No. of Recommendations: 238

I have been following the Reproductive Rights thread with great interest and I just want to thank each and every poster who posted so eloquently and articulately in support of gay marriage/adoption rights. My 17 year old son, who would've "preferred" to be heterosexual, but was born homosexual, and who chooses not to deny who and what he really is as a person, also sends you his gratitude.


As long as there are those of you who are willing to stand up and say that it is wrong to discriminate against others because of their sexuality, then there is hope. And then I don't have to be so afraid to send this beautiful, kind, sensitive boy out into a world where people will limit his choices because he does not follow their narrow views of life. And if he's lucky, limiting his choices will be all that they do to him - his body and spirit.

On top of the fact that I am the proud mom of a wonderful gay son, I have also been an elementary teacher to about 350 kids over the years. I can say as a professional that it matters not whether my students' parents were fat, thin, black, white, divorced, Catholic, Muslim, Hispanic, lesbian, biological, adoptive, young, old, poor, or rich. What mattered to my kids was that there was someone in the world who loved them dearly and would be there for them at the end of the day. Kids want love, care, and consistency - and they should get it - from healthy, willing adults who want them for healthy, loving purposes.


As far as all the "statistics" about the dysfunction in the gay community - well, I say that if we allowed gays and lesbians to grow up in something other than fear and secrecy, and we did not marginalize their lives, then maybe they wouldn't take all that pain and anger and turn it in on their own community. If we started making hetero kids feel shame and fear about their sexuality, then we would start seeing even more dysfunction in the hetero community as a whole when they all grew up.

Keep talking everyone. Keep this subject out in the open- because one day I want to dance at my son's marriage to his husband (he says I can wear a tiara), and I want to hold his tiny adopted baby in my arms. Thank you guys.

Here's to a better world,
Vicki in San Diego
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 40
To all who speak of homosexuality as a "choice" I would pose this question: "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?" It seems to me choosing to be gay in America today would be like choosing to be black in south Alabama in 1950.

And to Vicki-I hope your son has a long and happy life, and that you get your wishes.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Vicki,

THANK YOU! Thank you for being a wonderful, supportive mother and loving your son for WHO he is! WAY TO GO MOM!


As far as all the "statistics" about the dysfunction in the gay community - well, I say that if we allowed gays and lesbians to grow up in something other than fear and secrecy, and we did not marginalize their lives, then maybe they wouldn't take all that pain and anger and turn it in on their own community. If we started making hetero kids feel shame and fear about their sexuality, then we would start seeing even more dysfunction in the hetero community as a whole when they all grew up.

I wrote to my SIL about the other thread. She is a psychologist (and assistant director and clinical director at "XYZ" Univ.) and has written several papers on GLBT issues. Her response pretty much sums it up...

I DO know that the rates of substance use and
suicidality ARE higher in GLBT - the reasons are attributed to LIVING IN A HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOPHOBIC SOCIETY - duhhh! Agghghgh that pisses me off that people are so hateful AND dumb!


Her papers tend to be a bit more "professional" than that response. ;) She gets sick of bigots and the effects that they have on kids (AND adults) who are trying to come to terms with who they are. (and scared to death they won't have the support and love of their family and friends!!)

My BIL (her brother...not her DH) is also a psychologist and deals with GLBT issues.

I an so greatful that my kids have these people as role models and that my kids have grown up knowing that it is NOT acceptable to discriminate against someone due to their race, religion, sexual orientation.


Again, Kudos to you and you boy. (((HUGS))) And I am sure you will look lovely in your tiara!)

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
To all who speak of homosexuality as a "choice" I would pose this question: "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?" It seems to me choosing to be gay in America today would be like choosing to be black in south Alabama in 1950.

I asked that once to someone who thought being gay was a choice and they said that its so gay people can experience gay sex. Being that its a deviancy, its a choice to experience those deviancies. Kinda like doing heroin. No one chooses a life of heroin, they get caught up in the addiction by experiementing with the drug.

Totally idiotic, I know. I can't believe people actually think homosexuality is a choice. Science will prove that its primarily biological in the future. Until then, we are left with some frustrating and wild opinions on the matter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Keep talking everyone. Keep this subject out in the open- because one day I want to dance at my son's marriage to his husband (he says I can wear a tiara), and I want to hold his tiny adopted baby in my arms. Thank you guys.


Your son is lucky to have such a suportive mom. :)

I hope by the time he finds a nice man to settle down with, they'll be able to have the wedding they want and their marriage legally recognized in all 50 states.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
<<To all who speak of homosexuality as a "choice" I would pose this question: "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?" It seems to me choosing to be gay in America today would be like choosing to be black in south Alabama in 1950.
>>


When homosexuality is fashionable, as it often becomes in college women's studies programs, there are women who will conform to that norm or follow that fashion:


http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/


If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she's been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she's been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.

AKA "Poser".

It is a sad but true thing. "Look at me! Look at me! I want to shove this down the throat of society...and my parents."

It's interesting, I've known of women/girls who have done this...but I've not seen or heard of a boy or man doing this.

I'm thinking it does not help matters as far as acceptance for the GBLT community. Maybe I'm way off.

Interesting point, SP.

B

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations.

Hee hee hee, if the college guys of the 90s were anything like the college guys of the 80s, I can't blame the ladies for looking elsewhere!

bookaholic
preferred post-graduates even as a freshman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your son's a lucky guy to have you for his mom. I'm sure he knows it, too. Thank you for sharing your story.

MsArden
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually SP, this kind of thing was going on when I was in college in the 70's. As Beth said, though, it was only women. There were, as I recall, a number of classes where the female instructor was promoting Lesbianism openly. No, not one male gay proff that I know of was doing the same thing.

Ah, the days.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Keep talking everyone. Keep this subject out in the open-.................



That's how things get changed.



Best of luck to you and yours.



Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I DO know that the rates of substance use and
suicidality ARE higher in GLBT - the reasons are attributed to LIVING IN A HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOPHOBIC SOCIETY - duhhh! Agghghgh that pisses me off that people are so hateful AND dumb!


Wow, it just goes to show that correlation does not prove causation

(I knew that MS in Stat would be good for something *grin*)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
My 17 year old son, who would've "preferred" to be heterosexual, but was born homosexual

There is an interesting side to the nature/nature, choice v. not a choice in terms of homosexuality. My opinion is just that, an opinion, but is based on a lot of reading and studying across multiple disciplines, including psychology, biology, evolutionary biology and psychology, neruoscience, genetics, and endocrinology.

Here is my take: Homosexuality is not a choice. However, homosexuality is not 100% "caused" by genetics.

Many imagine and endocrine studies have been done on homosexuals compared to heterosexuals (both men and women), and scientists find certain levels of testosterone and other hormones in the blood stream for hetero men, and different levels for homosexual men.

Now, the difference that often gets confused by SO MANY people, in the lay public, in the media, on the internet, everywhere, is that people mistake "biochemical" or "neurobiological" with "genetic." It is true that your genes control the rate of production of proteins in the body, and hormones are, indeed, complex proteins. However, identical twin studies do not find a 100% correlation of homosexuality. And, on top of this, fraternal twin studies find a more-than-random correlation of homosexuality (although not as high as identical twins).

