Pinkboard's SGLMG Graffiti Wall 11

This means that the bisexual debate will be back on in earnest. Let us please have a civilised debate.

Warning: All personal attacks will be deleted. If you are making a humorous or sarcastic comment use a smiley or other mark (grin) to show this. If this wall degenerates into a bitch fight it will have to be closed. This is an important issue that must be discussed, so think twice before you reply.

The bisexual ethos doesn't fit as neatly because being bisexual involves ongoing implicit identification - at least potentially - with the mainstream societal gender/sexuality cultural norm. Bisexuals argue cogently that they are doubly - rather than partially - oppressed as a result but the reality of the oppression experience for many gay men and lesbian women has been - and is - about it's central alignment to society's continuing refusal to validate the legitimacy of being homosexual. The legitimacy of bisexuality is simply not an issue for straight society which is focussed on the black and white differentiation between same sex on the one hand and opposite-sex on the other. The quantum of one's "unacceptability" in these circumstances is evaluated on one's distance from societal norm not on one's perceived, (however wrongly), ability to jump in and out of it. I understand that being bisexual in it's purest form is a constant state of being, not "homo then het", but the societal norm that defines gay, straight and lesbian is based intrinsically on same sex = aberrant and opposite sex = normal. Perception is at least 9/10 of oppression reality.

I alluded earlier in this discussion to the fact that I as a gay man accept that I, and other gay men, dykes, straights, whatever, have the potential to express and receive love, physical and emotional, across the whole spectrum of human engagement without being any less "gay" as a result. At the end of the day being gay is more to me than just the immediate engagement of my dick and ass, (though let's celebrate that part too!) There has however been a constant bisexual-liberationist assumption throughout the discussion that gay men and lesbian women are uniformly "threatened" by this notion and hence reject the implicitly more tolerant perhaps "healthier" life engagement inherent in bisexuality. At best, the assumption is ill-informed. At worst, it's arrogant posturing, tiresomely reminiscent of being told to grow out of what better be a passing phase, etc. I wonder whether an element amongst bisexuals need to keep "seeing" a monolithic gay/lesbian denial of the infinite capacity inherent in human attraction, in order to justify their own insistence on an exactitude of identification labelling?

I don't actually want to be part of something with the absurd title of "GLBT community." Gay life and culture itself, without looking any further afield, is more appropriately about tribes than it is about community and we can affiliate to and from and between tribal links on an ongoing basis. The constant for me is the centrality of "gay" and what it means to me. I support automatic acceptance of bisexuals for Mardi Gras membership, there is simply no just or valid reason for continuing with the "by personal submission" current arrangement.

I don't however accept as a given at this point that my culture is automatically inclusive of - and responsible to - those for who the breadth and depth encompassed by gay and lesbian cultures is clearly insufficient or inadequate. A lot more discussion - and understanding - is needed in this area. Informed discussion. Kneejerk bisexual bashing of gay men who allude to the historical understanding of bisexuality as a useful denial or evasion mechanism for closet transition, overlooks the fact that 100's if not 1,000's of men who identify as gay have at some point utilised this very mechanism. It doesn't make 'bi as evasion' credible for God's sake, it just means that many people have experienced it/used it as a safe zone, rather than as a life construct. Some insight into history, rather than an insatiable desire to rewrite it, could come in handy..........
Geoff Honnor - Fri Mar 31 14:12:09 2000

Also I would love to hear why you as a gay man believes that bisexuals are not in fact rejecting socially-assigned (and socially-acceptable) sexuality and gender roles? You see when I was beaten and burnt (cigarette) by a group of homophobes, they didn't seem to care if I was Bisexual or Gay, all they cared about was that they saw me kiss a male friend.
Welcome to the real world. - Fri Mar 31 15:32:20 2000

If you are saying it is easier for some individuals to identify as Bisexual because of psychological reasons, then I may agree with you. In my experience with running a Bisexual social group, we had many people join in the coming out process who eventually went onto identify as Gay or Lesbian, we have also had Gay and Lesbian people who went onto identify as Heterosexual (these people are usually the most in need of help, because of the rigorous policing of sexuality with in the Gay and Lesbian community, instead of feeling like a pervert, they feel like a traitor, this is so much more difficult to work through), and of course we had Heterosexual, Gay and Lesbian people who took on a Bisexual identity. That is why we are so clear on educating people that it doesn't matter if you are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or even Heterosexual, what matters is that you are happy and proud of who you are, and that no one has a right to degrade and discriminate against you because of your sexuality.
Revenge will only get you so far, you will need to forgive and forget to make it the rest of the distance. - Fri Mar 31 16:37:50 2000

