoption. Let us unite in working for the repeal of all victimless crime laws, that tell us what kind of people we can marry, and how many, and what we have to wear, for God's sake.
When it's our neighbors that discriminate against us, then let us simply reward with our business those who are willing to trade with us. Bigots will attract just the sort of customers they deserve, and so will we; and we can see which community most people want to be part of.
Historically, it has been very common for oppressed groups to become oppressors as soon as they get the chance; and so "gay rights" is often taken today to mean the right to force other people to rent us an apartment in their building, or admit us to their club, whether they want to or not. The problem, however, with denying homophobes their freedom, in the name of freedom, is that we end up paradoxically participating in our own oppression. If we run to get Big Daddy the Government to make somebody hire us, we place ourselves in the role of helpless, petulant children, demeaningly dependent on the very State that has been our own oppressor. I say, let the world see instead that we are rightfully proud2 adults, capable of responsible self-government. People who feel strong and secure and happy with themselves simply don't go around oppressing their neighbors, telling them whom they can rent an apartment to, or have sex with, and how much they can charge. As one of the Radical Fairies put it, let us expose rather than impose.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King (famous bisexuals)3 have shown us that when we simply stand up for ourselves, we have all the power we need, without making it a criminal offense for people to be different from us. The temptation to oppression is so strong because it has roots in all of us: We are all former children, and children have been throughout history the most brutally oppressed group in the world. If you scratch an oppressor deeply enough--something I'm tempted to encourage--you'll find a child with a story of abuse that would break your heart; only the oppressors don't know it themselves, and that's the problem. If we support the dignity and self-respect of children, recognizing that they have the same rights, including sexual rights, as everybody else, they won't grow up to be oppressors.
Let's break the cycle. Instead of trying to impose our way on everybody else, let us all work together toward a society based on respect for individual differences, voluntary relationships, and personal autonomy. Remember that the ultimate act of self-government is self-definition, which is precious to us all.
Thank you all for coming out, and have a wonderful day.
_______________
1 According to Ann Justi, who was mostly responsible for arranging it, this was the first speech by a male bisexual at the San Francisco Gay Freedom Parade.
2 "Rightfully Proud" was the theme of the 1988 celebration.
3 About a year after the speech was given, I got a call from the editors of BLK, a Los Angeles newspaper for Black gays and lesbians, who had come across a copy of it. They said that there had been rumors for years that King was bisexual, but they had never been able to trace the source, and wanted to know mine. I explained, with considerable embarrassment, that I would never have made the remark if I'd had any idea it would be taken seriously, that I counted on its being so outrageous (especially with the inclusion of Gandhi) as to be obviously a joke--and that, if there were such rumors about King, I suspected the source was J. Edgar Hoover.