What this means is that the brains and hormone levels of homosexual men work in similar ways, but are not prederemined necessarily by genetics. One theory suggests that hormonal levels in the womb may trigger brain development to sway more to homosexuality. A more lay theory is that children who are severely sexually and/or physically abused between birth and age 6 may develop brains like this also.

In either case, a person is not predestined to be homosexual based on the mix of chromosomes at conception. The scientific community, as I understand it anyway, generally believes that homosexuality is caused by brain biochemistry, and that while genetics play a part in this brain biochemistry, there are environmental influences that can also cause the brain to develop one way or another. The bottom line, as with all brain sciences, is that the human brain is SO complex, it is impossible at this time to determine the mixtures of biochemical reactions that "cause" homosexuality.

As to the "hasbian" issue, well, I like what Chef has to say about it: "There is a time and a place for that, and it's called 'college.'"

Living in los angeles, however, i know plenty plenty women who are in their 20's, 30's, 40's who have boyfriend's/husbands, and who love men, but who also enjoy other women.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, "hasbiens" do kind of ruin the whole "homosexuality is genetic" argument. Some people may simply be genetically predisposed to have sex with whatever gender happens to be available.

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 48
If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she's been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.


Seattle Pioneer


The lead paragraph doesn't match with the content of the article. The women are bisexual. They have had lesbian relationships and are now involved in a hetrosexual relationship. If the article is accurate, neither community is tolerant of bisexuals, therefore, they have to change their announced orientation to lesbian/hetrosexual depending on the current relationship. What it doesn't mean is that they are recovered lesbians.

Debra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
God Bless Vicki!

…and the son, too!

Kids are where the bogus "It's a Choice" argument falls apart, for me. Bigots like to say that people choose to be gay, that there must have been a day, an hour, a moment where someone sat there and decided "I'm going to like Boys!" or "I'm going to like Girls!"

Curiously, they can never remember having that mental conversation with themselves. They never start their argument with "Well, I certainly remember the day when I decided I was going to be straight!" They were born that way, but you cannot punish someone for that, so they need to make it a choice.

"Well," you say to them, "if I gave you a million dollars and promised that nobody would ever, ever, ever find out, and you would never get any diseases, and you would never even have a memory of the event, would you agree to pretend to be Gay for a single afternoon?"

The answer almost always comes back "No". When it doesn't, when you get a different answer, it's usually "Hell No!"

So here's someone who could essentially be getting a million dollars and having no consequences at all and turning it down….

How then, do you explain the kid of thirteen who "chooses" to get beat up and made fun of and discriminated against—for nothing?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How then, do you explain the kid of thirteen who "chooses" to get beat up and made fun of and discriminated against—for nothing?

Intellegent Design?

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Written with some degree of authority, there, Seattle Pioneer! As if you actually believed you knew something about it.

I believe that "Human Sexuality" exists for everyone, everyone, on a number-line that runs from "Totally Gay" at one end, to "Totally Straight" at the other. Everyone gets a score of, say, zero to one hundred. Most people probably fall into the middle nineties. Some people would score a seven or a forty-three or sixty.

I find it fascinating that so many people, especially people who identify themselves as being on the Right politically, are sooo interested in who and how other people love. And I find it equally fascinating that everyone else sits back and lets it happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Some people may simply be genetically predisposed to have sex with whatever gender happens to be available.

And what if they are?

What if you're right? Why can't these people marry and have families and be happy, too?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<Written with some degree of authority, there, Seattle Pioneer! As if you actually believed you knew something about it.

I believe that "Human Sexuality" exists for everyone, everyone, on a number-line that runs from "Totally Gay" at one end, to "Totally Straight" at the other. Everyone gets a score of, say, zero to one hundred. Most people probably fall into the middle nineties. Some people would score a seven or a forty-three or sixty.

I find it fascinating that so many people, especially people who identify themselves as being on the Right politically, are sooo interested in who and how other people love. And I find it equally fascinating that everyone else sits back and lets it happen.
>>


The original poster asked why someone might choose to be a homosexual. I gave an example --- fashion and social pressure in college, often promoted by feminist studies professors promoting homosexual values.


If you want to read more, Google "lesbians until graduation." There is ample discussion on this phenomena.

Sorry you have your own hang ups with evidence that people choose their sexual orientation. I guess that falls outside of left wing social theories and orthodoxy.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sorry you have your own hang ups with evidence that people choose their sexual orientation. I guess that falls outside of left wing social theories and orthodoxy.

Yeah, it always bothers people when science gets in the way of what their own favorite Invisible Man says to them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10

Your son is lucky to have such a suportive mom. :)



Thank you all for your support. However, I think it is sad commentary on our society that I am told constantly how lucky my son is to have loving, accepting parents. Shouldn't that just be the norm?

Vicki
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
As far as all the "statistics" about the dysfunction in the gay community - well, I say that if we allowed gays and lesbians to grow up in something other than fear and secrecy, and we did not marginalize their lives, then maybe they wouldn't take all that pain and anger and turn it in on their own community. If we started making hetero kids feel shame and fear about their sexuality, then we would start seeing even more dysfunction in the hetero community as a whole when they all grew up.
***************************************
I agree with you. And I also will add that there is a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the so-called "hetero community". It is no healthier or sicko than the gay community. If it were healthier, we would not have pedophiles or rapists or gang-banger or murderers or . . . or . . .

And by the way, there is plenty of fear and shame about sexuality STILL being perpetated in the hetero community.

Love
Loving
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Whatever is to be said about the problems of homosexuals today, it is nothing compared to being gay in the '50s. Then homosexuals did not exist and were supposed to go die in a ditch if they were found out.

So far as "choice" is concerned, I read an article by some religious nut on the subject once. He said that it was very important to repress homosexuals, since homosexuality was "pure sex", and if allowed would be an irresistable temptation. That is why homosexuality is a threat to the family. If I can go down the street to my gay friends and have sex with them, I will never go back to my wife.

This is an extreme position, and total nonsense, of course, but seeing homosexuality as a temptation that will undermine marriage is a key theme in the opposition to homosexual rights.

The fact is that there is a lot of variety in sexual practices. One of my friends searched the chat rooms recently and found out that one of my neighbors - a guy who is presumably heterosexual - likes to have sex with women, but he also likes them to wear a strap-on and do him. My friend was at the supermarket a few days later and engaged in casual conversation with the guy, but found it hard to keep a straight face.

Enjoy whatever turns you on...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Some people may simply be genetically predisposed to have sex with whatever gender happens to be available.

And what if they are?

What if you're right? Why can't these people marry and have families and be happy, too?

>>


I suppose you support polygamy on exactly the same basis? From what I've seen, homosexuals only trot out the marriage-as-a-right argument until they start writing up laws. At that point, they make it clear that they think marriage is a right only for themselves and heterosexual couples. They are entirely willing to leave out all the other human relationships that don't match their own biases, just as do those who favor marriage between one man and one woman.