You don't have to be 100% in favour of something to be supportive and a degree of scepticism isn't a bad thing for most of us to have. Some of us could do with a bit more...... I didn't suggest that it was "easier" to be bisexual. I suggested that there is a long-standing gay perception that that is has been used dfor that purpose, and that abusing people who make reference to it is ultimately non-productive. Experience is ecxperience. I used to hear people consistently claim that bisexuality was a myth. It would be thought a pretty strange position to take now and the difference is - understanding and again, experience.

I'm not sure I understand how some body could have derived "misogynist dyke-hater" from anything I said but nothing much surprises me on Pinkboard. I assume it was someone cunningly attempting to discredit me by false attribution. But, on the other hand, may just have been plain, dumb old superficial analysis...

Could I stress that my view is my view. It's not made on behalf of "gay" it's me. Offering my opinion and there will be as many variations on that theme as there are people to have them. Could I also point out to the people who offered examples of enduring physical and verbal abuse that I empathise with and hear you but what you experience(d) is the revulsion and rage of sexual norm confronted by sexual difference and no amount of labelling semantics changes that

The fact that I don't like GBLT as a terminology doesn't mean I hate the tribes represented in it. And it's surely not grounds for stoning me to death but hey! If it is - start chucking. It's a wussy, limp descriptor that completely fails to capture the diverse cultural dynamic it encompasses. It sucks. Bigtime.
Geoff Honnor - Fri Mar 31 18:25:10 2000

As for me, I'm all for different groups/tribes having their own space, but believe we need to come together sometimes to firstly fight for equality (strength in numbers) and secondly to celebrate our diversity (so we don't repeat ignorant and oppressive behaviour). In my opinion that is what Mardi Gras is about.
Grapes, Lettuce, Bacon and Tomato for me please. - Fri Mar 31 18:46:28 2000

Opinions and how they are treated with in a specific space determine so much, and to excuse people because they throw in their "it's my opinion card" is very weak argument indeed. Your alias of Choice Made is alone quite insulting to all bisexuals, and it's acceptance on this board says a lot. If I were a Christian and used the alias Sodom and Gomorra to sign on this board, everyone would rightly condemn and attack me, regardless if all I was doing was voicing my opinion.
Everything is not black or white. - Fri Mar 31 19:45:27 2000

And please. Is your belief in yourself and who you are, so insecurely based that you can feel invalidated about who are you are by a SGLMG bisexual membership application? Shouldn't the invalidation bell be tolling for outmoded concepts of community, rather than you?

You shouldn't have to supply "additional info;" let's hope you soon won't, but membership applications can't invalidate you. Isn't that what this is about?

Let's own that excluding/including solely on the basis of who you choose to f*ck is becoming a redundant concept for those of us who live in hip inner-city, urban chic, but it's taking it's own sweet time to evaporate outside our little world

Let's also own that the more strident advocates of bi inclusion need to understand that there is an intrinsic belief in the validation offered by constructs of gay and lesbian culture, owned by many gay men and lesbian women. Constant reference to that culture as a devalued, autocratic exclusive monolith doesn't ignite the fires of inclusive passion.

Your oppression is our oppression and is based in societal revulsion and rage at men f*cking men then daring to claim maleness, & women denying the notion of male as natural and inevitable fulfilment. Our ultimate triumph may well be a permanent disruption of the "natural" order of things that will allow attraction without societal sanction. In the meantime you can love whoever you choose - I'm sort of locked into guys.

If your gay/dyke/straight friends don't approve of your sexual choice, the only thing you need to run a validation check on is the quality of their friendship.
Geoff Honnor - Fri Mar 31 21:45:12 2000

The point I was making was this;, claiming to be invalidated by membership process, is to my mind problematic. Nobody's state of being should be so flimsily constructed as to lose validity when confronted by an application form. Isn't it therefore the process that lacks validity? Not the person?

