The shameful gay marriage ban.

[Ian Boothby]

Pia here...

Matterconsumer, you have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage between more than two people REGARDLESS OF PREFERENCE is a polygamous relationship. Period. Bisexual marriage... for pity's sake man!

Bi's are born with an attraction to both sexes. They're not attracted to ALL women they meet, or ALL men they meet just as Hets aren't attracted to every person of the opposite gender they meet. They just meet a person and for some reason something clicks.

Just because Bi's can go after anything that moves doesn't necessarily mean they do. Many Bi's appreciate healthy monogamous relationships, perhaps because of the influence of their families. Many Bi's who grew up confused about their feelings end up trying a lot of things: gay, straight, kinky whatever until they figure out what's going on in their heads. Some settle on poly relationships because it satisfies their appetites quite nicely. Some prefer monogamy. I know this is hard for you to grasp but it's really not that difficult. It boils down simply to "love the one you're with" and that's enough.

Really.

Bisexual marriage. Jeez.

And Briareos, please for the love of god and all his works... read some books before you go spewing such hateful crap. You're embarassing yourself.

[stealthwise]

Homosexuality is wrong. Comparing Homosexuality to a persons skin color just doesn't work. One is what you are born as and has no bearing on who you are as a person. The other is a action that you conciously decide to take. Now having said that I know that alot of homosexuals don't feel like it is a choice that is because there is a strong link between being a homosexual and being molested as a child (you'll notice that alot of people don't want to talk about the link between pedophilia and homosexuality).

What link? There's just as much of a link between child-molestation and wife-beating, and sexual assaults like date rape, if not more so.

Homosexuality should have never been stopped thinking about as a mental disease (and no i'm not saying that they should be locked up in a mental institution or anything). It is something that should be viewed as something to work through with therapy. Kelptomaniacs may not be able to be "cured" either does that mean they shouldn't seek help through therapy?


Homosexuality is NOT a mental disease though. Have you ever read anything in psychology? Do you even KNOW what constitutes a mental disease? The first factor that you consider is whether the condition actually damages the person or other people and causes them to function in dangerous or harmful ways.

[Ian Boothby]

Lust in your heart won't get you Jimmy Carter.

If one only wishes to lust and considers themself bisexual then so be it.

But presumably if you're going to marry you'll want to do more than think about it and if you want both sexes and find two people who respond and wish to have a lifelong relationship then you'd like to get married.

Perhaps most would call it polygamy. As it takes a minimum of three to make one marital unit I'm not calling it polygamy.

Monogomy is monogomy. You presume wrongly in your assumption.

[iwarrior]

Personally,I wouldn't mind seeing gays be allowed to marry. However,I don't think it's a massively important issue,and I feel both sides make too much of it. In fact,I think the whole debate was what in part helped Dubbya get reelected,which sucks for the majority of Americans whether they know it or not.

[Ian Boothby]

Personally,I wouldn't mind seeing gays be allowed to marry. However,I don't think it's a massively important issue,and I feel both sides make too much of it. In fact,I think the whole debate was what in part helped Dubbya get reelected,which sucks for the majority of Americans whether they know it or not.

Rights aren't as important for those that have them in the same way food isn't important for those that are full.

[Spike-X]

If being homosexual is practically equivalent and or more desirable than being hetereosexual then this becomes problematic should the majority population become homosexual. The population dies over time.


So you're saying that if we accept homosexuals and homosexual relationships, that this will somehow cause more people to 'become' gay? How do you suggest this will happen, exactly?

The fundamental issue has still not been addressed that homosexuals are unable to in and of themselves procreate.

That's true. Many heterosexual couples are also unable to in and of themselves procreate. We don't tell them they're not allowed to marry.

Some will use this as a justification for bigotry or discrimination.

Yes. Apparently "some" will.

Marriage doesn't mean just legal rights and the like. One of the things that typically goes with marriage is having a family. Traditionally that's the way it's done. Get married (supposedly for life) and have children.

As an observation, there are many who are far more opposed to homosexuals having children artificially and through adoption than homosexuals simply living together. They equate marriage and family together.

They don't seem to have noticed that this is already happening with increasing frequency. But then, that would require them to pull their heads out of their arses for five minutes and actually have a look at the word outside their front door.

[Spike-X]

Prediction:
10 years, new amendment proposal: Marriage defined as a union between an adult male and adult female.

Tadpolers revolt. Message boards barraged with laments over backward, bible thumping agists and pedophobes.

Children are legally unable to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. There are no such issues of consent betwen two adults of the same sex. Try again.

20 years, another amendment proposal: Marriage is defined as a union between an adult human male and adult human female.

Bestiality advocates revolt. Comics community comes out with response by remaking Howard the Duck as a sensitive portrayal of animal/human mutual love. Advocates of amendment called ignorant faunaphobes who ignore the advances science has made in allowing a human consumate sex with an animal and produce offspring.


Show me a dog that can say "I do" and rational people might be able to see this argument as something besides sheer lunatic desperation.

[Spike-X]

When sperm banks become associated with other uses (medical experimentation, cloning, lesbians) then sperm banks are going to be in trouble.

Ultimately it will be up to women to decide how they wish to be impregnated but I would hazard a guess that the traditional way is still on top.

By far.

So not only should society be able to dictate who may or may not marry, but also how these couples may or may not produce children, should they wish to do so?

[Spike-X]

...evidently marriage is something worth fighting for.

Only if you're a heterosexual fighting to stop other people from getting married, it would seem.

Legally homosexuals have equal rights and have had equal rights as individuals.

Sure. As individuals. Seems that if they want to live their lives together as a couple and be treated equally to other couples, though, they're SOL.

Social acceptance is another matter altogether.

As are the desires of same sex partnerships.

The "desires of same sex partnerships" are to be treated equally with opposite-sex parterships. This really doesn't seem like such an unreasonable request in a country that supposedly prides itself on 'equal rights for all citizens'.

[Ian Boothby]

Children are legally unable to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. There are no such issues of consent betwen two adults of the same sex. Try again.



Show me a dog that can say "I do" and rational people might be able to see this argument as something besides sheer lunatic desperation.

There was that dog that could say, "I love you" kinda. Myself if I had to marry some animal the waterskiing squirrel is a cutey.

[Spike-X]

...one person I know voted against it because of the tax breaks that are received. His view is that when a man and woman marry they receive a tax break to ease the financial burden of creating a family. A gay couple cannot procreate and therefore should not receive any such benefit.

How petty and mean-spirited can a person get? I trust your friend is also fighting to keep these tax breaks from heterosexual married couples who are unable/unwilling to have children?

While he agreed that marriage does perform a religious/emotional/social function he felt that most of the benefits recieved from the legal position of being married were designed to aid those capapble of creating a family (adoption being an exeption to the rule, because all rules have them). He cared not at all if 2 men or women found a minister who was willing to marry them in a religious ceremony under the eyes of god to fulfill the religious/emotional/social function, he just could not justify the legal benefits.

Not any of the legal benefits? Not even the right to be able to make medical decisions for a partner unable to do so, or even to be allowed to visit them in hospital at all? How is granting that right going to cost your friend a buck?

What a flaming, ignorant ass.

[Spike-X]

It's not about rights for many people. They have no problem giving the rights associated with marriage.

According to the results from the election, a lot of them do. That's what the ballots for most, if not all, states that voted on this stated - that not only were you voting on whether or not to restrict the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, but also on whether to restrict the benefits traditionally associated with marriage to heterosexual married couples.

[Spike-X]

Sure lots of people do such things when they're in a minority and disagree with a majority.

Think of so many of the struggles for racial and civil equality.

Terrorists think that they're rational and doing the right thing as well -- we have to take people seriously even when they're seriously wrong.

Tell me you didn't just equate the fight for gay marriage to terrorism.

Please tell me you didn't just do that.

[Spike-X]

...if enough people stop having children for any of a number of reasons for a long enough period of time then it becomes problematic. The population dies.

What do we hear over and over again? There aren't enough tax payers to cover the costs for those about to retire and one also thinks of the debt.
Birth rates are down. Thank abortion, thank choice, thank economics, thank homosexualitiy, etc.

The general population is nowhere near ready to accept lesbians by the thousands or millions having children.

We need to increase the birth rate, yet we don't want lesbians having children?

Wow. Inconsistent much?

Birth rates are down. If enough people buy this argument over a long enough period of time then the population and the economy are diminished until extinction.


There's six billion humans currently residing on planet Earth. I really don't think we're in danger of imminent extinction just because gay people (who are capable of having children through various means) want their partnerships recognised as equal to those of heterosexual couples (who may not want to have children at all).

More babies should equal more tax payers.

Then why are you trying to stop people from getting married and having kids? Do you think that if gay people aren't allowed to marry, they'll all trot off and marry somebody of the opposite sex or something?

...if one believes that overpopulation is a serious problem and sexual preferences are equivalent why wouldn't one recommend homosexuality?

Mate, you can "recommend" homosexuality to me all you like, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out and start sucking dick.

Accepting homosexuality is not the same as 'promoting' it.

Divorce of course is a larger threat to the "institution of marriage" than same sex partners. (No I'm not advocating a ban on divorce.)

But you seem fine with advocating a ban on gay marriage, when you yourself admit it's not nearly as much of a threat to the "institution of marriage"? Stamp on the ant, but ignore the ravenous crocodile? Yep. Makes sense to me.

[Spike-X]

There are quite a few men who married, had children, and then left their families because they were homosexual.

Then we return to all of the supposed homosexuals who evidently had it in them to have children. I've said it before -- I couldn't imagine having sex with someone I wasn't attracted to -- much less someone of the same sex. So how did that happen?

Oh social pressure forced them to marry and have children.

Pretty much, yeah. Or maybe all of this bullshit about it being a 'choice' convinced them that they could force themselves to be straight if they tried really, really hard.

If it is genetic then why shouldn't babies have it turned on or off?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting some kind of genetic engineering to prevent people being gay?