Homosexuals and their supporters write laws that would allow homosexuals to join the exclusive club of those entitled to legitimate marriage, while continuing to exclude all the other social relationshps that are not entitled to that recognition.

The Washington State Supreme Court turned back the marriage-as-a-right argument Wednesday by deciding that the state legislature has the power to decide that marriage is permitted only between a man aqnd a woman if it chooses to do so.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
SP has now become and EXPERT in Women's Studies


I once read a book called "Women's ways of Knowing" that wrote about the crossover effect of women dating women. You know what that book said. It said that most of the cases studied were situations where women had been abused or molested or raped by men in their lives and were looking for "safe" forms of affection. In this case the safety is found in the comfort of being around other women.

I don't think alot of this cross-over occurs because of feminine chic, or whatever, although frankly I don't know why you should care anyway, since your disdain of all things feminine is widely known.

"What you don't know about women is alot" Loretta from "Moonstruck"

still laughing at SP and his breadth of knowledge. OR should I say BREATH of Knowledge as in "hot air"

Jax

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
their narrow views of life

Why insult others while making your proclamation?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey Vicki-

Awesome post!!! I hope that you do get to dance at your son's wedding with your tiara!!!

:)
Jax
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
I suppose you support polygamy on exactly the same basis?

You are free to suppose whatever you like. But let's keep this down to just one subject, shall we?

From what I've seen….

What you've seen depends upon where you look, I'd guess. I suspect that I probably look in places that you do not.

homosexuals only….

Ah, yes, The Classic Seattle Pioneer All Of "Them" Are The Same" argument. Even though you know there are Republicans who believe women are people, even though you know there are Republicans who believe the Iraqi occupation is wrong, even though you know there are Republicans who believe we have too many handguns, even though you know there are Republicans who believe we should do stem cell research, etc. etc. etc., somehow all homosexuals are the same. Gotcha.

The Washington State Supreme Court turned back the marriage-as-a-right argument Wednesday by deciding that the state legislature has the power to decide that marriage is permitted only between a man aqnd a woman if it chooses to do so.

And the South Carolina Supreme Court once decided that if you studied really hard and got good grades and finished high school with a diploma, and you were real good, your daddy could buy you a human being of your very own. South Carolina's Court was wrong. And so is Washington's.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How then, do you explain the kid of thirteen who "chooses" to get beat up and made fun of and discriminated against—for nothing?


****

I wish I could rec THAT more than once.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"How then, do you explain the kid of thirteen who "chooses" to get beat up and made fun of and discriminated against—for nothing?</I

"Intellegent Design?"

Exactly

It's curious that the most judgmental people are usually religious and support their position with their god's position on the matter. These same people proclaim that their god created the universe and everyone in it. If so, then that god has created a diverse set of people. Medical science is forever discovering biological causes for every variety. God created all living things, yet some of them are an abomination? (see the oft quoted Leviticus ch 18, verse 22)

I wish people would tend to their responsibilities, and stop spending so much effort imposing their own misguided morality on others. And for those who do quote that Leviticus verse about a man shall not lie with a man? Read the rest of the chapter, it's horrific how we are instructed to punish many others (death penalty for cursing your parents, the death penalty for violating Sabbath, exile for sex with a menstruating woman, etc. Good summation: http://www.slate.com/id/2145574/entry/2145776/). A good fundamental Christian would make for an atrocious human being.

There is zero reason to use the Bible (or Torah, or Koran) as support for denying anyone equal rights. To do so is cherry plucking one verse out of a whole pile of horrific nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------

And since we're talking about intelligent design, how do these happen routinely?:

Baby with Parasitic Twin Head: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/?GT1=6190

Baby with 2 fetuses inside: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_he_me/pakistan_fetus_in_baby;_ylt=AteVCoTu.rV4iaLgR7xqOgDVJRIF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Some people may simply be genetically predisposed to have sex with whatever gender happens to be available.

And what if they are?

What if you're right? Why can't these people marry and have families and be happy, too?


Why does a bicycle have two wheels? Many, MANY tricycles and unicycles are active, valid, and fullfilled. But they are not bicycles nor can they be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Beautifully stated .... thank you!

Diane
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Why does a bicycle have two wheels? Many, MANY tricycles and unicycles are active, valid, and fullfilled. But they are not bicycles nor can they be.

So you don't really have an answer, then?

What would happen to you, personally, or to me, personally, if Linda and Debbie were allowed to marry? How would you, personally, or I, personally, be injured if we let Steve and Donald get married?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And to Vicki-I hope your son has a long and happy life, and that you get your wishes.




It's people like you who give me hope for my son and the world he has to live in. One day I will wear my tiara with pride. Cheers! Vicki
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why does a bicycle have two wheels? Many, MANY tricycles and unicycles are active, valid, and fullfilled. But they are not bicycles nor can they be.

Huh?


OK, so my son is not a bicycle. He doesn't even want to be. He just wants all the bicycles to let him live and love without discrimination, segregation, or alienation.

Vicki (Who thinks perhaps my son and his peers are not bicycles, but a more advanced wheel-less mode of transport)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<I suppose you support polygamy on exactly the same basis?

You are free to suppose whatever you like. But let's keep this down to just one subject, shall we?
>>


No, let's not.

Homosexuals repeatedly argue that marriage is a right, and that people should be free to marry people they love. Such an argument applies broadly, not just to homosexuals. Brothers and sisters who live together may love each other, as may groups of people who choose to live communally, or Morman families with several wives.

If marriage is a right, why do homosexuals ALWAYS propose changes in laws that only benefit themselves, rather than carrying out the values they suggest that such laws should be based upon?


When proposing laws, homosexuals act like they want to join the exclusive club of the very limited number of social relationships permitted legal marriage or civil unions. Homosexuals only TALK about a broad "right" to marry. In practice they just want to join the club.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

Seatle,

It seems to me only natural that people propose laws that benefit themselves, especially when they are discriminated against.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 36
Some people may simply be genetically predisposed to have sex with whatever gender happens to be available.

And what if they are?

What if you're right? Why can't these people marry and have families and be happy, too?


Why does a bicycle have two wheels? Many, MANY tricycles and unicycles are active, valid, and fullfilled. But they are not bicycles nor can they be.

Good point, montecfo. But I don't think it's the point you intended.

Unlike the straight people in the land of the free and the home of the brave who seek to use their majority status to enact and enforce laws which exclude their gay fellow citizens from marriage, family and the alleged attendant happiness (and more, importantly, the actual attendant legal, financial and social benefits), bicycles accept their differently-wheeled fellow transportation devices without exception -- seeking nothing more than to roll along with one another on the highway of life.

It's not surprising to me that bicycles are more humane than the people who seek to deny equal rights to their gay fellow citizens.

