New York Gay Marriage

I think a lot of confusion is from this difference in outlook. I consider my sexuality to be a function of what sexes I presently find sexually attractive. You seem to be seeing it as a function of who you have ever had sex with, or something at least along those lines.Gay people report that they do not find the opposite sex attractive. Some of them even report that while they had sex with members of the opposite sex, they weren't really turned on. That they were essentially 'faking it'. These people I would not classify as bisexual, even though their lifetime sexual experience is bisexual in nature. There are also gay people who have never had gay sex, at least not anal intercourse.Likewise, a person who reports to me that they only find guys attractive, but they've only ever been with a woman and it felt unpleasant - I'd categorize as gay, even though his present sexual experience is heterosexual in nature.The test as to which of us is right should be down to how the words are actually used.If I introduced myself as being gay, what would most people think?I submit that most people would infer from this that I did not find women sexually attractive and that I only go for other guys. The word gay, used in this context, and in common use, clearly refers to an exclusivity. By referring to myself as gay, people will get the wrong impression, meaning I have failed to communicate properly, which means the word is an inappropriate one to use in this case.But yes, if I am with a guy, that is a homosexual coupling. That doesn't mean we are both necessarily homosexual. In fact, we might both be straight and deluded/confused/drunk/on psychotropics/experimenting/students.If I marry a guy, that is a gay marriage.And gay rights are the important ones because the straight rights are already taken care of to a sufficient degree.It isn't that you are calling bisexuals 'gay' that is the central problem though, unnecessarily confusing as it is. It is that you characterised them all as attention craving self involved gays. There are words used to describe the action of taking a small sample of personal experiences and using that to draw inferences about the characteristics of the whole group, and they are words I'm led to believe you wouldn't want yourself labelled with. I appreciate that it was 'off the cuff', and probably a bit of fun - but then you continued the position beyond the confines of the joke in further discussions with me.Can you at least understand how a person who is bisexual, or indeed any person of any group, may be upset when such negative stereotypes are presented about them?Can I also request you try a civil tone? No giant capitals everywhere, use italics for emphasis instead, no condescension, no needling, goading or 'monkey poking' or any other trolling. That'd be super.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Thanks. I would agree that it is bad form, but you understand that is not something I am guilty of, right? That if anyone is guilty of doing what you describe it is Jaderis and that an apology for so doing has been issued? That I shouldn't be subjected to 'tit for tat' retaliation goading etc for something I didn't actually do? I don't think being nitpicky is threatening to derail the entire movement, no. I do understand than combating negative stereotypes - even (and perhaps especially) those done casually - is actually part of the movement. Do you? I should point out that I don't 'switch off terms'. A person is gay, bi or hetero. If they are monogamous, they may be in a gay, or hetero relationship. There is a difference, as bluegenes expressed so well, between sexual orientation and sexual history.And really, thanks for the civil response.

If it helps, I reacted the same way when a gay person did it in Message 3 of You're either straight, gay, or lying?. Your sexuality is irrelevant.But I'll accept your implicit apology that you got confused over who was saying what to you. I understand how bickering can paralyse politics. But I'm not bickering over political policy here. I'm objecting to the characterisation of bisexual people as being full of themselves, self involved and attention starved as you have painted them. If objecting to these stereotypes isn't part of the gay rights movement, I've been sorely misled. I can fight both. The bonus is that you are more likely to change your mind than the "Jesus hates fags!" people. No, we were objecting to your stereotyping a certain sexuality. Or as you prefer it 'a subset of a sexuailty'. We weren't complaining that your advocacy for gay marriage was insufficient for 10 pages. Which is not true. They remain opposed. I didn't avoid tackling anti-gay people just to write twenty posts explaining why I find your stereotyping to be problematic. No gay advocates had to spend any valuable time in here. I think you might be guilty of hyperbole here, right?Furthermore, some people had their consciousness raised regarding the stigmas, stereotypes and the like that bisexual have to deal with. If bisexuals are gay, then that sounds like a successful advocacy of gay rights awareness to me. What else can a thread on EvC hope to achieve?

You might have felt it was a battleground, but I was being perfectly civil in voicing my dissent of your expressed views. My first post was an attempt to inform you that your view of bisexuals was erroneous presenting myself as evidence of that.That you maintained those views under continued criticism makes it about more than a smirking remark to Straggler. I didn't attack you. I criticised your expressed views. Which is the point of debating.Furthermore, the point of trolling is to get angry responses - since you were engaged in trolling, as you admit, then you really have only yourself to blame when things escalate. That is an empirical claim. I concur there are people that claim to be one sexuality but are actually another. On the other hand you took this group of people, that you think constitutes 'many', and painted all bisexuals with it. Further, you took this characterisation of bisexuals and implied it meant all such bisexuals were full of themselves or the like. I felt this was unfair stereotyping. You then had the gall to suggest that expressing my opinion that it was problematic stereotyping was evidence that the stereotyping was accurate. I agree. Do you disagree with my common usage argument though? Even if common usage seems contradictory to you, it's there. If a person says they are gay, this is usually taken to mean they don't find members of the opposite sex to be attractive. If someone were to ask, and I were to be honest, what should I tell them my sexual orientation?You seem to be saying that the correct answer is "I'm gay but I'm too full of myself to not seek the attention of women by continuing to have sex with them", or "I'm gay but I hate myself so I sleep with women." I'm suggesting 'bisexual'. And I'm suggesting that bisexuals, those who identify as finding both sexes attractive, are not all full of themselves or self hating gays or attention seeking etc