If you can be "invalidated" by an application form, you're highly likely to be "oppressed" at the drop of a hat too. I offered the view that the social oppression bi's gays and dykes face is exactly the same, (except for gender issues) in point of origin. Having to fill in a "reason for joining" form, though offensive, looks a tad light from my perspective, as a solid "oppression" identifier.

All of this begins to make separate community constructs look a bit lightweight also. If gays and dykes can - and do - access their individual inherent potential for opposite sex attraction from time to time, without changing prime community identification, does that add or subtract from the case for aeparate but included bisexual community?

Gay and lesbian is a political construct primarily, I agree. But our shared point of origin and identification allied with community development efforts has forged tronger bonds in the last 15 or so years. Are bi men closer to gay men than dykes? Sexually, obviously. Tribally I'd say, doubtful, but we tend to think of "closeness" as an individually driven thing and experiences would vary widely......what's the issue here anyway? Is that sort of "closer to thee" scenario useful? There has been the odd jibe directed at gay and lesbian culture from time to time throughout the debate. The stereotyping of Party Boy, the first Mardi Gras was really about a broad "freedom for sexualities oppressed by heterosexism" agenda etc, etc.

Gay culture isn't fixed and static, it's constantly shaping and evolving and will continue to be. I own getting more than slightly pissed-off when it's misrepresented as a rigid, frozen in time, autocracy and bewildered when the same critics identify this unsatisfactory outfit as their Land of Canaan.
Geoff Honnor - Sat Apr 1 9:17:53 2000

Panther.....I feel I've failed you in the clarity stakes darlin. The validation thing, from my perspective, was about; a piece of paper can't invalidate you because you(spirit/will) are too strong. (The original reference was to being invalidated by the Board of SGLMG which I interpreted, for practical purposes, as the membership application.) In the final analysis it couldn't. Hence the EGM.

I don't think we're saying different things. We may however have slightly different takes on the degree of political strategy factored into the membership rejection scenario that initiated the current debate but frankly - if it was to some degree "political" - it's working. And finally, I assume the question about why some people are honest and other aren't, is rhetorical? If not the answer is life, I think. .
Geoff Honnor - Sat Apr 1 14:41:27 2000

Both sides have chosen to ignore each other's positional realities and talk to each other stereotypes instead. Thus gay men are unrelentingly shallow, superficial "party boys", too drugf*cked to deal with any issue more profound than their dicks. Bisexuals are dishonest closet-cases who won't admit to their "real" sexuality. Dykes are portrayed as selfish, bigots who pulled the liberation ladder in thru the trapdoor behind them & etc

. The debate is about making SGLMG transparently and honestly own the composition reality of it's communities or it's about a small bunch of people pushing their own agenda of narrow-minded cultural specifity

On one level it's about whether or not the GLT automatic membership validation criteria should also apply to bisexual identification. Let's be clear, membership itself isn't the issue. Membership is open to bisexuals via board acceptance of a personal testament as to the applicants commitment to upholding the principles upon which SGLMG is based. Applicants who are gay/lesbian/trannie identified don't have to be examined/evaluated on points of commitment. They're automatically in. To me and many others, this division is increasingly unsupportable in logic, natural justice or commonsense. If a public affirmation as to the founding principles is essential in assessing membership "worth", why don't all applicants have to do it? & etc.

On another, much more important level it's about us. What sense of shared culture, aspiration and vision do we have - or do we want? How is inclusiveness/decided and on what basis and with whose mandate? What is gay? Lesbian? Bi? We all know that labels don't matter and we should be able to love whom we choose but how attainable is that finally? If all gay men and lesbian women own, accept and celebrate the potential to express and receive love from beyond their primary points of cultural reference what is the rationale for creating a separate community of interest whose reason for being is about expressing sexuality beyond mono-culturalism? What is a "primary point of cultural reference" and does it respond to antbiotics? All these questions and more won't be addressed any time soon as it's a helluva lot less taxing to sloganeer, detect evil intent, and demonise generally from opposing ramparts but they'll still there.........
Geoff Honnor - Sun Apr 2 13:33:27 2000