Simbob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Vicki,
Your post brought tears to my eyes. My Best Wishes to your family and all families like yours. Heres to hoping that you do get to dance at your sons wedding in a few years :)
I do hope there are more mothers (and fathers) out there who are as supportive of their homosexual kids as you are. Remember, thats most of the battle won for your son. He cares more about your opinion and draws more from your strength than from anyone else in the world.
You are lucky to have him and he is luckier to have you.
b8.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds more like these women are bisexual and nothing more or less.

bigpix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
mmmmmm....lipstick lesbians.



RJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mmmmmm....lipstick lesbians.

making a living wage I hope.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
When homosexuality is fashionable, as it often becomes in college women's studies programs, there are women who will conform to that norm or follow that fashion:....

Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.


there are two other sets of women to be considered there, who may or may not have "come out":

1) the bisexuals.
Whether they are truly bisexual or just trendily bisexual is another matter.
Of the early - mid twenties women I have met in the past few years, probably 3 out of 5 have dropped the information that they are bi-sexual within the first 1/2 hour. Most of those I vote into the trendy camp. Some are gay, some not.

2) the completely heterosexual women who had experimental relationships/sex with other women.
One or even a few such experiences do not a homosexual make.
These are heterosexual women who have had sex with another woman.
Just as many gay men have tried female relationships and had sex with women, they consider themselves, not bisexual or heterosexual.

and it is just labeling - so why does anyone really have to offically one or the other?

peace & gray areas
t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 106
If marriage is a right, why do homosexuals ALWAYS propose changes in laws that only benefit themselves, rather than carrying out the values they suggest that such laws should be based upon?
___________________________________________________

You're damn right I want to propose changes that benefit myself. I want the same 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges related to marital status, that YOU are afforded, that is NOT afforded to myself and my partner. This is about EQUAL RIGHTS.

Your question is couched in language that suggests you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. There are basic rights afforded under marriage that are being denyed to people like Dialoguebox's son, myself and my partner and thousands and thousands of others.. That's discrimination.

You want to know how else I want to benefit myself? I want to give my partner and our daughter access to my healthcare insurance. Currently, that's not possible. It is for you.

I am a retired Navy Veteran. I think that's about as value driven as a person can be. Should something happen to me, I want to be able to give my partner survivor's benefits. Currently, that's not possible. It is for you if you are married and served your country. Did you?

What other changes should be proposed? Well, I want to be able to see my kid or partner if in some unlikely event either end up in intensive care. Currently, I can be told to leave a hospital if that hospital chooses and if this state has it's way in November, nothing short of marriage will protect me against that-- not even a health care power of attorney. Currently we have no inheritance rights regarding social security, pensions and second-parent adoption rights if one parent dies.

If this is what you call proposing changes in laws that which only benefits homosexuals then your comments can only be summed up to suggest bias, bigotry and sheer ignorance of the laws that you simply take for granted.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think of "gayness" as a big spectrum. Completely heterosexual on one end and completely gay on the other.

Many people somewhere in between. This can include full on bisexuals, people who are curious (but never act), etc.

jez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<If marriage is a right, why do homosexuals ALWAYS propose changes in laws that only benefit themselves, rather than carrying out the values they suggest that such laws should be based upon?
___________________________________________________

You're damn right I want to propose changes that benefit myself. I want the same 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges related to marital status, that YOU are afforded, that is NOT afforded to myself and my partner. This is about EQUAL RIGHTS.

Your question is couched in language that suggests you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. There are basic rights afforded under marriage that are being denyed to people like Dialoguebox's son, myself and my partner and thousands and thousands of others.. That's discrimination.

You want to know how else I want to benefit myself? I want to give my partner and our daughter access to my healthcare insurance. Currently, that's not possible. It is for you.
>>


I don't doubt that lots of people in social relationships would like to be able to give their partners the benefits of legal marriage.

If marriage is a right, then any group of people should be able to marry and receive those benefits. But homosexuals never propose a law which would recognize that kind of right.

Instead, they always propose laws which would benefit their narrow social relationships only, leaving all other social relationships (other than heterosexual marriage) unaffected.


So it seems clear to me that homosexuals don't take the idea of marriage as a right seriously. Instead, they merely want to join the exclusive and limited club of social relationships recognized by legal marriage.


That's fine, and homosexuals are entitled to lobby for such recognition. But it aint a right and homosexuals are being dishonest by claiming that they think it is.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Seatle,

It seems to me only natural that people propose laws that benefit themselves, especially when they are discriminated against.
>>


Fine --- but then don't pull my leg about this being a matter of "rights." What homosexuals want is the same special privilege to marry that a few heterosexual social relationships have, while continuing to exclude the vast majority of human relationships from the privilege of marriage.

Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.




Seattle Pioneer





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is way too much mention of leg pulling and forcing down one's throat for me.

bigpix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I want to give my partner and our daughter access to my healthcare insurance. Currently, that's not possible. It is for you.

I am a retired Navy Veteran. I think that's about as value driven as a person can be. Should something happen to me, I want to be able to give my partner survivor's benefits.


FoolinSC,

I knew these were the case as far as your partner. It is also the in the case of your daughter???

Well, I want to be able to see my kid or partner if in some unlikely event either end up in intensive care.

This is one of those things that is a hot button for me. It is simply WRONG to deny access to someone's loving partner. (the whole issue is an awful disgrace...but for some reason this particular thing makes my stomach tie in knots. It's wrong, wrong, WRONG)

B.

Hoping to see a change in my lifetime.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
To all who speak of homosexuality as a "choice" I would pose this question: "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?" It seems to me choosing to be gay in America today would be like choosing to be black in south Alabama in 1950.

And to Vicki-I hope your son has a long and happy life, and that you get your wishes.


And to those who still think of it as a choice I ask you..."When did you choose to be heterosexual? Could you tell us a bit about the decision making process you went through?

Augie
**Curious since '1902'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.

SP,

Is it being "content "...or being focused on THEIR needs? Have they tried to fight anyone else who has been wanting "to join the club"? Or I they just fighting for THEIR rights...and content to let others fight for their own battle?

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I hope by the time he finds a nice man to settle down with, they'll be able to have the wedding they want and their marriage legally recognized in all 50 states.

and I hope that they are able to concieve children and raise a nice family (should they choose to)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why does a bicycle have two wheels? Many, MANY tricycles and unicycles are active, valid, and fullfilled. But they are not bicycles nor can they be.

Good point, montecfo. But I don't think it's the point you intended.

Unlike the straight people in the land of the free and the home of the brave who seek to use their majority status to enact and enforce laws which exclude their gay fellow citizens from marriage, family and the alleged attendant happiness (and more, importantly, the actual attendant legal, financial and social benefits),...


The laws which exclude homosexuals from "marriage" are the same types of laws which say a bicycle will have two wheels. Any other result just defies logic.

...bicycles accept their differently-wheeled fellow transportation devices without exception -- seeking nothing more than to roll along with one another on the highway of life.

I salute unicycles, bicycles, tricycles etc. However, I do not pretend a unicycle can ever be a tricycle. That is just silly. I do draw the line at tandems, however ;).