*reads further*

No, you seem to be saying that...people are going to 'choose' to make their babies gay. *phew* That's a much more rational argument...

[Spike-X]

Increased social acceptance allows for increased homosexual expression.

Yes, but not for increased homosexuality as such.

If my culture had taught me from a child on that being homosexual was the way to be then chances are that this is the way I'd be. Or that would be the way I would behave sexually.

Which culture is trying to teach children, or anyone, that homosexuality is the way to be? All we're trying to teach our children is that if you're gay that's fine and dandy and nobody should be allowed to make you feel like there's something wrong with you, and that if somebody else is gay then that's fine and dandy, they're no threat to you, so leve them the fuck alone.

Tell me how this is going to cause more people to become gay. Please.

Homosexuality works when the population is able to compensate for the loss of children. Homosexuality works when it's not a majority practice.

Homosexuality is never going to be a majority practice. Most people just aren't made like that. Never have been, enver will be.

If one says they're born with a sexual preference which of course is verbally contradictory -- let's just assume for the moment that one is born in this fashion then what happens if the majority of births are same sex oriented?

Once it's genetically determined how to make a baby have a sexual proclivity then we'll have the ability to eliminate, maintain, or augment a population.

It's undeniable that there have been any number who have chosen a different sexual practice once it was socially acceptable to do so. Rightly or wrongly this leads to a perception that there are more homosexuals than ever.

What...

...the...

...fuck??

[Spike-X]

I'd just like to take a moment to apologise for hogging the thread for the better part of a page (so far...I ain't done yet!). I've had my son with me all day and haven't been able to address posts as they've come up, so I'm catching up now.

[Spike-X]

Homosexuality is wrong. Comparing Homosexuality to a persons skin color just doesn't work. One is what you are born as and has no bearing on who you are as a person. The other is a action that you conciously decide to take.

Being romantically and sexually attracted to a person of your own gender is "an action that you conciously decide to take"?

Tell me then - when did you consciously decide to become emotionally and sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Homosexuality should have never been stopped thinking about as a mental disease (and no i'm not saying that they should be locked up in a mental institution or anything). It is something that should be viewed as something to work through with therapy. Kelptomaniacs may not be able to be "cured" either does that mean they shouldn't seek help through therapy?


Every single piece of scientific research done on the subject in the last twenty or thirty years says you're wrong. It also says that trying to "cure" gay people does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

[Spike-X]

If one were truly bisexual meaning in this sense: either equally or close to equally being attracted to both sexes then why would one settle with one partner?

If you were to have a committed relationship then you would seek two others who shared the same attraction. I'm not saying that it would be easy.

If you were to settle with one partner and exclusively have sexual relations with that one partner I would not describe that as bisexual.


You seem to be even more ignorant of bisexuality than you are of homosexuality, if such a thing is even possible.

[Spike-X]

I would define a bisexual as someone who has ongoing sexual relations with both sexes. A pure bisexual would be a 3 on the Kinsey scale.

Some may disagree with this.

Well, I have a bisexual friend who would definitely disagree with you on this. She's well and truly bisexual, and has been in a faithful, monogamous relationship with one person for over six months now. The thought of having sex with another person, male or female, has not even entered her head. Yet she continues to identify herself as bisexual.

[iwarrior]

Rights aren't as important for those that have them in the same way food isn't important for those that are full.

Look,it's not as if they are being lynched in the streets. It's illegal to discriminate against them,they can vote,and there is hate crime legislation in place to protect them. Besides,you'd be suprised how many gays vote Republican. You'd see a lot more protest and upheaval if they were really bothered about not being allowed to marry.

I think the Right just uses it as a wedge issue. That's how they get poor and working people to vote against their best interests.

Let's face it,it's really not that big of a deal either way. It's just one of those silly cultural issues that people are way too preoccupied with.

[Cam63]

Homosexuality is wrong.

At that point, your post stopped making sense to me. Being gay is not wrong and will not destroy the institutes of marriage, family or society in general.

Only narrowminded fools believe that bullshit, Briareos.

[cactusmaac]

You know, when half of marriages end in divorce, how the hell is marriage sacred anymore?

Nope. The number of marriages in a particular year is typically twice the number of divorces in the same year. Not the same thing.

The divorce rate is somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five percent depending on how you do the stats.

[Ian Boothby]

Look,it's not as if they are being lynched in the streets. It's illegal to discriminate against them,they can vote,and there is hate crime legislation in place to protect them. Besides,you'd be suprised how many gays vote Republican. You'd see a lot more protest and upheaval if they were really bothered about not being allowed to marry.

I think the Right just uses it as a wedge issue. That's how they get poor and working people to vote against their best interests.

Let's face it,it's really not that big of a deal either way. It's just one of those silly cultural issues that people are way too preoccupied with.


Okay they aren't being lynched in the streets, they also aren't being burned at the stake or used for bear baiting. There's still a lot of gay bashing and "fag" is the main insult school kids use on each other. The hate is still there both overt in violence, in posts like Bri's that say homosexality is a mental disorder and also in the actions of people like Yoda's folks who don't feel comfortable with gays but can't articulate why and vote against gay marriage.

You say it's not that big a deal either way. To you it's not. How is it illegal to discriminate against them if they aren't allowed the same rights? That's just lip service.

[Ian Boothby]

Nope. The number of marriages in a particular year is typically twice the number of divorces in the same year. Not the same thing.

The divorce rate is somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five percent depending on how you do the stats.

That's interesting. Where are you getting your stats from?

[Spike-X]

Look,it's not as if they are being lynched in the streets.

Does the name "Mathew Shepard" ring a bell?

Let's face it,it's really not that big of a deal either way. It's just one of those silly cultural issues that people are way too preoccupied with.

You know Tom, moderator of the Comm Board? He faces being permanently separated form his partner, Desi, when Desi's visa runs out and he's forced to go back to...shit, I forget where he's from. Another country. South American, starts with 'B'. Anyway, my point is, if one of them was a woman, they'd be allowed to get married and stay together. Instead Tom faces being separated from the person he loves more than anyone else in the world.

Go on over to the Comm Board and tell Tom that gay marriage really isn't that big of a deal.

I dare you.

Or there's my friend 13th, another moderator here at CBR. She's just been told by over 20% of the country that she doesn't deserve the same rights as the majority of US citizens. You tell her that it's just a silly cultural issue.

[matterconsumer]

Mate, you can "recommend" homosexuality to me all you like

One day when we're able to go have an operation and become homosexual and/or adjust fetal sexual behavior then what will one decide?

For that matter it's no more unreasonable to say that the same could be done for bisexuality.

Then it becomes most obviously a choice that can be made.

I don't have large enough breasts, I want to have a sex change --- these are all things that we're being given a choice to make.

Why can we not make the same argument that bisexuals aren't born that way? And polygamiists?

And if so then why can't they marry as well?

And why can't people just marry for non-sexual reasons?

And returning to bisexuality sure lots of people can say that I'm the King of Spain but there is a difference between wanting and doing. And the argument then goes around if you're truly bisexual then you're doing yourself a disservice by only having one partner.

That becomes no different from being homosexual and marrying someone of the opposite sex. You're living a lie. Or in my view you're ever so mildly "bisexual" -- you're using the label for your own reasons.

Perhaps it's similar to all those who call themselves "punk" -- they want the word.

[matterconsumer]

Go on over to the Comm Board and tell Tom that gay marriage really isn't that big of a deal.

I dare you.

If he visits over here he may get a hug.

Or there's my friend 13th, another moderator here at CBR. She's just been told by over 20% of the country that she doesn't deserve the same rights as the majority of US citizens. You tell her that it's just a silly cultural issue.

She may get a hug too.

Sheesh! And people tell me that homosexuals aren't taking over.

[Noah Johnson]

And returning to bisexuality sure lots of people can say that I'm the King of Spain but there is a difference between wanting and doing. And the argument then goes around if you're truly bisexual then you're doing yourself a disservice by only having one partner.

That becomes no different from being homosexual and marrying someone of the opposite sex. You're living a lie. Or in my view you're ever so mildly "bisexual" -- you're using the label for your own reasons.

I've been trying for this entire thread to figure out what's going wrong in your head. I think I've got it.

It would appear, matterconsumer, that you are operating under a baseline assumption that all sexual proclivities other than your own are based solely on sex. To clarify, you appear to think that being homosexual means that the only thing going on in your head is a constant desire for sex with members of your own gender, and that being bisexual consists entirely of a consuming desire for congress with both genders.

Now, as stupid as this assumption is, I don't hold it against you, for two reasons. Firstly, it's extremely common. Many, many people have this notion. Secondly, you're almost certainly unaware of holding this assumption. Indeed, I fully expect you to deny it.

Nonetheless, let's look at the evidence for your holding this assumption. There is, most obviously, your deeply confused and kind of embarrassing attempt to tell bisexuals who they are and what they want. You are attempting to force them to fit the definition in your head. Then, of course, there's the basic prejudice against homosexuals that becomes clear as one views enough of your posts. This prejudice stems, in part, from your inability to imagine a homosexual person doing anything other than having gay sex. As a straight man, you are quite uninterested in sex with other men, so the idea is rather unpleasant to you. Therefore, anyone who wants to spend their entire life doing something so gross must be pretty screwed-up, and hence the prejudice. Again, this is VERY common.

By now you'll have begun claiming that you're not in fact prejudiced against homosexuals at all. Unfortunately, this isn't true. As one looks at your posts, one sees a scattershot array of disconnected, sometimes mutually contradictory justifications for your point of view. This, of course, means that the conclusion has come first and the arguer is merely casting about for any plausible explanation for this preexisting conclusion. Again, everyone does this, so don't feel too bad. There's also the all-encompassing ignorance of homosexual life that shines clearly through your posts. This is probably also due to the nothing-but-sex prejudice; you're failing to process data that doesn't fit your model.