Panther please close this wall now!
what choices? - Sun Apr 2 15:40:55 2000

I still put in enough hours a week as a volunteer for our organisations that it could count as a part time job. Why is that my choice? It is my choice because I believe charity begins at home, and this community is my home. Although, if I hear too many more gay men & lesbians whom I hold as my brothers & sisters tell me I'm not welcome in the organisation I helped to build, I might leave with the heaviest heart. Will you take my place in caring & organising & smiling in the face of hatred? Take care, there are many bi people who make our community a good place to be, don't let your harsh words push us out. We face enough from bigots who hate everyone who isn't heterosexual & married, and at the moment you are adding to the stress.
LK - Sun Apr 2 15:51:57 2000

It's unarguable from my perspective that this was principally about decriminalising homosexual activity as the first step in removing sexuality-based excusion and inequity. There's never of course been any legal constraint on bisexual practice except where it was "mirrored" in criminal sanctions against men having sex with men. It's important to remember that this wasn't initially about diversity and choice. It was about prisons, and the law as oppressor, giving sanction to sexuality-based hatred and fear, about being degenerate, perverted, animals, about gay men regularly being beaten to death in circumstances that state courts, with equal regularity, found to be mitigated by the understandable manly disgust that the perpetrators felt towards the victims; etc. "So what's changed?" you could well ask. The criminal law no longer gives licence to sexuality-based persecution but the hatred directed at the homosexual construct remains legitimated, to greater or lesser degree, throughout society.

If anything, out, (to whatever degree), gay men in the late 70's were more rigidly "anti" in relation to bisexuality than they are now and the "bisexual as a stage in gay construction" had far more currency. This doesn't mean they were "right" or "wrong". Just that these were widely held views which need to be read against the context of the times.

Certainly straights and bi's were part of the reform movement but it's a leap of pure fantasy, in my view, to interpret this as some sort of guarantee of separate and defined access in relation to subsequent community development and paricipation. There's never been anything like a consensus view sought - let alone held - around this and the "truths" that people offer in relation to it, aren't. They are views, opinions, personal recollections, not biblical writ

If the only response that can be offered to the obvious frustration and anger felt by "Choice Made", (no matter how unhelpful and inflammatory the language), is a demand that he be silenced then, heaven f*ckin help us. If he's wrong, challenge his assertions. If you don't want to read different points of view, don't participate. A victory won on the basis of shouting down alternative viewpoints - isn't.
Geoff Honnor - Sun Apr 2 17:14:41 2000

Quick rundown: Didn't "somehow excuse" oppression of bi's "because they're a minority". I don't excuse "oppression" of anyone Greg. I've some difficulty with the motion of a totality of oppression being read into the positioning of self-identifying bisexuals solely around the SGLMG issue. I've made the point previously that we need much more discussion round this area. My personal view is that all of us should be accepting of sexual choices that we as individuals can make, regardless of prime orientation identifier. Being poof/dyke/straight/bi identified, doesn't restrict potential for choice.

I don't share your opinion of what the word "gay" meant in 1978 and on that, we can agree to differ

I will vote for bi membership on the same basis as GLT 8 re anything I utheir socialeott my comments aren't "silly". That's
Geoff Honnor - Sun Apr 2 18:00:49 2000

The answer in relation to posts here is once again that it's opinion not truth and you challenge the points made. I'm also invited to implicitly either condemn the poster that is at issue or be "assumed" to be in agreement with him. My position in relation to the issue in question is on record my friend and I don't intend to buy into a "with me or against me" scenario.

Geoff Honnor - Sun Apr 2 18:11:43 2000

It is bisexuals who are with out the power in this instance, they are the ones who are excluded from what they believe they should be included in and what they believe they helped built (there must be a reason for this), they are the ones with out any legal protection of their identity (not behaviour), they have very few if any roll models, they have very little if any out people in positions of power, they are also the minority by far. If they are so much like heterosexuals as Choice Mad would have you all believe then why does the above still hold true?? Why, because heterosexist society doesn't see bisexuals as half OK, they see them as even more perverted and evil, and a treat that must be destroyed, try living as an out bisexual for a while if you want to get a clearer picture.

