Refocusing the subject somewhat the Beats were the progenitors of modern open sexuality, Jack Kerouac et al, not that the Greeks didn't have the Beats beat by a long shot
oops there goes that humor again
Can't
.let
.Sturgis
.know
.humor
.and
.truisms
.can
.coexist
.Chumly
.very
.bad....
Chumly wrote:Hi Sturgis,
Thankfully then not everyone shares your views on what is or is not humorous. I also must admit I question the efficacy of my posts at least in terms of the light your attempt to shed on them. Have you perchance been to Vancouver, and/or are you aware of Canada's stance on same sex relationships v. US and/or read any of my prior posts on this subject? I would contend you are jumping to conclusions not supported in evidence.
Talking about gay humors, have you eve been to a gay burlesque?
Chumly...let me put this in front of you nice and easy now...
I am a homosexual.
I am good with that I am bi
ok you two.... get a room.
Must we? I was figuring we could be the next great show on reality t.v.
Sturgis,
Let me ask you a question, please? You don't have to answer but I'd appreciate it if you did.
I am sure that you know I believe homosexuality is wrong. Do you feel that just because I feel it is wrong I am discriminating against you?
The discrimination comes into play when people who think like you enact legislation to curb homosexual rights.
Momma Angel wrote:Sturgis,
Let me ask you a question, please? You don't have to answer but I'd appreciate it if you did.
I am sure that you know I believe homosexuality is wrong. Do you feel that just because I feel it is wrong I am discriminating against you?
No I don't. I don't necessarily agree with your stance but I figure if you were truly discriminating against me, you wouldn't acknowledge my presence anywhere on these boards.
Confused chumley...you are bi-sexual and believe that God disapproves?
So, do you get off on being bad or something.
Or, when you said you were bi, did you mean bi-lateral amputee, bi-polar or bi-annual.
Sturgis - You're a homosexual?!!!!!
Can you come over and tell me what I'm doing wrong with the toss pillows on my couch?
The only way I can get them to look halfway decent is to stand with my eyes closed, throw them in the general direction of the sofa, and shriek "Fabulous" while they are still airborn.
I might presume that Rutland is not overly equable when it comes to equal opportunity rutting?
Vancouver is simply not polarized, it's tolerant, in fact it's transgender issues that are in the courts, vying for their rights as we speak.
If you followed up on my references to Canada, you should be pleased. We have true same sex-sex marriages, not just civil unions as per the Brits, for example.
The so-called "moral issues" that the US is still stupidly stumbling over such as homosexuality and abortion, Canada has left for dust.
The present/future rights issues are transgender and polygamy. The US needs to get it's head out of it's moral ass (morass).
Chai Tea wrote:
Sturgis - You're a homosexual?!!!!!
Can you come over and tell me what I'm doing wrong with the toss pillows on my couch?
The only way I can get them to look halfway decent is to stand with my eyes closed, throw them in the general direction of the sofa, and shriek "Fabulous" while they are still airborn.
When tossing pillows it is best to jump up and down clasping your hands together and become giddy as they land haphazzardly and then (in my case) fall to the floor.
I am waiting for Queer Eye For The Queer Guy to start being broadcast...I need it!
Chumly wrote:littlek wrote:ok you two.... get a room.
A room with a view?
Can I bring my wife?
Can Mommy Angel watch?
Do we get to use toys?
Ooooh, more good ideas for the reality show.
Angel, but your stance still be, do you treat homosexuals as human?
I assume you do. You have no prejudices.
But the problem comes in when your thought becomes covert. Making a decision because of that irrational belief is prejudice. For example, on a vote on gay marriage, that's discrimination. Because there are various legal benefits of marriage.
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16761
If you are not prejudiced, you are to recognize them as equal and you are to say that any discrimination against them of covert type is wrong, like depriving them of some basic rights as marriage.
Do you agree? And if not, why?
I don't care if they call it a marriage or contract or whatever, but folks who are in a committed relationship should have their union protected against outsiders. My husband has the last word if I am comatose, not my Aunt or anyone else who thinks they can trump by DNA.
LittleK, I still have a problem with polygamy, mainly because it seems to be conducted by bearded middle-aged men with wives/cousins/nieces who are only about 14. I know, back during the middle ages, girls as young as 11 were bearing children and belonged (as a group) to some guy who could support the whole shebang. But if we get into legalizing polygamy, how many women do you think will have 14 men living in the same house taking care of her? One side of my head tells me it's none of my business, and the other side of my head reminds me of how sad those women are that are living dormitory style as one of many wives with one man on a remote ranch.
Sturgis wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Sturgis,
Let me ask you a question, please? You don't have to answer but I'd appreciate it if you did.
I am sure that you know I believe homosexuality is wrong. Do you feel that just because I feel it is wrong I am discriminating against you?
No I don't. I don't necessarily agree with your stance but I figure if you were truly discriminating against me, you wouldn't acknowledge my presence anywhere on these boards.
But there are
other homosexuals on this board, MA! I strongly suspect that some might be deeply offended by your words, whether you
acknowledge them or not ... That really isn't the issue. Why not just acknowledge & accept & keep your
beliefs (prejudices) to yourself?
Glitter - that's exactly why I say it needs to be legislated. We already have age-of-consent laws, and laws regulating marriage of relations, etc.
Chumly wrote:I might presume that Rutland is not overly equable when it comes to equal opportunity rutting?
Vancouver is simply not polarized, it's tolerant, in fact it's transgender issues that are in the courts, vying for their rights as we speak.
If you followed up on my references to Canada, you should be pleased. We have true same sex-sex marriages, not just civil unions as per the Brits, for example.
The so-called "moral issues" that the US is still stupidly stumbling over such as homosexuality and abortion, Canada has left for dust.
The present/future rights issues are transgender and polygamy. The US needs to get it's head out of it's moral ass (morass).
In the year 2000 the State of Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to legally recognize civil unions between same sex couples. In some ways Vermont is remarkably ahead of the rest of the country...it's not everything but it is a start.