So, to sum up, your basic position is that you have a hard time seeing homosexuals as entirely human because you've fallen prey to the notion of imagining them as solely sexual creatures, not unlike the satyrs of mythology. All the rest follows from this basic assumption. The good news is that you're mistaken, and you can hopefully move beyond this common but still ridiculous notion.

Let me close by reminding you that gay people live exactly like you >90% of the time. They wait for the bus, they argue with their friends over whether Juggernaut could beat the Teen Titans, they incorrectly compute sales tax in their heads, they wonder where the hell all the clean socks went. The acts that so inflame your imagination are no more the center of their lives than they are of yours. Melissa Etheridge spends more time arguing with her agent about bookings than she does having sex with women. Sir Ian McKellen, right now, is not chasing guys, he's looking for his car keys.

[SoulOnIce]

Look,it's not as if they are being lynched in the streets. It's illegal to discriminate against them,they can vote,and there is hate crime legislation in place to protect them. Besides,you'd be suprised how many gays vote Republican. You'd see a lot more protest and upheaval if they were really bothered about not being allowed to marry.

I think the Right just uses it as a wedge issue. That's how they get poor and working people to vote against their best interests.

Let's face it,it's really not that big of a deal either way. It's just one of those silly cultural issues that people are way too preoccupied with.

"Hey, who cares if they don't have the same rights as other citizens; at least they're not being lynched!"

As the guy above said, remember Matthew Sheppard? Furthermore, look up the statistics for hate crime against gays. Quite high. And that is not even including the shit that is not even reported.

It may not be a big deal to you because you have the right to marry. Are you married? What if someone had told you that you didn't have the right to marry? Would it then be a big deal?

[matterconsumer]

Noah,

I've approached the issue using different perspectives. Some thoughts popped in my head as I went along and so I pursued them.

You're not grappling with what I've been saying. Which is your choice.

See the problem is that people are more interested in jumping on one side or the other and the name calling commences.

I didn't explicitly take a side in the gay marriage issue so that there could be a discussion. In this thread I'm not trying to change a viewpoint -- I was just thinking out loud. The posts can be to varying degrees interpreted depending on your viewpoint to intend different things.

If you knew me I don't think that you would consider me to be prejudiced but that's the risk that one takes when posting and gives an appearance of being against a position.

Best wishes!

[cactusmaac]

That's interesting. Where are you getting your stats from?

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/groups/public/%5C@fotf_troubledwith/documents/articles/twi_013735.cfm?channel=Relationships&topic=Divorce&sssct=Background%20Info

[JeffreyWKramer]

Simple facts.

1) There are solid reasons why homosexuality is not considered a mental illness. The most obvious one is that there is nothing symptomatic or pathological about it. Being attracted to/sexual with one's own gender does not in and itself cause any problems, nor does it prevent healthy and satisfying emotional relationships. In comparison, actual mental disorders entail quantifiable, obviously dysfunctional symptoms - things such as hallucinations, delusions, reduced motivation/energy level, etc. And before any halfwit points out the higher rate of suicide among gays - particularly gay teens - please note that this occurs in those who demonstrate clinical depression. The problem is the depression, not being gay, and there is no evidence that being gay makes one depressed. In contrast, there is ample evidence that being subjected to discrimination and persecution makes people depressed.

Beyond that, there is not and never has been any therapy or treatment modality which has been shown to alter sexual orientation. At most, you get gays who are non-sexual, and some who even manage heterosexual sex by fantasizing their partner is of their own gender, and who demonstrate lots of symptoms of depression and anxiety - and higher rates of suicide than non-treated gays.

2) In this day and age, in the US or in other countries that supposedly believe in ideas such as liberty, freedom and dignity of the individual, it disgusts me that so many folk think they have the right to make choices for others, or restrict others' choices, regarding relationships, sexuality, etc. What's wrong with just letting consenting adults do what they wish, whether you agree with it or not, so long as nobody is being tangibly hurt by it? Those who want to make a religious argument, well, if you believe you have the right to force your religious standards on others, you really belong somewhere like Iran or among the likes of the Taliban rather than as part of civilized society.

3) Sexual orientation is an important part of who humans are. It is not the entirety of a healthy person's personality and interests, but it is one of the areas in which human beings are the most diverse. Some people are into people of the same gender some or all of the time. Some people are into people of the other gender some or all of the time. People do a wide variety of things with each other. Some people don't like some of those things, or only like having sex with one particular gender. Well, outside of rape and other nonconsensual situations - which I hope we can all agree are bad - nobody is forcing anyone to do things they want to do with people they don't wish to do them with. So, why do so many people think it is their business who does what with who?

4) Matterconsumer, in the future, you should take the time to organize your thoughts coherently rather than just thinking out loud, because as is, your arguments through this thread have been disorganized and piss-poor, on top of often being completely wrong-headed.

Regarding my own thoughts on gay marriage and sexual orientation, and a lot of actual information about homosexuality and related topics, if anyone cares, you can read through these threads. I don't feel like typing tons and tons of this stuff again and again.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=27285

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=11730&highlight=agenda

[matterconsumer]

Does anyone doubt the existence of people who are born with an attraction for both sexes who would wish to marry both partners simultaneously?

That would be a total of three.

Some seem to have difficulty describing this as bisexual.

People identify themselves with their sexual identity. Yes there's more to life but if I want to marry what inevitably comes to the forefront? What started the relationship that would lead to marriage in the first place -- sexual identity.

If I'm homosexual I'm not going to date a heterosexual looking for sexual fulfillment. And if you're confused or uncertain then you're just trying to work it out.

Probably a better political tactic for advocating gay marriage would have been to have instead argued that people can marry for whatever reason.

There's still that "marriage" word which is a political stumbling block.

By saying that people want to live together and have legal/civil benefits regardless of whether they're sexually involved.

And people may disagree but it seems to me that one could also argue that the number should be increased to three people for true bisexuals.

And more if one accepts that polygamy is innate.

And three or more could marry even if the relationship was non-sexual.

[JeffreyWKramer]

My wife is bisexual. We swing and do threesomes. She gets to have sex with women as well as men that way. It works. One can have sex without being married, and one who is married can have sex with people other than a spouse.

For the record, though, I have no problem with the idea of a polyamorous marital relationship - a stable,matrimonial arrangement of three or more partners. There is no evidence such things are bad/wrong/harmful, and in fact there is evidence from more communal sorts of cultures that such relationnships - and children raised within them - are fine.

Polyamory isn't for everyone, and it works just fine for some.

[the4thpip]

My boyfriend and I would both get too jealous for an "open relationship." We've been having a long distance relationship for 4 years now, so that means no sex for up to 3 months at a time.

[heystacy]

I'd like to say that I do believe that marriage is sacred. With that being said many people never treat it like so. I'm a generation removed from people who think you should be married by a certain age, no matter what. If you're not married, then something's wrong must be wrong with you ("you must be gay" would be the ironic and ignorant statement).

I have seen so many people throw away their marrige vows. The betrayal, the lies, the hurt. It's very ugly. Did any of them know the relationship was sacred?

Nobody cared, until a new group challenged their perceptions of who can enter a marriage, and possibly make it work. Imagine a group as a society, we've cast disdain upon, who had people who wanted to be together in love, married for life. Imagine if married couples fought to stay together when the times were rough, the shit hit the fan, yet they toughed it out becauce a commitment meant something to them. Imagine if only one gay cople did that among a see of divorced heterosexuals.

Now marriage sacred, special, and between a man and a woman only. The shame of being outdone by people as a society we've looked down upon as sinners, and "disgusting" would be too great. As a whole we'd fail.

[Pia Guerra]

Matterconsumer, you really need to look at all the bull you've been posting. I know you're just "thinking out loud" but what you've said is so blatantly contradictory and incorrect that not only are you coming off like a complete idiot but you're being offensive as hell.

You think Bi's are "living a lie" by not constantly having sex with both genders? Then I call Shenanigans on you because you are obviously living a lie if you think settling down with only one member of the opposite gender is right. We all know that the heterosexual male impulse is to mate with as many females as he can to insure the spreading of genetic material and the preservation of the species (hence shows like Jerry Springer). By settling down with only one partner he risks extinction by not fulfilling his evolutionary imperative.

Your "theories" would kinda make sense if this were the bloody stone age but it's the 21st century. We have societies now, whole civilizations that do all these things counter to evolutionary drive like buy homes on flood plains, eat twinkies, not follow herds of animals across the continent, get married and limit their having kids to just a few instead of whole litters in order to protect their blood line against famine and disease.

Barring some sudden nuclear badminton match the population ain't going anywhere. In fact, just this week the UN released a report that over the next three centuries the global population will very likely level out at 9 billion instead of the earlier prediction of 12 billion. The cause, more families are having fewer kids, on average two, because there isn't a need to have more. Families want to enjoy their lives, for many there isn't the threat of death hanging over their heads so why have so many kids? Especially when incomes are limited in the new global economy. But I guess living within one's means is just selfish to you.

Your worries stem from the boomer based social security system under threat from this new selfishness. "Oh!" you cry, "Oh where will my pension come from if there aren't millions of lil' ones running around to pay for it!? Oh!"

Yeah it's a legit concern but maybe it's better to redesign the system to deal with our changing population levels rather than try to manipulate society into behaving like it did when the original models made sense, back in the ol' days when everyone went to church on Sunday, moms stayed at home to raise as many kids as possible and there weren't any antibiotics or birth control pills in the mix to mess up the numbers.

Society is an ever changing thing. It's fluidity dependent on new inventions, new ideas and social trends. Trying to maintain some "golden era" will only cause it to errode and decay faster. Looking at that 9 billion population number may seem horrible to you but to others it's not so much. Look at how consumerist our world is turning into (the industrialization rate of China alone is enough to give me the willies). Fewer people means less stress on the environment. It's a mess now but with 4 billion fewer than expected maybe it'll be easier to come up with alternatives to deal with some of the threats globalisation poses... as well as the positive aspects.