It's not surprising to me that bicycles are more humane than the people who seek to deny equal rights to their gay fellow citizens.

That's the point you miss. A unicycle has no inherent "right" to be a bicycle. It can never move on two wheels. Even passing a law would not change this obvious truth.

Now, go in peace.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6

Instead, they always propose laws which would benefit their narrow social relationships only, leaving all other social relationships (other than heterosexual marriage) unaffected.

So it seems clear to me that homosexuals don't take the idea of marriage as a right seriously. Instead, they merely want to join the exclusive and limited club of social relationships recognized by legal marriage.


That's fine, and homosexuals are entitled to lobby for such recognition. But it aint a right and homosexuals are being dishonest by claiming that they think it is.


Did you know that when blacks were fighting for a right to vote they backstabbed women in their fight? Does that mean that we should take away the right of a black man to vote because of hypocrisy?

So if you are gay and you want to live happily ever after with your "spouse" will you hitch the causes that have an even worse reputation along with yours? Why would you? As it is the chances are slim of any pro-gay legislation passing in the near future, why make it darn near unlikely of ever passing? Gays, rightly so want to first work on their cause and then possibly help with others depending on their own narrow views.
Also, gays just like heteros can be narrow-minded and prejudicial. That doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same protection as we are.

TVK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.
_________________________

I've said this before but it warrants repeating.

There is no secret ring, no exclusive club. My money pays taxes. Marriage provides legal rights under an umbrella of a whole host of Government laws that I am currently being denied.

That's not exclusive, it's exclusion.

Marriage is a ceremony performed by a church. The government recognizes it and affords its citizens tax, inheritance, insurance benefits etc, that all of us are entitled to as an Americans, not some select few -- the heterosexuals. The way it is now is exclusive and its the bigots who are the ones who want to keep it exclusive.. just like they once did with women and blacks

I pay in the same system that you do. If this how it's to remain, then I want a refund.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
<<What would happen to you, personally, or to me, personally, if Linda and Debbie were allowed to marry? How would you, personally, or I, personally, be injured if we let Steve and Donald get married?>>

Well said, I can't help but wonder why they keep referring to the legislation as the Defense of Marriage Act. Personally, if Linda and Debbie or Steve and Donald get married, it doesn't have any effect at all on the strength of my marriage.
LWW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.

Okay, homosexuals want to join an "exclusive" club that would then be available to 98% of the population. Your opposition to this is based in bigotry, not semantics, so why the insistence on word games this afternoon?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
so why the insistence on word games this afternoon?

Ummm...WHO are you talking to??? I've said it before...SP likes to take his little poking stick and "poke, poke, poke" and watch people get worked up.

He may very well believe in every thing that he is saying...but I can see him doing it even if he DIDN'T! I get the impression he loves to be Devil's Advocate.

Hmmm...maybe I should change that to "poking pitch fork"? ;)

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If marriage is a right, then any group of people should be able to marry and receive those benefits. But homosexuals never propose a law which would recognize that kind of right.
____________________

As a heterosexual who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, are yo sexually attracted to animals?.. perhaps the thought of sheep ever enter your mind?

As a lesbian who is sexually attracted to women only, I'm not sexually attracted to animals nor have a desire to have sex with animals, so you wouldn't mean a relationship between a human and an animal.

As a heterosexual who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, are you sexually attracted to children? As a lesbian who is sexually attracted to women only, I'm not attracted sexually to children so you can't mean a pedophile-child relationship.

As a heterosexual who is attracted to the opposite sex, do you have more than one sex partner? Does having some 'strange' on the side strike your fancy? It's a choice to do that you know. As a homosexual attracted to the same sex, I don't CHOOSE to have sex with more than one partner so it couldn't be you're referring to polygamous relationships.

All three of these are CHOSEN proclivities having nothing to do with natural sexual orientation. All three are also predatorial; inclusive of one who has power over another. If your saying my wanting to get married and make laws that excludes these other 'relationships', then let me offer you an antidote for that "koolaid" you're drinking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
To all who speak of homosexuality as a "choice" I would pose this question: "Who in their right mind would choose to be gay?"

I would also ask them this: When did you consciously choose not to be gay?

--FY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
As much as I hate to agree with anything SP says, he is correct that some people DO choose their sexual orientation. (Please note the word "SOME in that sentence, and spare me the posts about the majority of cases which are exceptions. I don't dispute those at all.)


I also have a cousin who decided in college that she was a lesbian. It was done out of rebellion, just as other kids do drugs or get tattoos or piercings. And after college, she decided she wasn't anymore.

Was she actually bisexual? Probably no more than most other women; meaning that the female body doesn't disgust her, and being shown love and appreciation and desire by someone (of either sex) can create feelings of love in return. Being female, it is a less drastic decision to attempt a same-sex relationship. And as mentioned by others, it was very "cool" in college. And very upsetting to parents.

To assume that those girls who "suddenly" became homosexual in college, and then "suddenly" decided they were heterosexual afterwards, are actually just bisexuals who are announcing the most convenient part of their sexuality at any point in time, is overgeneralizing. Sexuality can sometimes be a phase or trend, like any other.

Frydaze1

--- Highly in favor of people doing whatever they want to in bed, with whomever else is of legal age and willing to do it.
--- Also highly in favor of "marriage" either becoming a purely religious ceremony (completely unrelated to anything resembling law) for ALL couples, or having it available to any consenting adults who desire it.

Did I say "couple?" I apologize. While I don't personally have any urge to bring a third person into my marriage, I don't really care if polygamy becomes legal either. Again, it doesn't effect my relationship so why should I try to stop it? Why would ANYONE care who someone else marries?!?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Being female, it is a less drastic decision to attempt a same-sex relationship. And as mentioned by others, it was very "cool" in college.


Also, because two girls getting it on is a turn on to many guys, it is more accepted than the idea of two guys, which they can't comprehend.

jez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
All three of these are CHOSEN proclivities having nothing to do with natural sexual orientation. All three are also predatorial; inclusive of one who has power over another. If your saying my wanting to get married and make laws that excludes these other 'relationships', then let me offer you an antidote for that "koolaid" you're drinking.



oooh, you are wading into deep dangerous territory there.

1. Polygamy is not predatory as long as it's between consenting adults. Some people do not mind sharing their spouse. Look at swingers they're eager to share their spouse, does that make them predatory?

2. Bestiality and Pedophilia are not chosen sexual orientations any more than homosexuality is. You cannot choose who you are attracted to. Pedophiles are attracted to children, they do not choose to be attracted to children, but they do choose to hurt a child in their pursuit of pleasure. Just like homosexuals choose to have gay sex. Choosing to have the act of sex doesn't make your sexual orientation a choice.

The difference between those (pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality) is that homosexuality, given that it happens between two consenting adults, doesn't hurt anyone. Consent is key here. A child and an animal cannot give consent, so it is rape.

So yes I do support loving relationships between any number of consenting adults as long as nobody is hurt or forced into actions against their will.
I also wish that people who think that pedophilia and bestiality is a choice would shut up, as this sort of attitude prevents predators who are predators by nature from seeking and receiving help in overcoming their urges and thus keeping society safe.