Basically bisexuals are 20 years behind the gay and lesbian movement in Australia, and only older gay and lesbian people would have any idea what it is like to live in a place you have none of the above, bisexuals live with these facts everyday. So if we are going to make a critical analysis of the situation then an acknoledgement of these power dynamics cannot be left out of the picture!
Sun Apr 2 18:16:34 2000

Of course, if you're talking about closeted people being assumed to be heterosexual, well, that's hardly the preserve of bi people, I'd say as many gays & lesbians are in the closet. The issue is that being out as bi immediately singles one out from the mainstream just as much as being out as gay or lesbian. One is being singled out because one does *not* fit the definition of heterosexual. While it's possible that Choice Made associates bi people with heterosexuality, believe me, hetero people don't! I as a bi person don't belong in their community as I've never lived in it, I've spent my life in the lesbian, gay, bi & tranny world.

So, I'll return to my previous plea, it isn't very constructive to go telling other people who are community workers to butt out of their own community. It's actually what the comments supporting bi exclusion come right down to. You're effectively telling people like me to go away from these organisations. I'm not after recognition Choice Made, I'm keen to have fellow bisexuals (I have been a member since before these rules came into effect) who contribute as much able to join me in organisations such as SGLMG. I don't see how desiring the right to membership for bi people like me of an organisation I helped to build equates with hubris or a desire for recongition.
LK - Sun Apr 2 18:56:04 2000

"1...Why didnt bisexuals make a push for inclusion then??????" They were there and were included. This is a historical fact documented in many places and in many memories. If you wish to dispute this fact please authenticate your sources.

The real question here is when were they excluded? At the meeting in 1996 is when they were excluded from SGLMG. Other than that there has always been discrimination against bisexuals within the gay comunity, just as there has always been racial discrimination in our community.

"2...Why wait for the organisation to be a success before wanting inclusion" Last year two bisexual men with plenty of documented commitment to the gay and lesbian community were refused membership of SGLMG. It appears that the only reason for this refusal was that they were bisexual. Ever since then they and others have been campaigning to get the membership criteria changed.

As to your opinion that bisexuals still need to make a choice, we have all heard it loud and clear. I believe that most people here disagree with you on this point. Please do not state this opinion again as it is offensive.
Panther - Sun Apr 2 19:07:51 2000

To be blunt, at this stage SGLMG is the only organisation I know of that actively excludes bi people as a policy. Most others are happy to have us not only in the ranks of the membership, but even in executive positions :-) I'm upset with Mardi Gras' current policy regarding bi membership because it only shows how far this organisation has travelled from being a community leader, and only serves to isolate valuable and honest members of our lesbian, gay, transgender & bi community.
LK - Sun Apr 2 21:36:01 2000

But Mardi Gras membership is only about membership of Mardi Gras as someone else just posted. It's not about being part of gay culture. Entitlement to tick-identification MG membership doesn't give bisexuals any other community status or place as far as I'm aware.
Mon Apr 3 16:52:11 2000

Really? What about the almost certain situation where the Minister for Communications will have some influence (or already has!) over the programming of the ABC, the allocation of new FM Frequencies etc. If you do not think there is a massive growth in conservatism in Australia, think again! The need to broad-base our organisations to give us greater support has not been greater since the dark old pre 1984 days.
Mon Apr 3 18:03:30 2000

As a bi person I contribute in the past & will continue to ... but i am certainly unimpressed with the current membership policy. It's a very poor response to my contribution and the contribution of many other bi people to our community.
LK - Mon Apr 3 22:26:53 2000

It all sounds scarily like compulsory attendance at mediocre and diabolically interminable festivals of queer arts

Some may remember that Dade County holds a special place in American gay history. It was the home of one Anita Bryant - a former Beauty Queen turned Motel Lounge Act who in 1977 - the year before the 1st Mardi Gras, darkened the new dawn of gay freedom and succeeded in overturning a gay civil rights initiative just passed by Dade County Commission. There are those who would argue that freedom's dawn has been permanently on hold ever since.

Please guys. Any suggestion that this might be the Brave New Post-EGM World would result in a strong imperative for everyone to be on e in order to get the resolution up.
Geoff Honnor - Mon Apr 3 23:39:15 2000

I'll re-iterate, I can understand the desire to protect an organisation I/we helped to build, but I don't see how the exclusion of my fellow bi people will protect us. I've been a member of SGLMG & many other organisations in our community, and at this stage, it seems to me that voluntary work is helping them, not harming them.
LK - Tue Apr 4 9:16:42 2000

Panther. I've never suggested or advocated the position you attribute to me and despite your best efforts, o balanced and moderating one, I don't intend to be the stereotypically threatened gay misogynist against whom the liberationist troops might rally. My point was that Mardi Gras membership is about Mardi Gras. Community participation and identification is a different thing and doesn't of course have any "gatekeeping" mechanism. It's about individual perception, identification and participation in thousands of different permutations; sometimes rigidly fixed to points of sexuality identification, sometimes not.