Your arguments against gay marriage and bisexuality are lame. Sorry. You have no clue what it means to be gay, bi or, strange as it seems, straight. There is a huge difference between who you're attracted to and how you act on that attraction. Our society does play a large role in making monogamy appealing: coupling brings more stability and income for a family; it helps you buy a house, a car, a jacuzzi; it helps satisfy that other drive, having kids, that isn't limited to hets believe it or not, gay and bi couples often want kids too and it's been proven that two parent homes (so long as they're loving environments) are better than one. Coupling isn't for everyone of course but it works for many. Denying a group a chance for stability and acceptance is not just petty but mean spirited and indicative of a deep seated hatred beneath the veneer of "tolerance".

Poly can work too but it's not as appealing over the long term because it's a LOT of work to keep things stable. Polygamous marriage will no doubt be addressed at some later date with concerns ranging from multiple spousal support upon divorce as well as the creepy, abusive religious cultist factor that has given poly such a bad name. But again, neither here nor there at this stage since the argument now is about gay marriage.

A big thank you to Spike for his line by line address of all of matterconsumer's weird posits. I just didn't have it in me to do it this week.

[matterconsumer]

This begins to get stranger and stranger.

Pia, Spike, and those who seem to think I'm in disagreement with them. There isn't as much disagreement here as you may think.

But Pia saying that one can act against evolution and evidently be the better for doing so doesn't work if one is trying to persuade one to be tolerant by saying I was born that way.

It feeds the I can choose argument. That's different from I'm a homosexual and I can't be otherwise.

As soon as one says I could choose otherwise or even worse I could choose otherwise and be happy then it should arrive as no surprise that opponents insist that a different choice be made (to not be homosexual, to not be bisexual, to not be a she-male, etc.)

Returning to population would it be safe to say then that your preference is for let's use the US for fewer people? At any rate our taxes will go up to handle Social Security and the retirement age will go up and benefits will stabilize or decline somewhat ---- and/or deficits will continue and/or other programs will be cut. As I've said before this is an observation that applies beyond whether homosexuals have children BUT it does have an impact.

I guess this could be interpreted as a death knell and it would be in the extreme but my experience tends to be that people are wanting to either not have children or to have one or two.

I seldom hear people say that they want to have a large family.

[Yoda]

The hate is still there...also in the actions of people like Yoda's folks who don't feel comfortable with gays but can't articulate why and vote against gay marriage.

This is not what I said.

My parents are not uncomfortable with homosexual's. They are open and caring people with several homosexual friends and coworkers with whom they have discussed this issue. My father has worked with several homosexual couples trying to set up their estates, etc. before gay marriage was legal in massachusetts. Their homosexual friends and mine do not see them as bigots. And that is probably why they will eventually come around to accept it. Because people actually talk to them and not down to them. It takes time for people to accept things. This has been an issue for about 1 year. Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for millenia. It's easy to sit there and label them bigots because they don't automatically jump to your side.

They are the people who you should be talking to, not using as an example of what's wrong with America. They are not caricatures. Most of the real gay marriage proponents, the people who are out there trying to make a differance and not just to feel morally superior, understand this and realize that it is only by talking to people like my parents who are open minded and willing to engage in discussion that they will accomplish anything. Labeling people who don't agree with you bigots will not accomplish anything. Most people will stop listening to you right then and there.

They have never voted against gay marriage because there has never been a vote in Massachusetts, also the amendment here will give gay couples civil unions with every right associated with traditional civil marriage, so even if they were to vote against it here it would be radically differant issue than in the states that voted on tuesday. I have no doubt they would vote against any amendment that did not give at least civil unions.

They are people who were not raised in the same open enviroment and culture that we were raised in. Try to understand that. It makes it more difficult for them to accept these new ideas but they try. Their resistence to the idea of gay marriage is not motivated by hate. And it is wrong to assume otherwise.

This is the problem with having conversations with people from either the extreme right or left. You simply cannot have a conversation or rational argument with them, because neither live in the real world. They are incapable of it because they are unwilling to see anything as gray. Incapable of grasping the idea that anyone would have a viewpoint differant from theirs that isn't motivated by stupidity or hate. That's why this country is such a mess. Because no one is willing to engage in rational argument about any issue, there's no longer a middle ground to be reached. Extremism in any form, liberal or conservative, is bad for this country. This world is gray. Nothing is black and white.

[Pia Guerra]

Matterconsumer, you're not making a lot of sense in this "I choose" argument.

You can CHOOSE to express your sexual preference or you can CHOOSE to ignore your sexual preference and be like everyone else. But that's only a choice in expression, it doesn't change who you are. If a gay man decides he doesn't want to be one these out-of-the-closet, in-your-face-with-a-rainbow-flag people he can choose to be reserved and have only discreet encounters with men. If he doesn't want even that and is convinced that what he's doing is wrong, which stems from all the hatred towards gays he was raised with, he may try to convince himself he's straight when he's not, hook up with some unsuspecting chick and live a het lie. Hell, if he's happy with that, suppressing his sexuality out of fear and thereby being only half a person, fine, he's happy with that. Chances are though it will all eventually fall apart as that man comes to realise he isn't happy because he's not attracted to the woman he married.

You only choose HOW you live your life. You don't choose who and what you are.

The situation with Bi's is that although they are born with an attraction to either gender, they aren't born promiscuous, that comes from the values you develop as you grow up. Some may be perfectly fine with having multiple partners of differing genders while others, based on a more traditional view of relationships may prefer to only have one partner at a time... of either gender; basically whoever comes along that they happen to fall deeply in love with.

But then you could be into Freud and believe that all people are bisexual and the extent of how they stray from that is reflected in their neuroses (homophobia for instance). But not eveyone likes Freud.

As for the population, I don't really care what happens so long as we have an open-minded, far-sighted government that will look at the problems as they develop and not try to impose an outdated system on an ever changing society. I personally have no desire to have kids, never did, and don't think it's all that big a deal if I don't. And the reason more and more people are deciding not to have big families is because they have a set income and don't want to sacrifice a comfortable lifestyle when there really is no need. Larger families tend to occur more in catastrophically poor regions where having more children guarantees survival.

[matterconsumer]

I can agree with that in general.

I too do not wish to have children but I would encourage others to take up the slack.

I would much rather be promoting as a society having children than not having children. (I'm not saying that you're against this.)

My perception is that we're not promoting this as a society. We're promoting having that DVD player instead....

[Trench]

I want to have a sex change --- these are all things that we're being given a choice to make.

Choice. Right.

Go ahead. Go ahead and tell me that my father, if he had ANY choice in the matter, would willingy choose to have tens of thousands of dollars worth of painful surgery to correct his gender. Tell me that he eagerly anticipates conversations with his parents and his brothers to try to explain that he's felt this way since he was four. Tell me that a person would ever wish to put their family through the mental trauma of having to re-orient their conceptions of the man they've known for fifty years, if they had any other choice in the matter. Tell me that he chose to go through the taunts and teasings at work because he changed his name to "Jackalyn" from "Jack" JUST ON HIS PAYCHECK NOT DURING WORK. (Although I will give you that he chose to retire early because of them...) Tell me that at the age of four, my father looked down at his body and made a "choice" that he was the wrong gender.

Here's his choice. He can have the surgery. If he doesn't have the surgery, he'll kill himself because he can't live like that anymore.

Tell me it's a choice. I dare you.

[matterconsumer]

I don't know you or your father but certainly I wish you both the best.

Though if I were to have a sex change it would be by choice. Think of this in a future context when it becomes easier to change one's sex.

That should not be interpreted as an insult to either you or your father.

[Trench]

I don't know you or your father but certainly I wish you both the best.

Thanks. It's appreciated.

Though if I were to have a sex change it would be by choice. Think of this in a future context when it becomes easier to change one's sex.

Hey, I get that. In 2200 AD I would not be surprised in the least to see "body-trippers" as it were. Families splicing in dolphin DNA just to take a weekend in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Club kids getting drive through sex changes for the weekend and then getting them reversed after the hangover. Hell, there's already people getting surgeries to make them lizards or cats. I think that's a very resonable extrapolation.

The thing is we're getting into science fiction here... I'm not debating this very well could be science fact, yes. But right now, until we have a more mutable sense of identity due to surgical and genetic advances, the word "Choice" is fairly nonsensical to bring up in relation to this issue, in my opinion. And Pia summed up that point very well in her last post, I believe.

That should not be interpreted as an insult to either you or your father.

Nah, I got it. And maybe I went off on you a bit there, so I'm sorry. But I am EXTREMELY tired of people telling me that my father and my gay friends had any choice in the matter. Perhaps that's why you're getting so much slack right now, my friend. It's an old and tired argument, and I think people are just sick of hearing that for the umpteenth time.

[Ian Boothby]

Noah,

I've approached the issue using different perspectives. Some thoughts popped in my head as I went along and so I pursued them.

You're not grappling with what I've been saying. Which is your choice.

See the problem is that people are more interested in jumping on one side or the other and the name calling commences.

I didn't explicitly take a side in the gay marriage issue so that there could be a discussion. In this thread I'm not trying to change a viewpoint -- I was just thinking out loud. The posts can be to varying degrees interpreted depending on your viewpoint to intend different things.

If you knew me I don't think that you would consider me to be prejudiced but that's the risk that one takes when posting and gives an appearance of being against a position.

Best wishes!


You may not be prejudiced but this 4 person bi marriage concept you've trotted out isn't helping your credibility in this debate.

[Ian Boothby]

This is not what I said.

My parents are not uncomfortable with homosexual's. They are open and caring people with several homosexual friends and coworkers with whom they have discussed this issue. My father has worked with several homosexual couples trying to set up their estates, etc. before gay marriage was legal in massachusetts. Their homosexual friends and mine do not see them as bigots. And that is probably why they will eventually come around to accept it. Extremism in any form, liberal or conservative, is bad for this country. This world is gray. Nothing is black and white.