-TVK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.

SP,

Is it being "content "...or being focused on THEIR needs? Have they tried to fight anyone else who has been wanting "to join the club"? Or I they just fighting for THEIR rights...and content to let others fight for their own battle?

B
>>



When homosexuals write up civil union legislation that gives them special rights but excludes everyone else, heterosexuals included, I say they bear moral responsibility for their actions.

Frankly, I have no moral objections to that myself. I see marriage as a privilege, not a right. And in my opinion, society must arbitrarily decide who should get those privileges and who should not.

So I have no objection to homosexuals seeking such privileges, and such decisions are often made by political authrities.


I merely object to the claim that marriage is a "right." Homosexuals use that term to further their political cause, but then punt the principle they claim in favor of joining the club with heterosexual couples who are privileged to engage in marriage.


I hope you see the distinction I make.




Seattle Pioneer




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<So if you are gay and you want to live happily ever after with your "spouse" will you hitch the causes that have an even worse reputation along with yours? Why would you? As it is the chances are slim of any pro-gay legislation passing in the near future, why make it darn near unlikely of ever passing? Gays, rightly so want to first work on their cause and then possibly help with others depending on their own narrow views.
Also, gays just like heteros can be narrow-minded and prejudicial. That doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same protection as we are.

TVK

>>


Actually, if homosexuals petitioned the government to join the exclusive and limited club of those privileged to marry, it might enhance their chance of getting such legislation passed.

The problem with the sexual liberation line of argument is that there is no place to stop. If you decide marriage is indeed a right, then any herd of people (and perhaps animals --- why not?) should be entitled to marry, have sex or whatever. It's the very definition of the slippery slope.

By contrast, if marriage is a privilege, then seeking that privilege for homosexuals extends that privilege to an additional group, but still walls it off from polygamy, incest, man-boy love or whatever else is running around out there.

In my view, homosexuals have successfully used persuasion to gain acceptance of a lot of different issues that favored them in three scant decades. The Washington State legislature passed a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals state wide this year, and an attempt to gather signatures to refer it to voters to decide didn't produce enough signatures for that to happen.

Efforts to bypass the legitimacy conferred by popular government creates animosity and opposition. Persuading people and using popular government to make changes in social policy confers legitimacy. It may be more satisfying to bray about "rights" rather than to use persuasion to convince people to support your position, but it may well be counterproductive to do so.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<<What would happen to you, personally, or to me, personally, if Linda and Debbie were allowed to marry? How would you, personally, or I, personally, be injured if we let Steve and Donald get married?>>

Well said, I can't help but wonder why they keep referring to the legislation as the Defense of Marriage Act. Personally, if Linda and Debbie or Steve and Donald get married, it doesn't have any effect at all on the strength of my marriage.
LWW
>>


Among the reasons advanced by the Washington State legislature to make marriage available only to heterosexuals was a finding that society was better off by encouraging child bearing by biological parents.
Limiting marriage to heterosexuals encourages that public purpose.


You can disagree with that policy finding if you wish, but it was among the reasons that the Washiungton State Supreme Court let that law stand.


Linda and Debbie may still have a child, but doing so is mildly discouraged by the fact that legitimate marriage is not available to such a union. Similarly, a brother and sister might find a legal way to make or adopt a child, but would face the same discouragement and barrier to doing so. Betty, Mary and Fred may choose to have children, but would similarly find themselves mildly discouraged from forming a polgamous family by the absence of legitimate marriage.


If you want to get on the list of those entitled to marriage, start persuading your fellow citizens and legislators of the wisdom of your cause.



Seattle Pioneer









Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<Homosexuals want to join an exclusive club, but are quite content that the club remain exclusive.

Okay, homosexuals want to join an "exclusive" club that would then be available to 98% of the population. Your opposition to this is based in bigotry, not semantics, so why the insistence on word games this afternoon?
>>


100% of the population might find themselves barred from marrying some people, and privileged to marry others. Cousins in some states might make identical objections, and brothers and sisters and parents and children pretty much everywhere.

It's pretty clear now that if homosexuals want to marry in the state of Washington, they will have to persuade voters and legislators that there is good reason for making that legal.


I doubt that labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot is going to do much to advance that cause.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bestiality and Pedophilia are not chosen sexual orientations any more than homosexuality is. You cannot choose who you are attracted to. Pedophiles are attracted to children, they do not choose to be attracted to children, but they do choose to hurt a child in their pursuit of pleasure. Just like homosexuals choose to have gay sex. Choosing to have the act of sex doesn't make your sexual orientation a choice.
___________________________

Yes, you're right. I stand corrected in my choice of words, at least about the the pedophilia comment above. I understand however, that the theraputic success rate for pedophiles is quite poor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So yes I do support loving relationships between any number of consenting adults as long as nobody is hurt or forced into actions against their will.
I also wish that people who think that pedophilia and bestiality is a choice would shut up, as this sort of attitude prevents predators who are predators by nature from seeking and receiving help in overcoming their urges and thus keeping society safe.


You make a good point. I am so tired of this bigotry by homosexual groups against people who love differently. These people pay taxes, why are they being discriminated against by bigots?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<So yes I do support loving relationships between any number of consenting adults as long as nobody is hurt or forced into actions against their will.
I also wish that people who think that pedophilia and bestiality is a choice would shut up, as this sort of attitude prevents predators who are predators by nature from seeking and receiving help in overcoming their urges and thus keeping society safe.

You make a good point. I am so tired of this bigotry by homosexual groups against people who love differently. These people pay taxes, why are they being discriminated against by bigots?
>>


Heh, heh! That's the slippery slope of the sexual liberation argument. There is really no place to draw a line, because any line is, in the end, arbitrary.


People who suggest that pedophilia doesn't involve consent neglect to note that pretty most girls who gets pregnant is deemed mature enough to give consent to an abortion. If she's mature enough to give consent for an abortion, isn't she mature enough to consent to the sex that got her pregnant?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"society must arbitrarily decide who should get those privileges and who should not. "


In other words, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. "

Welcome to animal farm, my friends!

SP, if you haven't done so, you need to read Orwell's "Animal Farm"- it seems to be the basis for much of your socio-political view of the world...

jb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<"society must arbitrarily decide who should get those privileges and who should not. "


In other words, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. "

Welcome to animal farm, my friends!

SP, if you haven't done so, you need to read Orwell's "Animal Farm"- it seems to be the basis for much of your socio-political view of the world...

jb

>>


I've read it.