I don't see bi's as strange, different people. I already live and love with people who are bisexual and always have.

Fluidity and evolution are key for me. Fixed community "shares" within rigid, unchanging structures don't represent my reality

For the third time can I say that there is a wider discussion to be had around what community, tribes, diversity mean to all of us, together with the implications of the growing realisation that we all have the inherent potential and freedom to express ourselves sexually and emotionally across the full range of human engagement, regardless of our primary sexuality identifier.

Can we celebrate that it's so? In fact a bit of lightening-up and broadmindedness all round would be a f*ckin good idea.
Geoff Honnor - Tue Apr 4 12:34:29 2000

This wall isn't what I understand a free exchange of views to be. Ganging up and shouting people down because they ask uninformed questions is a time-dishonoured practice guys and it's always been a pretty gutless thing to do.

Suggesting that these issues might be a degree more complex and multilayered than suits your purpose might well be irritating - but, deal with it. Don't resort to name-calling and if you do; pull together the shreds of dignity sufficient to put your name to it. This last point was suggested by my 13 year old daughter who knows a helluva lot more about dignity than some of us seem to

I've offered my philosophy on the fundamental right of every individual to love whom they choose, in or out of primary community identification and our obligation to celebrate that fact. No-one has wanted to go there, (yeah, OK it's too deep for Hotspur Boy). Wonder why? You people have suffered? Have you f*ck. Hope it gets up on the 29th. It should
Geoff Honnor - Tue Apr 4 18:30:26 2000

To all the people who think I sit watching all of Pinkboard 24 hours a day, I don't even get paid to run Pinkboard! I have read this before going to work the next morning. In fact I can't even see a message refering to your daughter. If you find something offensive *email* me with the date/time and ask me to remove it. I am not perfect, I don't catch everything.

Meet six bisexual men from Sydney Bisexual Network and Dr Robert Reynolds (Post Doctorate Research Fellow at the School of Social Policy and Curriculum Studies, University of Sydney) discussing the Freudian ideas of bisexuality and the discriminatory policies against bisexuals in the gay and lesbian communities.

Anyone is allowed to attend (transgender, male, female of any sexuality).
When: Friday 28/04/00 7:30pm (will send a confirmation date in a few weeks).
Where: ACON, 9 Commonwealth St, Darlinghurst 2010
(SilkRoad is organising this session at one of ACON's meeting room at level UB/upperbasement i.e. one floor down from entrance level, and please press ACON's intercom for someone to remotely unlocked the entrance door, and use the lift!).
To find out more about SilkRoad - Gay Asian Support Group, please contact: Alexander Ku (Asian Project officer) 02-9206 2080 or email asia@acon.org.au

Wed Apr 5 12:27:22 2000

I read the personal attack on Geoff and it was distasteful. I couldn't follow his stuff either, but that doesn't mean I have to insult his way of living, and then when he gets upset about it, add insult to injury. Isn't live and let live what we've learned by coming out as gay, lesbian, whatever. Never forget that anyone who is intolerant is not very different to those who dished out intolerance towards you while you were growing up, calling you names, insulting you, beating you up, just because of your sexuality.

This is the title of a song that I can't imagine ever making it to a Mardi Gras Party, but it's great anyway: "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"
Free - Wed Apr 5 21:33:27 2000

"We have to accept that this is a big change for us. It's very comfortable with 283 members, who probably agree with most of the things we do. There is not a great deal of challenge. Having thousands and thousands of members, we must change to deal with that."

Cobden said that the Board has commenced addressing the need for change.

"Last night at the Board we opened up discussion on a whole range of issues for the purpose of empowering the membership generally to participate and to control the direction of Mardi Gras.

"We talked about such things as open Board meetings, freedom of information policies, gathering together most of our policies and publishing them clearly so that people know exactly the way in which we make decisions, a more open description of the way the organisation does, being more communicative about what we've decided at the Board level - that sort of thing," he said.

Cobden also gave a personal undertaking to examine the need for constitutional changes, "immediately after the Mardi Gras season is over".