Okay but if you were telling me that your parents know black folks, work with black folks and respect black folks but are against interracial marriage for reasons they can't articulate because they feel uncomfortable about it would you still think we should wait this out, reason with with them and give them another decade or so to come around?

The idea here seems to be that waiting and tolerance will make things change. I don't think time will change the views of people like Briaros who think that homosexuality is wrong and a disease. Maybe some people like your folks will change their minds in time but meanwhile gay folks suffer for it (see some examples brought up earlier if you don't feel that's true). Why should we tolerate intollerance?

You're right, things aren't black and white they're gray but you don't make things better by adding more gray to the mix.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This world is gray. Nothing is black and white.

Yet, not all things are gray. Some things are wrong, and evil. Discrimination and bigotry are two such things. Voting to declare some members of society, and their relationships, as being of lesser status equates to bigotry and discrimination, which equates to wrong and evil.

You know, it's really amusing to see social conservatives - who so often deride liberals and intellectuals as being moral relativists because they point out that things are not as black-and-white as conservatives like to paint them - using essentially moral-relativist arguments to justify their bigotry and to try to argue that people should respect their hateful, bigoted stances and discriminatory behavior.

[Yoda]

You know, it's really amusing to see social conservatives - who so often deride liberals and intellectuals as being moral relativists because they point out that things are not as black-and-white as conservatives like to paint them - using essentially moral-relativist arguments to justify their bigotry and to try to argue that people should respect their hateful, bigoted stances and discriminatory behavior.

I'm a social conservative now? Really? I'm pro-choice, and support gay marriage. I also believe in the death penalty. I just don't consider everyone who isn't an evil bigoted moron.

[Spike-X]

Mate, you can "recommend" homosexuality to me all you like

One day when we're able to go have an operation and become homosexual and/or adjust fetal sexual behavior then what will one decide?


You're talking complete fantasy and speculation here. I'm not going to even bother arguing with that, it's about as pointless as discussing what colour to make the sky when we all live on the moon.

And returning to bisexuality sure lots of people can say that I'm the King of Spain but there is a difference between wanting and doing. And the argument then goes around if you're truly bisexual then you're doing yourself a disservice by only having one partner.

That becomes no different from being homosexual and marrying someone of the opposite sex. You're living a lie. Or in my view you're ever so mildly "bisexual" -- you're using the label for your own reasons.


Once again, my friend who is bisexual (and thus, unlike you, actually knows what the hell she's talking about) disagrees here. I'll take her word for it over yours.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm a social conservative now? Really? I'm pro-choice, and support gay marriage. I also believe in the death penalty. I just don't consider everyone who isn't an evil bigoted moron.

I was speaking in general terms, as your statement re: this isn't a black/white issue is one a lot of conservatives are using right now. For what it's worth, your position on the issues you list is the same as mine, but your conclusion about this vote sure isn't.

And, sorry, I do consider those who vote to discriminate against others to be demonstrating either extreme ignorance or bigotry. But please, someone else tell me what else one should call such behavior. I'm still waiting on that.

[Rallura]

Does anyone doubt the existence of people who are born with an attraction for both sexes who would wish to marry both partners simultaneously?

That would be a total of three.

Some seem to have difficulty describing this as bisexual.

People identify themselves with their sexual identity. Yes there's more to life but if I want to marry what inevitably comes to the forefront? What started the relationship that would lead to marriage in the first place -- sexual identity.

If I'm homosexual I'm not going to date a heterosexual looking for sexual fulfillment. And if you're confused or uncertain then you're just trying to work it out.

Probably a better political tactic for advocating gay marriage would have been to have instead argued that people can marry for whatever reason.

There's still that "marriage" word which is a political stumbling block.

By saying that people want to live together and have legal/civil benefits regardless of whether they're sexually involved.

And people may disagree but it seems to me that one could also argue that the number should be increased to three people for true bisexuals.

And more if one accepts that polygamy is innate.

And three or more could marry even if the relationship was non-sexual.
Mathematically speaking, if we go with your suppposition that a true bisexual (using also your definition of bisexual) must logically marry two people, one of each sex, we come to a slight problem. Let's say, Bob is a bisexual. He marries Beth and Brian. Just to make it a bit easier, Brian is also a true bisexual, so also has one male and one female to have sex with. What then is Beth? Beth could be hetero, but then we have to assume she wishes to have sex with both men. Beth could be bisexual, but then, she doesn't have a female to have sex with. So what then?

What I am trying to point out is, you are extrapolating bisexuality to include polyamorousness, and then arguing that this must perforce happen, even though it's actually two seperate issues, and that we must deal with it, and using this as an argument that since we can't wrap our skulls around this bisexual marriage issue, we must therefore not be thinking through our support of gay marriage.

Or at least that's what I am seeing. Is anyone seeing something else?

[Spike-X]

I too do not wish to have children but I would encourage others to take up the slack.

Who the hell are you to be asking other people to do something you're not prepared to do yourself? That, sir, is a hell of a lot more selfish than simply choosing not to have any children (or 'only' one or two) yourself.

I would much rather be promoting as a society having children than not having children. (I'm not saying that you're against this.)

My perception is that we're not promoting this as a society. We're promoting having that DVD player instead....

You know, I'm not expert, but I'm preeeeeeetty sure that having even one kid is a lot more expensive than having a DVD player. By a factor of..about a thousand!!! Of course, what would I know about it? I only have two myself.

Let me tell you something - kids are a lot of hard work (at least, they are if you do it right). It's a hell of a responsibility, a hell of a commitment, to even have one. My children's mother wanted to have four kids herself - until she had one and saw for herself just how much work is involved in raising a child, something you seem oblivious to.

You're not prepared to take on that kind of workload, yet you expect others to glady do so not just once, but several times over? What unbelievable arrogance.

[Spike-X]

Mathematically speaking, if we go with your suppposition that a true bisexual (using also your definition of bisexual) must logically marry two people, one of each sex, we come to a slight problem. Let's say, Bob is a bisexual. He marries Beth and Brian. Just to make it a bit easier, Brian is also a true bisexual, so also has one male and one female to have sex with. What then is Beth? Beth could be hetero, but then we have to assume she wishes to have sex with both men. Beth could be bisexual, but then, she doesn't have a female to have sex with. So what then?

What I am trying to point out is, you are extrapolating bisexuality to include polyamorousness, and then arguing that this must perforce happen, even though it's actually two seperate issues, and that we must deal with it, and using this as an argument that since we can't wrap our skulls around this bisexual marriage issue, we must therefore not be thinking through our support of gay marriage.

Or at least that's what I am seeing. Is anyone seeing something else?
To be honest, I have no idea what he's actually trying to say with all that. It makes my head hurt just trying to figure it out.

[Rallura]

To be honest, I have no idea what he's actually trying to say with all that. It makes my head hurt just trying to figure it out.
I thought it was just because I don't have my glasses.......

[matterconsumer]

What I am trying to point out is, you are extrapolating bisexuality to include polyamorousness, and then arguing that this must perforce happen, even though it's actually two seperate issues, and that we must deal with it, and using this as an argument that since we can't wrap our skulls around this bisexual marriage issue, we must therefore not be thinking through our support of gay marriage.

Or at least that's what I am seeing. Is anyone seeing something else?

As initially described I'm talking about three bisexuals coming together to marry. That would two men and one woman or two women and one man. They're all attracted to each other forming a triangle.

I never hear people talking about this type of marriage and I was curious to see what folk would have to say.

[matterconsumer]

Who the hell are you to be asking other people to do something you're not prepared to do yourself? That, sir, is a hell of a lot more selfish than simply choosing not to have any children (or 'only' one or two) yourself.

Well I'm matterconsumer and this is my message.

Not everyone can have children for any number of reasons and I don't wish to condemn anyone -- it's just an observation --- fewer and a ever diminishing number of children is not a good thing.


Let me tell you something - kids are a lot of hard work (at least, they are if you do it right). It's a hell of a responsibility, a hell of a commitment, to even have one. My children's mother wanted to have four kids herself - until she had one and saw for herself just how much work is involved in raising a child, something you seem oblivious to.

You're not prepared to take on that kind of workload, yet you expect others to glady do so not just once, but several times over? What unbelievable arrogance.

Selfish and arrogant in one post -- well at least you're putting forth some effort and I'm not going to diminish you for it.

But think of the past think of all the big families. Here we are struggling to buy the next DVD (I put me in the "we") and our ancestors were having big families. How did they do it?

Now before folk flip out and say that I'm arguing that women shouldn't work that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that more emphasis is placed on material goods and not only that we seem to no longer have the mindset or the will to have large families.

[matterconsumer]

To be honest, I have no idea what he's actually trying to say with all that. It makes my head hurt just trying to figure it out.

It'll be easier to understand if one stops trying to infer or suggest that more is being said than what's being said.

It's unfamiliar to you. I catch a lot of flak for saying things that people aren't thinking about.

I have my flak jacket on now just in case. But my intent is peaceful.

[Rallura]

Oddly enough, those of us with fewer children let the children use the dvd player too. When we talk about trying to maintain a higher quality of life, it counts for the children too.

And as for the bisexual marriage whatever it is, if three people want to hang out, I don't mind. I actually happen to know a trio, not well, but they seem to be doing alright. What bothers me is that you lay this out here, yet haven't seemed to bother thinking it through yourself. This shows when you insisted earlier that a bisexual wouldn't be a true bisexual unless they were married to or having relations with two people of different sexes, then insist that three people in a marriage would accomplish this. It can't. And again, the act of sex is not what determines sexual orientation.

[Nick Soapdish]

As initially described I'm talking about three bisexuals coming together to marry. That would two men and one woman or two women and one man. They're all attracted to each other forming a triangle.

I never hear people talking about this type of marriage and I was curious to see what folk would have to say.