There a lot od ambiguity and arbitraryness in life. Get used to it.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I pay in the same system that you do. If this how it's to remain, then I want a refund.
________________________________________________________________________

You could come to Canada instead. You would be welcome on the Westcoast if you don't mind a little rain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 51
People who suggest that pedophilia doesn't involve consent neglect to note that pretty most girls who gets pregnant is deemed mature enough to give consent to an abortion. If she's mature enough to give consent for an abortion, isn't she mature enough to consent to the sex that got her pregnant?
____________________

You are deeply disturbed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You could come to Canada instead. You would be welcome on the Westcoast if you don't mind a little rain.
_________________________

I love Nova Scotia. Clean and beautiful. Rain isn't a problem, but cold weather is a bummer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
People who suggest that pedophilia doesn't involve consent neglect to note that pretty most girls who gets pregnant is deemed mature enough to give consent to an abortion. If she's mature enough to give consent for an abortion, isn't she mature enough to consent to the sex that got her pregnant?

Sorry, that's just won't fly, and it's insulting and disgusting on a lot of levels.

If abuse begins at the age of, say, six, and continues for ten years, and she gets pregnant when she's sixteen, did she "consent"? Or just follow the pattern of abuse that's been pounded into her head since childhood?

In addition, pedophilia is sex with young children - the concept including the idea that they are NOT sexually mature. By nature, sexually immature people cannot get pregnant - and are FAR too young to consent to sex. Period.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
People who suggest that pedophilia doesn't involve consent neglect to note that pretty most girls who gets pregnant is deemed mature enough to give consent to an abortion. If she's mature enough to give consent for an abortion, isn't she mature enough to consent to the sex that got her pregnant?

WTF??? RAPE is NOT consent.

That statement is just ridiculous.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When homosexuality is fashionable, as it often becomes in college women's studies programs, there are women who will conform to that norm or follow that fashion:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/
If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she's been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation)



It's really funny. It seems like women are much more comfortable with each other sexually and exploring each other, both naturally and encouraged by society (presumably environmental), than are guys with each other. Women hold hands going to restrooms together....no way hetero guys would ever do that.

Why is that?? Men LOVE to see women kiss and make out with each other.....conversely, there is virtually NO admiration and lust for women witnessing two guys mount each other. If fact, it's downright off-putting to both sexes to see this.

My explanation (and others) for this from an evolutionary standpoint is that it has always been the case, throughout human history, going back 150,000 years (way, way before and beyond the ancient Greeks and Egyptians) there have existed more harems in which many women were being mated by one alpha-dominant male. Rarely in history, on the other hand, has there been the one women, controlling many guys in her concubine. Witness the Mormon societal mating structure. This is just one example. But where does one see the reverse?? Not very often.

This evolutionary tendency is also seen in today in the fact that men, usually, are more likely to cheat and have many more women than a given women who cheats against their men with many other men.

Physicall by design, men are simply "designed" to produce many many more offsprings than are women. They can inpregnate potentially dozens at one time......whereas women can only hold one baby at a time. Men look for endless possibilities and women seek faithful men who will be true to them.

Anyways....this is not a "moral" take, but just the facts of evolution.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This evolutionary tendency is also seen in today in the fact that men, usually, are more likely to cheat and have many more women than a given women who cheats against their men with many other men.

Now I'm responding to this beore looking up any information...so forgive me that I have no documentation. I remember hearing from a few sources that the gap isn't nearly that large anymore.(by sources I mean listening to NPR, 20/20 and the like...I just never bothered "looking it up") I still believe it's more men going outside the marriage...but not by much.

And like they say..."They have to be cheating with SOMEONE." They are not all paying for it or sleeping with their "secretaries".

Again...not a moral call on this. Just interesting.

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And the South Carolina Supreme Court once decided that if you studied really hard and got good grades and finished high school with a diploma, and you were real good, your daddy could buy you a human being of your very own. South Carolina's Court was wrong.
_______________________________

And here it is some 200 years later and except for the fact that you can now buy toilet paper products on Sunday, it othewise hasn't really changed.

Fast forward to the 21st Century and South Carolina still behaves the way it did during slavery by initiating legislation to keep honest hard working people like my partner and myself as second class citizens by forever keeping us from getting any of the 1,138 rights as afforded to its married citizens with children. People who have NO CLUE will actually go to a poll and push a button to decide on what is rightfully mine. Amazing.

Why it is that this has to be a legal and political issue is beyond me. Why it is that people like SP and MD think they should be allowed to inject ANY opinion, let alone vote on what goes on in the lives of others is beyond me.

If I were a population control freak, how would people like MD like it if there were thousands of people out there who got to vote on how many children people could have per-household and proclaim that he has no business getting his wife pregnant SIX TIMES, because his behaviors are adding to a world wide proplem of over-population? Why are people like him allowed to contribute the population problems of the world by popping out kids --oh wait...This considered an invasion of his privacy and since procreation is a product of marriage and societies are better off for hetero-breeder 'marriage'only right? But denying my right to marriage is NOT infringing on my rights or my privacy since I'm queer so, then perhaps along with queers why not extend the exclusions to deny anyone beyond procreating age from marrying.. oh and dont forget the sterile people too; they should be excluded from being able to marry as well.

And using the idiotic argument of hetero-only marriage, how is it that if marriage should only be for opposite only sexed couples, then how can you stop opposite sexed brother and sister couples from marrying?

How does it feel having the mirror held up to your nonsensical faux logic? morons.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
People who suggest that pedophilia doesn't involve consent neglect to note that pretty most girls who gets pregnant is deemed mature enough to give consent to an abortion. If she's mature enough to give consent for an abortion, isn't she mature enough to consent to the sex that got her pregnant?

Seattle Pioneer


In your terms a girl who is raped by her father and pregnant at 11 consented. Their is an age of consent for a reason. Children need to be protected from predators. The predator could be a stranger, but more likely is a close family member.

There is a significant difference between sex between teenagers and sex between children and adults. A legal dividing line has to be set for criminal enforcement. Choosing a specific age is necessary, but also somewhat arbitary.

The recent episodes of teacher/student rape trials and the Catholic church sex abuse scandal show that it is not just old men who prey on young girls. Young boys are also targets and I expect from your view more worthy of protection.

As far as the religious right is concerned, any girl old enough to get pregnant is old enough to assume the responsibility of raising a child. Is raising a child less of a reponsibility than making a decision about abortion? One of the main reasons for not requiring parental consent is the possibility that the girl's father is the father of the child or that the girl will physically abused by her parents.

Debra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Homosexuals repeatedly argue that marriage is a right, and that people should be free to marry people they love. Such an argument applies broadly, not just to homosexuals. Brothers and sisters who live together may love each other, as may groups of people who choose to live communally, or Morman families with several wives.

If marriage is a right, why do homosexuals ALWAYS propose changes in laws that only benefit themselves, rather than carrying out the values they suggest that such laws should be based upon?


Polygamy is damaging to women and society. It is a result of woman having no rights and was a way to handle the excess women who converted. Young boys are forced out so that the men in power can have the multiple wives. Daughters are traded for new wives. Incest and sex abuse is common. Using Mormon polygamy as an example, only proves why polygamy should not be permitted.

Debra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why it is that people like SP and MD think they should be allowed to inject ANY opinion, let alone vote on what goes on in the lives of others is beyond me.

