The History of the Bisexual Pride Flag

Biflag.com ^ | June 7, 2002 | Michael Page

[SkyPilot]

Behaviour is irrelevant;

That is the most absurd thing I have ever read. If I were you, I would study up on Morality 101 before you give advice again.

The poster was correct. They are just plain deviant. "Bi-sexual" is as useless as a term as "Gay."

[Dimensio]

Your image proves what? I gave the common accepted definitions of the words; if you want to believe that every single homosexual and/or bisexual behaves like the men depicted in that image and that their behaviour is what defines whether or not they are homosexual then you are out of touch with reality.

Saying that "bisexual" and "gay" are meaningless labels because both are deviant is kind of like saying that "running a red light" and "improper lane usage" are meaningless labels because both are traffic violations or that "red" and "blue" are meaningless labels because both are colours.

[Right Wing Professor]

Behaviour is irrelevant; someone who remains celibate their entire life could be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. If a man has a monogamous relationship with only one woman in his entire life but he is still sexually attracted to someother men (in addition to women) then he is bisexual. Refusing to accept those definitions simply because you don't like them is absurd.

And your supreme authority over the English language comes whence?

Attraction is a vague concept, and without any hope of objective proof. Your definition leaves 'homo-, hetero- and bi-sexuality ' solely to be defined by the individual him/herself. That's inherently solipsistic. I would submit that both usage and logic favor behaviorally-determined categorization. It makes no sense to categorize, say, a woman who has had sex only with men but has occasionally found another woman attractive as bisexual.

[wwjdn]

I have a flag for them, the flag of China... Let them move there to have their freedom to pervert children

[Dimensio]

"Behaviour is irrelevant; someone who remains celibate their entire life could be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. If a man has a monogamous relationship with only one woman in his entire life but he is still sexually attracted to someother men (in addition to women) then he is bisexual. Refusing to accept those definitions simply because you don't like them is absurd."

And your supreme authority over the English language comes whence?

I never claimed to be an English major, but I have studied the accepted definitions regarding human sexuality.

Attraction is a vague concept, and without any hope of objective proof.

Your point being? So because we cannot objectively "prove" something, we shouldn't have words for it? That would throw out all of science, as scientific theories are never "proven objectively".

Your definition leaves 'homo-, hetero- and bi-sexuality ' solely to be defined by the individual him/herself.

No, it's based on the individual, but it's not a matter of someone getting up and deciding "I think I'm attracted to men today."

I would submit that both usage and logic favor behaviorally-determined categorization. It makes no sense to categorize, say, a woman who has had sex only with men but has occasionally found another woman attractive as bisexual.

What's this about "categorization"? Do people need to have their sexual orientation cleanly defined before they can go about their lives? A woman who is attracted to both men and women is bisexual even if she never has a sexual encounter with another woman. It implies nothing else about her life.

I get just as annoyed with people trying to relegate definitions of human sexuality to pure behaviour as I do with people who think that their less-common sexual orientation is some cause for celebration, festivity and focus for their entire life. I like to think that I can base my life on a little more than what happens to turn me on.

[Dimensio]

As Woody Allen put it, it doubles their chances for rejection :)

[Right Wing Professor]

I never claimed to be an English major, but I have studied the accepted definitions regarding human sexuality

Accepted by whom? My dictionary (American Heritage, 1976) gives two definitions for homosexual, one defined by attaction, the other defined by behavior. I would submit there is no single 'accepted definition', and in trying to impose one you are trying to limit the parameters of the discussion.

What's this about "categorization"? Do people need to have their sexual orientation cleanly defined before they can go about their lives? A woman who is attracted to both men and women is bisexual even if she never has a sexual encounter with another woman. It implies nothing else about her life.

No. Clearly not. We divide things into categories because they're useful tools for generalization. A categorization is better or worse purely on how useful it is. If we want to say 'bisexual men are more likely to get AIDS than heterosexual men', the behavioral categorization of bisexuality is obviously more useful. 'Bisexual men' in this case is a shorthand for the list of all men who have had sex with persons of both sexes. There may be circumstances in which it might be more useful to categorize bisexual men by attraction than behavior, although I suspect in general it is less useful. But insisting that one or the other definitions is 'correct' is attempting to win an argument by begging the question.

[goodnesswins]

"They're not confused, they just have more options."

Oh, puullleeeaaasseee.....yeah, teach that to your kids.

[Dimensio]

Well my main argument was with the assertion that "bisexual" is meaningless and that anyone who engages in sexual activity of any kind with a person of the same gender is automatically a homosexual (and not a heterosexual) regardless of any other factors involved. Bisexuality exists; there are people who are attracted to both genders, and claiming that it should just be called "homosexuality" because it's still perversion is gross oversimplification.

[Right Wing Professor]

I understand your point. My point is that so much of the debate about 'gay rights' is actually just word games played with definitions.

For example, the pro-gay side defines homosexuality as an attraction to adult men, and pedophilia as an attraction to children, and therefore by definition homosexual is not pedophile. And the anti-gay side defines homosexual as anyone who has sex with any male human, and so finds a lot of pedophile homosexuals. And no one asks the most relevant question for public policy - i.e., if you take the set of all men who actively, and exclusively or predominantly, have sex with other men, are members of that set more or less likely than heterosexual men (equivalently defined) to have sex with children, within some given period?

If we weren't playing word games we could abbreviate that as 'are homosexuals more or less inclined than heterosexuals toward pedophilia?' I don't care. I'll figure out the question I want to ask, and ask it. But I'll also object if someone tries to finesse the debate by definitional sleight-of-hand.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I can't believe I finished reading the whole article about the homos' flag.

Good Lord! What's next? Homos on pink tootsies and pink slippers parading their little pink flag.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

A few nuts and flakes would would add some pistasche(o) to the entire ensemble.

[rabidralph]

and the point of this article was...??????

To alert you specifically, so you don't get caught up in the wrong group during the next FReeper rally.

[Dimensio]

I just got a flashback of the South Park episode that aired last Wednesday...

[goodnesswins]

Oh, yes, compare chocolate and vanilla ice cream to sex between a man and a woman and sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.....really relevant. I guess humans are just inanimate objects now, who happen to have higher thinking skills - or so we are told....

[FreeTally]

What, do you frequent "biflag.com"? LOL!

[rabidralph]

Sorry I missed it. Was Big Gay Al in it?