I'm pretty sure this has come up before, but what you're describing is not three bisexuals getting married ... unless at least one of the three is actually a hermaphrodite. What you need is a bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual. Or you need a fourth person.

It's not coming up because it's a completely different issue. Nobody here has been arguing in favor of polygamy in any way, shape or form. Unless somebody steps up and says that they are in favor of polygamy, I don't think it's an issue gets introduced.

So how about it? Does anyone want to argue in favor of polygamy?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Nobody here has been arguing in favor of polygamy in any way, shape or form. Unless somebody steps up and says that they are in favor of polygamy, I don't think it's an issue gets introduced.

So how about it? Does anyone want to argue in favor of polygamy?

Well, as I've noted many times, I have no problem with the concept of polyamory, though that is somewhat different than polygamy.

[matterconsumer]

Oddly enough, those of us with fewer children let the children use the dvd player too. When we talk about trying to maintain a higher quality of life, it counts for the children too.

And as for the bisexual marriage whatever it is, if three people want to hang out, I don't mind. I actually happen to know a trio, not well, but they seem to be doing alright. What bothers me is that you lay this out here, yet haven't seemed to bother thinking it through yourself. This shows when you insisted earlier that a bisexual wouldn't be a true bisexual unless they were married to or having relations with two people of different sexes, then insist that three people in a marriage would accomplish this. It can't. And again, the act of sex is not what determines sexual orientation.

What I said earlier was that a bisexual was equally or near equally (a 3 on the Kinsey scale) attracted to both sexes and it would need to be that way in order to sustain an ongoing monogamous relationship between the three.

That does not encompass all who use the description "bisexual". Surely we would agree that bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. But we could recognize the distinction between those who are actively engaging in bisexual activity and those who to varying degrees do not.

As opposed to bisexuals are bisexuals because they enjoy chess.

[Rallura]

That does not encompass all who use the description "bisexual". Surely we would agree that bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. But we could recognize the distinction between those who are actively engaging in bisexual activity and those who to varying degrees do not.

As opposed to bisexuals are bisexuals because they enjoy chess.
And what is the distinction and why does it matter?

[Sanagi]

So how about it? Does anyone want to argue in favor of polygamy?
Polygamy's great... If you can find two people who you love and want to spend your life with, and who love you back and want to spend their lives with you and with each other. Which is like... Take the odds of finding your one true soulmate and raise it to the third power.

I certainly don't think anyone who manages to get into such a situation should go to jail for it, but at the same time that law probably prevents a lot of bad situations.

But anyways, I can't really argue for polygamy because I don't care about marriage one way or another. It seems like an obsolete ritual to me.

[matterconsumer]

I'm pretty sure this has come up before, but what you're describing is not three bisexuals getting married ... unless at least one of the three is actually a hermaphrodite. What you need is a bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual. Or you need a fourth person.

Yes you're right that scenario works with three. I must have been thinking about the threeway....

And it would take a minium of four bisexuals. This is assuming that four bisexuals were able to decide that they would like to marry.

It doesn't mean that it takes four to be bisexual.

Thanks.

[matterconsumer]

And what is the distinction and why does it matter?

It only matters if one wishes to meet like minded individuals live together in a monogamous relationship and have legal rights.

It's the bare minimum to build a social unit.

[iwarrior]

Okay they aren't being lynched in the streets, they also aren't being burned at the stake or used for bear baiting. There's still a lot of gay bashing and "fag" is the main insult school kids use on each other. The hate is still there both overt in violence, in posts like Bri's that say homosexality is a mental disorder and also in the actions of people like Yoda's folks who don't feel comfortable with gays but can't articulate why and vote against gay marriage.

You say it's not that big a deal either way. To you it's not. How is it illegal to discriminate against them if they aren't allowed the same rights? That's just lip service.

If I fire someone because they are gay,I'm gonna get sued. It's illegal.

So what if kids call each other "fags"? How does that help someone find a job or get someone medical care when they can't afford it? You think people will stop using the word "fag" simply because gays will be allowed to get married.

How does making gay marriage legal change the minds of homophobes?

Gay marriage is not going to have a huge impact on society either way. It's a special interest issue,plain and simple.

I wish people were more passionate about the plight of the poor and working class than they are about gay marriage.

[iwarrior]

"Hey, who cares if they don't have the same rights as other citizens; at least they're not being lynched!"

The fact that people of the same sex are not allowed to legally marry is hardly a pivotal civil rights issue.


As the guy above said, remember Matthew Sheppard? Furthermore, look up the statistics for hate crime against gays. Quite high. And that is not even including the shit that is not even reported.

Young black guys kill each other in the streets over nothing,yet no one gives a shit.

Pity the rich,white, homosexual,male for not being allowed to get married to another man.


It may not be a big deal to you because you have the right to marry. Are you married? What if someone had told you that you didn't have the right to marry? Would it then be a big deal?

I am not married. If I really wanted to get married,I might be upset about it. There's always co-habitation. No laws against that.

[Rallura]

With a bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual grouping, you still have the problem of it not being a three way relationship. You still have an "odd man out" at the least. Four bisexuals, two of each, at least work outs, but then we have to come back to the problem of getting four seperate people to agree that they all love each other enough to live together. I don't know, when I get together with any three of my friends, we have a hard enough time deciding where to go to dinner, let alone anything else. I just don't see it becoming feasible on any large scale. And again, this isn't something that is a bisexual issue. A polyamorous one yes, but not bisexual. Because those are two different things.

Iwarrior, I have to disagree. Any time any citizens are denied equal rights under the law, it is a serious civil rights matter.

And as for the rest of it, you know there are people who take poverty, street violence, hunger, even namecalling among young people, very seriously, and make efforts to address the problems. Just because in this thread on this topic we are not discussing those things, doesn't mean we don't care. And it doesn't mean this topic isn't important too.

And it isn't co habitation that is being discussed. It's the legal recognition of a bond between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, a recognition that is being allowed for some people, and denied to others. Either give it to everyone, or take it away from everyone, but don't ask me to believe it's ok, because it isn't, and never will be.

[iwarrior]

Does the name "Mathew Shepard" ring a bell?

How about Ebony Patterson? A 17 year-old black girl who was gunned down in my city for no good reason? How about Taylor Coles,an 8 year old?

I think it's terrible what happened to Shepard,but what gays have gone through in country and what they currently go through pales in comparison to what ethnic minorities have.


You know Tom, moderator of the Comm Board? He faces being permanently separated form his partner, Desi, when Desi's visa runs out and he's forced to go back to...shit, I forget where he's from. Another country. South American, starts with 'B'. Anyway, my point is, if one of them was a woman, they'd be allowed to get married and stay together. Instead Tom faces being separated from the person he loves more than anyone else in the world.

Tom's also a snob who treats me like shit and acts as if his problems are bigger than everyone else's.

He'll find another b/f I'm sure.

Or he could always go to Brazil.

Or the guy could just become a naturalized citizen and they could live together.


Go on over to the Comm Board and tell Tom that gay marriage really isn't that big of a deal.

Eh,he'll just use it as an excuse to ban me,which is what he wants to do. He's better off than I am and most Americans I would think,so I 'aint cryin' for him.


I dare you.


Ooooohhh. Cry for the plight of the upper-middle class homosexual.


Or there's my friend 13th, another moderator here at CBR. She's just been told by over 20% of the country that she doesn't deserve the same rights as the majority of US citizens. You tell her that it's just a silly cultural issue.

You mean she can't get married either. Shame. I wish I had such problems. The majority of Americans wish their biggest problem was not being allowed to legally marry. If they weren't worried about putting food on their table,or being shot,or not being able to afford health care,they might care more.

If gays are that passionate about this issue,then THEY should fight for it. To expect heterosexuals to be as passionate about this as they supposedly are is ridiculous and unfair. It's not my fight. I'm sorry. I wish them the best of luck though.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If I fire someone because they are gay,I'm gonna get sued. It's illegal.

Actually, in many places, it's not. Nor is it illegal to refuse to rent to gays in many places.

You think people will stop using the word "fag" simply because gays will be allowed to get married.

No, any more than progress has stopped some ignorant folk from using racial epithets.

How does making gay marriage legal change the minds of homophobes?
How did legislation outlawing racial prejudice change the minds of racists? It didn't. But it was a good place to start.

Gay marriage is not going to have a huge impact on society either way. It's a special interest issue,plain and simple.

Yeah, because liberty and equality aren't in the general interest of society.

I wish people were more passionate about the plight of the poor and working class than they are about gay marriage.

Why not both? Can't find it in your infinitely compassionate heart to care about the concerns of both groups of people?

[JeffreyWKramer]

The fact that people of the same sex are not allowed to legally marry is hardly a pivotal civil rights issue.

To you, obviously.

Young black guys kill each other in the streets over nothing,yet no one gives a shit.

Actually, quite a few people care quite a bit. It's not like it's either/or.

I am not married. If I really wanted to get married,I might be upset about it. There's always co-habitation. No laws against that.

No, but even then there is common-law marriage - but only for straight folk. Nothing to protect gay folk's inheritance rights, etc.

iwarrior, I almost never agree with you on anything, but it's rare you actually write downright stupid stuff. You sure are doing that here, though.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think it's terrible what happened to Shepard,but what gays have gone through in country and what they currently go through pales in comparison to what ethnic minorities have.

You're right that overall, various minorities have it even rougher. That doesn't mean either group deserves to be mistreated. Also...ever notice there are black gay people?



Tom's also a snob who treats me like shit and acts as if his problems are bigger than everyone else's.

He'll find another b/f I'm sure.

Or he could always go to Brazil.

Or the guy could just become a naturalized citizen and they could live together.

Eh,he'll just use it as an excuse to ban me,which is what he wants to do. He's better off than I am and most Americans I would think,so I 'aint cryin' for him.

Ok, that is just uncalled for.