It's a basic tenet of the Right, FoolinSC. Along with thinking that if anyone "makes it" then everyone can "make it", they believe that if we give anything to everyone, then everyone will somehow have less of it, or that it can't be enjoyed any more.

If we give women, blacks, latinos, gays, veterans, college kids or whoever the sub-population is the same rights, then somehow having those rights aren't worth as much. Geeze, if I'm only as good as the next black guy, then I've lost some of that good ol' white anglo-saxon mojo, you should pardon the expression. Let women or latinos vote? But they might vote for people and issues that I don't like! Raise the minimum wage? But that would help those scummy people in the trailer parks and mean someone might only earn 214 million dollars, instead of 215 million. Can you imagine having to make-do with only a 46 foot yacht, just so some ne'er-do-well could have heat?

You'll hear a lot of religious hokum. You'll even hear semantic and legal hokum this last week or so (I'm fascinated by Seattle Pioneer's newfound altruism. Remember, you can't march for just an end to war, now—you have to march for everything or you're being a hypocrite.). But you'll never hear anyone explain how they are being hurt by letting two people marry. It just doesn't happen. I asked montecfo about it yesterday three times? Four times? He may be dumb enough not to know, but he's at least smart enough not to say so. Hey, maybe I'll forget about it and it won't embarass him.

Or, maybe I won't. Hey, Monte?

What would happen to you, personally, or to me, personally, if Linda and Debbie were allowed to marry? How would you, personally, or I, personally, be injured if we let Steve and Donald get married?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<In your terms a girl who is raped by her father and pregnant at 11 consented. Their is an age of consent for a reason. Children need to be protected from predators. The predator could be a stranger, but more likely is a close family member.

There is a significant difference between sex between teenagers and sex between children and adults. A legal dividing line has to be set for criminal enforcement. Choosing a specific age is necessary, but also somewhat arbitary.

The recent episodes of teacher/student rape trials and the Catholic church sex abuse scandal show that it is not just old men who prey on young girls. Young boys are also targets and I expect from your view more worthy of protection.

As far as the religious right is concerned, any girl old enough to get pregnant is old enough to assume the responsibility of raising a child. Is raising a child less of a reponsibility than making a decision about abortion? One of the main reasons for not requiring parental consent is the possibility that the girl's father is the father of the child or that the girl will physically abused by her parents.

Debra
>>


I'm really not an advocate of children having sex, although I note that you apparently have no objections to that, as long as it is two irresponsibly young children having sex.

I merely use the issue to examine how the sexual liberation line of argument is used to deconstruct the kinds of arguments you use.

You clearly believe that young girls are mature enough to decide on their own to engage in the surgical procedure of abortion without parental consent. So such children are mature enough to give meaningful consent. You also clearly believe that such children are mature enough to give consent to have sex, as long as that is not with older adults.

But you are presumably willing to criminalize sex between an adult and such a child, supposing that such a child cannot give meaningful consent to such an act. I'll agree that adults may coerce sex from such children, and a court that determines that such sex is coerced should punish such an offender.


But here's the sexual liberation argument: not all such sex between adults and children is coerced. There are certainly children and adults who LOVE each other. LOVE should be the standard that trumps the right of society to regulate sex. Criminalizing sex between a genuinely consenting child and adult is no different than criminalizing sex between homosexuals. In this sense those who would criminalize sex between adults and chioldren are just narrow minded sexual bigots no different than those who would make other rules to regulate sex.

Or let's look at the teen aged hooker ---er, sex worker, who supports herself by selling sexual services. She may be earning a good living by selling her services to adults on an entirely consensual basis. Isn't it unreasonable to prosecute an adult who buys those services for rape? I'm talking about a fourteen or fifteen year old who is freely selling his/her services for money. Surely such a person is capable of giving meaningful consent.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<Homosexuals repeatedly argue that marriage is a right, and that people should be free to marry people they love. Such an argument applies broadly, not just to homosexuals. Brothers and sisters who live together may love each other, as may groups of people who choose to live communally, or Morman families with several wives.

If marriage is a right, why do homosexuals ALWAYS propose changes in laws that only benefit themselves, rather than carrying out the values they suggest that such laws should be based upon?

Polygamy is damaging to women and society. It is a result of woman having no rights and was a way to handle the excess women who converted. Young boys are forced out so that the men in power can have the multiple wives. Daughters are traded for new wives. Incest and sex abuse is common. Using Mormon polygamy as an example, only proves why polygamy should not be permitted.

Debra
>>


Nice unsupported allegations there. I would suggest that the murders, persecution and expulsion of Mormans from the United States in the 19th century was for pretty much the same reasons as the social prejudice against homosexuals: it violated deeply held social norms.

There is no particular reason why polygamy should be damaging to women--- indeed, a female movie star or supermodel might easily attract a harem of men if she wished to do so.

The sexual liberation argument would point out that there may be several people who LOVE each other, and that it is just as arbitrary to prevent groups of such loving people to marry as to prevent homosexuals from marrying.


Society is free to allow homosexuals to marry, just as it is free to permit polygamy. If we accept the idea that marriage is a right, then any group of humans should be free to marry, just as any group of humans is free to assemple or petition the government.


Personally, I subscribe to the idea that marriage is a privilege granted by political authorities, who are free to decide who will be granted the privilege or marriage and who will not. Those who want such a privilege must persuade political authorities that it is in society's interest to grant that privilege.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The sexual liberation argument would point out that there may be several people who LOVE each other, and that it is just as arbitrary to prevent groups of such loving people to marry as to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

My husband is a fan of the HBO series Big Love and as such I've been giving this quite a bit of thought.

The issues surrounding gay marriage, and why people want to allow gay marriage, is so that the couple in question is equal in terms of rights under the law. That is, they are asking for the same legal status as other married couples.

The distinction between gay marriage and polygamy is this: our laws today are centered around the rights of a couple to marry, that is, two people. The property laws, divorce laws, next-of-kin laws, estate laws, custody laws, etc., are all centered around the idea that a marriage, or dissolution of one, is centered around two people.

Polygamy negates that in a way that is unprecedented in any legal surroundings. Several TV shows have tackled it, besides Big Love, David E. Kelley's Boston Legal and even Ally McBeal before that took a detailed look at the complexities that could happen in the courtroom.

The complexities are not just financial, but emotional as well. If children were to be involved, custody battles are complex enough with two parents involved. If there were three, or more, things could drag out for extremely long periods: a quick example is where the kids are the biological offspring of the husband and one wife, but the SAHP who has raised the children while the others work is a different wife. Or if that parent were the only one to be a "fit" parent?

Estates left without wills would be complex enough to tie the estate up for generations. Divorces would be impossible - alimony and child support are complex enough now, how about with multiple spouses? If one were to leave who makes a lot of money, does that spouse have to pay alimony to the husband and other wives?

Gay marriage is far more palatable from a legal perspective, which is indeed the rights they are asking for. After all, it's two people, a couple, with all the same good times and bad that a heterosexual couple experiences.

From that perspective, polygamy is a far more difficult situation to legislate. Gay marriage is a no-brainer compared to that.