Such changes could include postal voting, and systems of voting that would enable different viewpoints to be represented on the Board. He hoped the changes would be in place before the next annual general meeting, due in August, 1992.

Sydney Star Observer, No. 170 Friday 15 November, 1991.
Larry Galbraith - Thu Apr 6 8:18:43 2000

PS. Glad to see you've seen past the limitations of the ghetto. Hopefully you'll be turning up to the EGM to vote "Y E S" so that we can help make the break down another wall of the ghetto and make world a better place. Cheers
a gay (non-party) boy - Fri Apr 7 9:36:06 2000

Excluding people from something they built based on their minority sexuality alone is hate by definition. You may see it otherwise but it is just a lie to justify your bigotry, come the 29th if Bis are not accepted which I believe they will not, the Gay and Lesbian community will be proven to be a community of bigots, and will have no excuses for the fall out.And a whole new cycle/period of hate and revenge will begin. The winners in the end will be our enemies, the Christian right and homophobes, but since bisexuals have a lot less to lose as they already have NO services or visibility, it will be the Gay and Lesbian community that will lose the most. In reality they will have no one else to blame except them selves, but in action they will blame bisexuals, in return bisexuals will do other things in defence, and the cycle of hate continues. Welcome to the liberated naughties, were difference is punished from the top down.
Fri Apr 7 12:13:48 2000

Oh, by the way nice editing of a quote, it might be a good idea to include the whole sentence next time, as it does shed a different light on the quote. Anyway, can you not see any truth in the full quote?

Personally I don't think anything positive is gained by not acknowledging why bisexuals are despised so much, and yes it has a lot to do with the Gay and Lesbian community's psychology of hetero being bad, homo being good, just like homophobes do, but in reverse. So people can get pissed off if they want, but nothing will change these facts, and these are the facts that need to be addressed if we are going to move forward and out of the ghetto.
Fri Apr 7 15:15:59 2000

April 29 - Vote Y E S
A Gay (non-party) boy - Sat Apr 8 19:54:48 2000

No idea how many will be in attendance at the EGM either, some have joined in recent times making sure they tick an approapriate box to gain membership, there are also some who were members before all of this happened. My personal estimate would make their numbers quite low, so the vote will come down to how our gay brothers, and to a lesser extent our lesbian sisters will vote.
A bi community worker. - Sun Apr 9 13:01:55 2000

Ok, I've got a question for you. Do you believe that continuing to exclude bisexuals will fix up the problem of undesirables at parties? (I use undesirables in stead of straights, as to group one sexuality as bad is really quite hypocritical)
We like to party! - Mon Apr 10 14:12:00 2000

Whose budget does this come out of? Administration? Again?
Damon H - Tue Apr 11 10:50:03 2000

We have all fought, and continue to fight our battles against heterosexist society using the judicial system and through a slow educational process. So it would be reasonable to expect other minority groups to also use both these methods, as they are not mutually exclusive. And since these 2 methods have provided Gays and Lesbians with success, what excuse does anyone have to say that other minority groups have no right to use them? Are Gays and Lesbians some how an elite minority group, that can use any method to their disposal in their battles for equality (including biphobia), but no other oppressed minority group is allowed to use these same methods?

What makes me so sad and hurt is that we should all be working together, but the line was drawn into the constitution, bisexuals are excluded, discriminated against and denigrated in many many ways, this has now become frequent and acceptable behaviour, and has gone so far as to be used as a form of cultural boarder control and policing. There is another chance for the community to say whether they accept this behaviour or not.
Wog Boy - Wed Apr 12 13:57:06 2000

Just imagine the roasting we'll get if the Daily Telegraph gets a hold of this, the gay community is a common target for the Daily Terror. All it takes is one little email asking them to read the comments on this board. Doesn't matter who sends it, whether it is a bisexual member of our community, a gay member of our community or a heterosexual homophobe who wants to see us fall into the huge hole we have dug for ourselves. All it takes is one little email that could be sent at any time. One little email, one big mess (and one that we have only ourselves to blame).

Oh and if people are interpreting this as a threat, it's not a threat. Only a very well educated guess at what could very easily happen should the heterophobes in our community come out in full force on the 29th.
A gay (non-party) boy - Wed Apr 12 15:42:30 2000