Shame. I wish I had such problems. The majority of Americans wish their biggest problem was not being allowed to legally marry. If they weren't worried about putting food on their table,or being shot,or not being able to afford health care,they might care more.

If gays are that passionate about this issue,then THEY should fight for it. To expect heterosexuals to be as passionate about this as they supposedly are is ridiculous and unfair. It's not my fight. I'm sorry. I wish them the best of luck though.

So, by your logic, rich people shouldn't care about the plight of the poor, and white folk shouldn't care about minorities, and men shouldn't care about women's rights.

Geez, iwarrior, you are a bigger asshole than I'd ever imagined.

I will say this - whatever *your* problems are, I'm sure as hell not going to give a damn.

[Spike-X]

Tom's also a snob who treats me like shit and acts as if his problems are bigger than everyone else's.

I've never seen him act that way. Could you give me an example please?

Or the guy could just become a naturalized citizen and they could live together.

Of course, such a simple solution. I wonder why on Earth they didn't think of that?

He'll find another b/f I'm sure.

He's better off than I am and most Americans I would think,so I 'aint cryin' for him.

Ooooohhh. Cry for the plight of the upper-middle class homosexual.

Gee, I wonder why you find it hard to get any sympathy around here? You've really got a problem with anyone who earns more money than you, don't you?

You mean she can't get married either. Shame. I wish I had such problems. The majority of Americans wish their biggest problem was not being allowed to legally marry. If they weren't worried about putting food on their table,or being shot,or not being able to afford health care,they might care more.

If gays are that passionate about this issue,then THEY should fight for it. To expect heterosexuals to be as passionate about this as they supposedly are is ridiculous and unfair. It's not my fight. I'm sorry. I wish them the best of luck though.

It's not your fight. You expect people to give a shit about your causes when you don't give a shit about theirs.

I wish people were more passionate about the plight of the poor and working class than they are about gay marriage.

Translation - "Why don't more people care about meeeeeee???"

Well, gee. Maybe if you weren't such a nasty, whiny so-and-so...

[Rallura]

I can't use the quotes, have no glasses and keep messing everything up. So I hope this is coherent.

Iwarrior, do you think this is some sort of contest? Whoever wins get to have their problems addressed, and everyone else can go hang? If people are getting hurt, regaardless of the reason, it needs to be addressed. ONe does not cancel out the other!

I am not entirely sure what your problem with Tom is, I assume it's something I missed. I obviously see a far different person then you do. He has always treated me fairly, even when I was being less then pleasant. But saying he will find another b/f is callous, no matter what your problem is. If you haven't been listening, he loves Desi, and wants to spend his life with him. This is not a toss away relationship. So lay off that one, ok?

And don't tell me not to fight for homosexual rights. These people are my friends and my family, and I am not going to sit here and let them suffer.

[iwarrior]

Actually, in many places, it's not. Nor is it illegal to refuse to rent to gays in many places.

You mean sexual discrimination is legal in some parts of the country? Where?


No, any more than progress has stopped some ignorant folk from using racial epithets.

True,but we aren't talking about Jim Crow here either.


How did legislation outlawing racial prejudice change the minds of racists? It didn't. But it was a good place to start.

Perhaps it might inflame them even more.


Yeah, because liberty and equality aren't in the general interest of society.

Hey,some people want to marry their donkeys or their cars. They can't do it either. Their lives aren't made more difficult. Do all gays even WANT to get married?


Why not both? Can't find it in your infinitely compassionate heart to care about the concerns of both groups of people?

Sure,I care about people who are really under the bootheel of the system. Gays aren't really under that bootheel. They aren't being oppressed,I'm sorry.

[Spike-X]

I am saying that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that more emphasis is placed on material goods and not only that we seem to no longer have the mindset or the will to have large families.

I can't argue with you there. So how do you think that preventing gay people from marrying will reverse this trend?

[JeffreyWKramer]

You mean sexual discrimination is legal in some parts of the country? Where?

The only places where it is illegal to discriminate against people for reasons of sexual orientation are in those states and communities which specifically forbid doing so by law. In general, sexual orientation is not a "protected category" in the US, as are gender, age, religion, race, etc.

Hey,some people want to marry their donkeys or their cars.
And now we get to the comparison of homosexuality with bestiality. Does the fact that we are talking about two people - and yet you are comparing people to animals - not bother you in the least?

Do all gays even WANT to get married?
Why should that matter. All non-gays don't want to get married, but at least those that do have the option.

Sure,I care about people who are really under the bootheel of the system. Gays aren't really under that bootheel. They aren't being oppressed,I'm sorry.
Tell that to the family of my friend who was gay-bashed to death. Tell that to his partner - who, btw, was working in a shelter for the homeless at the time of his partner's death. You know, helping the poor, who nobody helps.

Tell that to Matt Shepherd's family.

[iwarrior]

To you, obviously.

To a lot of people. The right just uses this issue to get votes.

Actually, quite a few people care quite a bit. It's not like it's either/or.

The "Sex and the City","Will & Grace",bobo crowd doesn't seem to think so.


No, but even then there is common-law marriage - but only for straight folk. Nothing to protect gay folk's inheritance rights, etc.

You can leave money or have power-of-attorney over anyone you want to. People leave money to their cats fer chrissakes.


iwarrior, I almost never agree with you on anything, but it's rare you actually write downright stupid stuff. You sure are doing that here, though.

Oh now I'm stupid because I just don't see gay marriage as an earth-shattering issue?

See,I knew this would happen.

This is what the right FEEDS off of. You alienate people,and they get seduced by the right.

There are more pressing issues at hand.

The War in Iraq
The Patriot Act
Jobs
Health Care
Corporate Greed
A corrupt administration that'll do anything to stay in power.

Gay marriage is at the bottom of the list.

Ask a guy who just lost his job and has 3 kids what he cares about more. Gay marriage or the economy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ask a guy who just lost his job and has 3 kids what he cares about more. Gay marriage or the economy.

Ask a guy who has a gay stepson and lots of gay friends what's important. It will rate pretty high.

And again, it's not like a person can be concerned about only one thing.

[Spike-X]

Hey,some people want to marry their donkeys or their cars. .

No they frickin' don't. That is a moronic, bullshit argument put forth by people who can't think of an actual reason to stop two people of the same sex from marrying.

Do all gays even WANT to get married?

No. So what? Not all straight people want to get married either. What's your point?

Sure,I care about people who are really under the bootheel of the system. Gays aren't really under that bootheel. They aren't being oppressed,I'm sorry.

Bullshit.

Bull.

Shit.

[iwarrior]

You're right that overall, various minorities have it even rougher. That doesn't mean either group deserves to be mistreated. Also...ever notice there are black gay people?

Not being allowed to marry =/= mistreatment. Mistreatment is being pulled over and beaten by a cop.


Ok, that is just uncalled for.

Not when you've been kicked in the nuts as much as I have been around here.


So, by your logic, rich people shouldn't care about the plight of the poor, and white folk shouldn't care about minorities, and men shouldn't care about women's rights.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that their "plight" is nothing compared to what others are going through in this country.


Geez, iwarrior, you are a bigger asshole than I'd ever imagined.

Don't get me started on you freakboy. Yer like one of those flabby,rich white folks you see on "Real Sex" sucking on each other's toes and shit,constantly trying to justify adultery.


I will say this - whatever *your* problems are, I'm sure as hell not going to give a damn.


Not as long as the Republicans are taking care of your assless chapped ass.

[Kyuubi]

Whoa people, agruments are ok, but the name calling is getting way out of hand now.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Sure,I care about people who are really under the bootheel of the system. Gays aren't really under that bootheel. They aren't being oppressed,I'm sorry.

The sheer stupidity of your statement here really gets to me.

Just because Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey have an annual income greater than that of 1/3 of the nations in the UN does not mean that blacks are not still disadvantaged in our society. Similarly, the existence of shows like "Will and Grace" and Michael Eisner doesn't mean that many gays are not subjected to discrimination of all sorts, ranging from crap like Tuesday's vote all the way through gay bashing and murder.

Get. A. Clue.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Not as long as the Republicans are taking care of your assless chapped ass.

What the hell does that even mean?

[Alex]

Whoa people, agruments are ok, but the name calling is getting way out of hand now.
*psst*
Exnay on the icenessay.

[Alex]

What the hell does that even mean?
I was offended by it i think.
And you can't have your chaps back.

[Rallura]

Not being allowed to marry =/= mistreatment. Mistreatment is being pulled over and beaten by a cop.

Gays get beaten by cops too. They also get beaten byjust plains folks.

Not when you've been kicked in the nuts as much as I have been around here.



That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that their "plight" is nothing compared to what others are going through in this country.

And I am saying this is NOT A CONTEST!

Don't get me started on you freakboy. Yer like one of those flabby,rich white folks you see on "Real Sex" sucking on each other's toes and shit,constantly trying to justify adultery.

Honestly, I am laughing too hard to respond to this. I will come back to the manner in which you just addressed my friend later, when I might be able to take it seriously.



Not as long as the Republicans are taking care of your assless chapped ass.
I don't even know what the hell that mean? What, exactly, is an assless ass?

[Spike-X]

Jeffrey! You never told me you had assless chaps!

Geez, just when you think you know a guy...

[iwarrior]

I've never seen him act that way. Could you give me an example please?

That's another thread,but basically if ya don't kiss his ass...


Of course, such a simple solution. I wonder why on Earth they didn't think of that?

There are ways to get around this for now. It's not a pressing issue like global warming for instance. Gays are doing pretty well.


Gee, I wonder why you find it hard to get any sympathy around here? You've really got a problem with anyone who earns more money than you, don't you?

You were one of the people who dogpiled on me when I talked about my problems with my employer weren't you?

Nah,I don't hate the rich. I just can't feel for most of them either. No matter what happens to Tom,he's better off than I am and you too. The goverment gives him tax breaks,and fucks the two of us over.



