There is a story of a certain woman who lived
in Westport, Connecticut for many years. Although Paul Newman had also lived
in Westport for many years, she had never run into him. One day, this woman
went to Baskin-Robbins to get an ice cream cone. While there the door opened
and in he walked in the flesh. Well, she was determined not to lose her
cool. She paid for her ice cream and left the shop. As she was walking down
the street, she realized she did not have her ice cream cone. Feeling
embarrassed, but determined to get what she had paid for, she re-entered the
store and said to the clerk, “I’m sorry; I paid for an ice cream cone and I
didn’t get it.” Whereupon, Paul Newman stepped forward and said, “Yes, you
did. You put it in your purse!”
A funny story, for sure, but is it true?
Recently, someone told me she had heard the same
story, but it was Robert Redford in Santa Fe,
who rattled a woman buying ice cream.
Apparently, this story is an urban legend.
Whether the story is myth or reality, however,
does not matter. The point the story makes is
about the human desire to maintain our cool. We
all want to keep our cool, but many times we
loose it, giving rise to intense moments of fear
and embarrassment. Sometimes, however, our
desire to tell the truth is strong enough to
lead us to intentionally risk losing our cool.
About ten years ago I was in a ministers’ group.
There were 17 of us present, we took turns
“checking-in.” As each person spoke, I wondered
what I was going to share. I decided to take a
risk and tell them about a book I had read a few
weeks before. The book addressed the subject of
bisexuality. I told them about the book and how
it had impacted me. Then l took a bigger risk
and informed them that I was bisexual. This was
the first time I had disclosed this aspect of
myself publicly. “Coming out” has its risks and
uncertainties as some of you already know and
the first time even more so. I don’t know what I
expected in that meeting. This was a safe group,
I thought, but the silence was unsettling.
We completed the “check-in” and took a break.
Eight members of the group acknowledged what I
had said and were supportive. Two, in fact,
said, “I wondered when you were going to tell
us,” but the others remained silent. What myths
or questions had my remarks stirred up?
Reflecting on this discrepancy in the response,
I wonder now whether what I experienced is
similar to what others have encountered in our
congregations.
For many years our denomination has pioneered
the Welcoming Congregation program. As many of
you may know, the process of coming a “Welcoming
Congregation” involves several steps. The
process undertaken by this congregation in 1996,
was primarily because, I am told, the parents of
gays and lesbians wanted a welcoming place for
their children. A congregation is granted the
recognition after a series of meetings where
participants share their concerns or fears
related to differing sexual orientations and
hear the stories of those who have experienced
heterosexual oppression. The church then votes
on becoming a Welcoming Congregation.
For most churches this “Welcoming Congregation
Recognition” has meant embracing gays and
lesbians. Here, as in other places bisexuals
have been noticeably absent from the process.
Today, we will explore the reasons bisexuals
have been missing. Our language is prejudicial
when it comes to bisexuality. It is a word some
people just don’t like. Bisexuality makes them
uncomfortable and suspicious; it is a bit too
erotic. But what is bisexuality? It is the
ability to connect emotionally, sensually, and
sexually to members of both sexes.
When bisexuals engage in long-term monogamous
relationships, thereby appearing either gay or
straight, they are easily accepted. But are we
really a congregation who embraces diversity
when what we accept has to look and feel exactly
like something with which we are familiar?
Thirty years ago gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
struggled to find acceptance. Bisexuals still
face many of those challenges today. The new
Welcoming Congregation curriculum is now
complete and does include material on
bisexuality. But simply acknowledging
intellectually that acceptance of bisexuals is a
reasonable rational next step doesn’t mean it is
easy to do. As editor of the curriculum and
former director of the Office of Gay and Lesbian
Concerns at the UUA, Scott Alexander has coined
the phrase “heart lag.” An example he gives is
of a woman, an ardent supporter of equal pay and
job opportunities for women, who was on an
airplane preparing for take-off when she heard a
woman introduce herself as the pilot. Despite
her conviction that women were as capable of
piloting a plane as men, she discovered that she
had ‘sweaty palms.’
We don’t like it when our hearts lag behind our
heads. We don’t like to think of ourselves as
unsupportive or unenlightened. Often there is a
lag between what we know and how we feel about
it. It is okay to acknowledge discomfort around
the issue of bisexuality.
churches it came time to vote on the
Welcoming Congregation. Prior to the vote a
member of the congregation approached me and
said that another member had told her she would
vote “yes” to welcome gays and lesbians, but if
the “bis” had asked for the vote then she would
vote “no.” To this woman “welcoming” meant
receiving gays and lesbians, but not people with
other sexual orientations. What myths, or
legends I wonder was she laboring under?
One myth is that those bisexuals who are
non-monogamous are promiscuous. In practice,
having multiple partners is not an article of
faith for bisexuals. It’s an option, just as it
is for straights and gays. It is crucial to
understand that people who identify themselves
as bisexual are no more or less sexually active
than those who identify themselves as straight
or gay. The truth is that many people, some of
whom identify as bisexual, live with a member of
the same sex or the opposite sex and are
monogamous. If a partnership ends, their next
relationship may or may not be with the same
gender as their last lover.
It is, of course, true that there are some
bisexuals who love members of both genders at
the same time and do so with clarity, integrity,
and the full knowledge of their partners. In a
culture organized, however precariously, around
monogamy, this aspect of bisexuality lurks as a
possible rupture in our social structure, and
conjures up fears of secret lives and
instability. Actually, similar fears exist for
gays and straights: the real truth is that the
desire for sexual variety functions independent
of sexual preference.
Another myth is that bisexuals are fence sitters
and unable to give up an exploratory phase,
which others have outgrown. We are told to make
up our minds when in reality, we have. The world
tells us we cannot have it both ways. With this
kind of pressure from both the gay and straight
world, life is uncomfortable. Thus, many
bisexuals have remained closeted, enjoying the
privileges of the heterosexual world by
appearing heterosexual. Invisibility is the
order of the day, and this can lead to cultural
disregard.
As early as 1975 in a Redbook article Margaret
Mead stated, “The time has come when, I think,
we must recognize bisexuality as a normal form
of human behavior…we shall not really succeed in
discarding the straitjacket of our cultural
beliefs about sexual choice if we fail to come
to terms with the well-documented, normal human
capacity to love members of both sexes.”
Continued on GBLTQ II
>