It's not your fight. You expect people to give a shit about your causes when you don't give a shit about theirs.

They aren't "my" causes for one. They are the causes of the majority of Americans. The fact that a good chunk of them care about gays getting married is sad,because they end up voting against their best interests.


Translation - "Why don't more people care about meeeeeee???"


More like "us" dude. And please stop acting like you care about this issue. I know you don't. This is one of those "chic" causes like Tibet or saving Panda bears.


Well, gee. Maybe if you weren't such a nasty, whiny so-and-so...

Nasty? You haven't seen nasty bub. And whiny? Well,excuse me for venting.

[Ronald Bryan]

Not as long as the Republicans are taking care of your assless chapped ass.

Why are the Republicans... Are you saying they "take care"... WTF?

[Alex]

I don't even know what the hell that mean? What, exactly, is an assless ass?
Republicans invented them.
We rock!

[Ian Boothby]

If I fire someone because they are gay,I'm gonna get sued. It's illegal.

So what if kids call each other "fags"? How does that help someone find a job or get someone medical care when they can't afford it? You think people will stop using the word "fag" simply because gays will be allowed to get married.

How does making gay marriage legal change the minds of homophobes?

Gay marriage is not going to have a huge impact on society either way. It's a special interest issue,plain and simple.

I wish people were more passionate about the plight of the poor and working class than they are about gay marriage.


So because I care about gay folks I don't care about the poor? What connection are you making there? You wanna say something about the poor, go for it.

If you fire someone because they are gay you might get sued if it's overt. Maybe. But until they have the same rights as everyone else they are discriminated against.

Kids don't call each other "nigger", "chink" or "wop" or any other slurs as often because among other reasons they know people of different races and so it's clear it's wrong. If there wasn't a stigma on being gay (which there is if they don't have the same rights as everyone else) and they knew more gay adults it wouldn't make the word make as much sense to use as an insult.

The best way for someone to lose their fear of gay folks is to know some. Maybe some folks with still be bigots, if so the hell with 'em.

People having equal rights isn't a special interest issue. Unless you would have felt the same way about civil rights, women's rights etc. Again rights aren't a big deal to those who have them already.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeffrey! You never told me you had assless chaps!

Geez, just when you think you know a guy...

Apparently iwarrior has mistaken me for a member of the Village People or something?

[iwarrior]

What the hell does that even mean?


You don't know what assless chaps are? What kind of swinger are you?

[Ian Boothby]

Young black guys kill each other in the streets over nothing,yet no one gives a shit.

Pity the rich,white, homosexual,male for not being allowed to get married to another man.
.

Gay people are rich? What the hell are you talking about? Do you think gay folks have pots of gold? Seriously what's your point here?

[iwarrior]

Oy vey. I'll get back to this tomorrow or sometime. I can't type that fast. Too much to respond to.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You don't know what assless chaps are? What kind of swinger are you?

Ummmm... the sort who doesn't wear assless chaps? And a non-gay one at that. That's pure gay fashion there, dude.

Perhaps because I'm pro gay-rights, you assume I'm gay. I'm not. But I've been standing up for gay rights for more than 20 years now... just like I have minority rights.

The way you wrote that line, I didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Gay people are rich? What the hell are you talking about? Do you think gay folks have pots of gold? Seriously what's your point here?

Apparently he thinks all gay folk are Michael Eisner and the character Will on "Will and Grace."

Or leprechauns.

[Ian Boothby]

How about Ebony Patterson? A 17 year-old black girl who was gunned down in my city for no good reason? How about Taylor Coles,an 8 year old?

I think it's terrible what happened to Shepard,but what gays have gone through in country and what they currently go through pales in comparison to what ethnic minorities have.

Ooooohhh. Cry for the plight of the upper-middle class homosexual.

You mean she can't get married either. Shame. I wish I had such problems. The majority of Americans wish their biggest problem was not being allowed to legally marry. If they weren't worried about putting food on their table,or being shot,or not being able to afford health care,they might care more.

If gays are that passionate about this issue,then THEY should fight for it. To expect heterosexuals to be as passionate about this as they supposedly are is ridiculous and unfair. It's not my fight. I'm sorry. I wish them the best of luck though.


To misquote Charles Dickens, "Humanity is your business". It is your fight!

This is like when people help folks with AIDS and get told, "Fuck you, what about those with cancer?". What's your point? Caring about one evil doesn't mean you don't care about the others in the world.

And again with gay folks having money. There are gay black folks, poor gay folks, gay handicapped folks and on and on.

[Ronald Bryan]

No, don't you know? They all live CAKE LIVES!

[Spike-X]

You were one of the people who dogpiled on me when I talked about my problems with my employer weren't you?

Actually, I tried to help you out and encourage you, at first. Then you started the whiny bitch act, and I rapidly ceased giving a shit.

Nah,I don't hate the rich. I just can't feel for most of them either. No matter what happens to Tom,he's better off than I am and you too.

A - you don't even know what Tom's financial situation is, so shut up about it.

B - Not everything in life is about how much money you earn.

please stop acting like you care about this issue. I know you don't. This is one of those "chic" causes like Tibet or saving Panda bears.

Don't you dare tell me what I do or don't care about. This directly affects friends of mine, a lot more than global warming or gang-bangers killing each other ever will.

Nasty? You haven't seen nasty bub. And whiny? Well,excuse me for venting.

Actually, I have seen nasty. What you said to Jeffrey there was pretty fucked-up. I'd be offended by it if I wasn't laughing my ass off at the sheer ridiculousness of it.

[Ian Boothby]

Tom's also a snob who treats me like shit and acts as if his problems are bigger than everyone else's.

He'll find another b/f I'm sure.






I make it a point not to name call on here. But fuck what an douchebag thing to say.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually, I have seen nasty. What you said to Jeffrey there was pretty fucked-up. I'd be offended by it if I wasn't laughing my ass off at the sheer ridiculousness of it.

Eh, keep laughing. Save the offense for something more worth it. iwarrior is apparently one of those folk who believes sex is some awful and dirty thing that should be done only by married people in the dark for purposes of procreation. In any case, he's said enough ridiculous things about sex in the past that I'm not surprised he thinks I'm second cousin to Jesus de Sade from PREACHER, or someone like that.

juli and I are both still literally LOLing over the assless chap thing.

[Spike-X]

Eh, keep laughing. Save the offense for something more worth it. iwarrior is apparently one of those folk who believes sex is some awful and dirty thing that should be done only by married people in the dark for purposes of procreation. In any case, he's said enough ridiculous things about sex in the past that I'm not surprised he thinks I'm second cousin to Jesus de Sade from PREACHER, or someone like that.

juli and I are both still literally LOLing over the assless chap thing.
Well, you can afford to laugh at it, what with the Republicans giving you tax cuts and cake and assless chaps! What about the poor working class people who wish they could afford to even think about assless chaps, huh? What about them?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I make it a point not to name call on here. But fuck what an douchebag thing to say.

Ian - you edit your posts for spelling! And here I thought I was the only person anal-retentive enough to do that.

[iwarrior]

Ummmm... the sort who doesn't wear assless chaps? And a non-gay one at that. That's pure gay fashion there, dude.

Perhaps because I'm pro gay-rights, you assume I'm gay. I'm not. But I've been standing up for gay rights for more than 20 years now... just like I have minority rights.

The way you wrote that line, I didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

I never said you were gay. You're a freak. There's a difference.

iwarrior is apparently one of those folk who believes sex is some awful and dirty thing that should be done only by married people in the dark for purposes of procreation.

I never said that. However,I don't think it's physically or mentally healthy to screw around like a bunny rabbit either. I've seen the consequences of promiscuity first hand. That's another topic though. But no,sex in a loving relationship isn't something I am opposed to at all.


See,I couldn't stay away.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, you can afford to laugh at it, what with the Republicans giving you tax cuts and cake and assless chaps! What about the poor working class people who wish they could afford to even think about assless chaps, huh? What about them?

Well, if I was the sort iworrier thought I was, I'd tell them to go eat cake off of my chapless ass.

Of course, that wouldn't explain why I make a below average wage for my field, working in a community mental health center that provides the bulk of mental health services for the poor in my area.

[iwarrior]

No, don't you know? They all live CAKE LIVES!

Comparatively speaking they do,yes.

Oh that's right,you're loaded too.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I never said you were gay. You're a freak. There's a difference.

Whatever. None of the non-gay folk I know do the chap thing. Hell, very few of the gays I know do the chap thing except maybe for Halloween.

[Ian Boothby]

I never said you were gay. You're a freak. There's a difference.
.

Then god bless the freaks.

[Ian Boothby]

Comparatively speaking they do,yes.
.


What's your source on this?

[Spike-X]

I never said you were gay. You're a freak. There's a difference.

You're right. Calling somebody a freak is much more offensive.

I don't think it's physically or mentally healthy to screw around like a bunny rabbit either.

Well, you obviously know much more about that than Jeffrey does. He's only a qualified mental health professional, after all.

See,I couldn't stay away.

Aren't we the lucky ones.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What's your source on this?

Well, statistically speaking, gays do make a bit over the median income. That's because they tend to be educated, and have a higher median level of income than most other segments of society.

That said, there are plenty of gay folk who are not exactly "loaded."

[iwarrior]

To misquote Charles Dickens, "Humanity is your business". It is your fight!

Sure it is. But their fight isn't a priority. They should be more worried about the Patriot Act.


This is like when people help folks with AIDS and get told, "Fuck you, what about those with cancer?". What's your point? Caring about one evil doesn't mean you don't care about the others in the world.

Apples and oranges.


And again with gay folks having money. There are gay black folks, poor gay folks, gay handicapped folks and on and on.

Sure,but that white,affluent gay guy is better off than most people. There are more poor people than there are gays,and their problems are worse.


Well, statistically speaking, gays do make a bit over the median income. That's because they tend to be educated, and have a higher median level of income than most other segments of society

Thank you Jeff.