New York Gay Marriage

In other words you are a troll and freely admit it.You are also in violation of forum rules.

quote:

---

8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

Bisexual! But there are guys who are attracted to both sexes... I just opened your post from the email notification and responded without reading any of the thread at all. Not the best idea I had that day. Regardless, you're still wrong about bisexuals being gay. If I was motivated by greed, then I would if I thought that I would make more money by limiting it to gays. Or if it was religiously motivated, and I didn't find immorality in those other things you mention, then I might limit it to just the gays. I dunno, but blanket absolute statements almost never fly.

So, it's your opinion that the site would be better served if no one was willing to argue the opposite side of any issue unless they REALLY mean it?Seriously? Even the Creationists don't REALLY mean it.

So, "bisexual" is now defined as "guys that have sex with guys while at college, but then never again once they get out".And you wonder why I'm having trouble following along. You guys keep changing your definitions.Meanwhile, mine stays exactly the same:
If you have sex with people who have the same parts, you are gay. Okay. They are gay and also have sex with women.That doesn't make them not gay. They have sex with people who have the same parts. That makes them gay.
They are covered by "gay rights" legislation. That makes them gay.
They march in "gay pride parades", they will be covered under "gay marriage", they are subject to "gay hate crime".Gay gay gay gay gay.Saying that they aren't "gay" because sometimes they want to be "gay" and sometimes they don't is just silly. Come on. Let's assume for a second that you have a 12 year old son.You discover that there is a minister in your neighborhood who runs a special class for young boys focusing on indepth discussion about their gay desires.Your conclusion is: "Wow, that guy must be making tons of money"?

Gay means 'is sexually atttracted exclusively to the same gender'.If they're also attacted to women, then they aren't gay.

The when a bisexual is attacked for walking down the street holding hands with another guy, it's not a gay hate crime because he's not gay?Come on.Besides, when I look up "gay" at dictionary.com it says "homosexual" which it then defines as "someone displaying homosexuality" which in turn is defined as: I don't see the word "exclusive" in there. Do you?

My comment related to your views on bisexuals being "attention seekers." It was nothing to do with marriage. They have no need to be described as "gay" legally. Same sex marriage, when made legal, is open to everyone. See above. And "they" for you always seem to be acting in unison as one group.A bisexual can pursue his or her right to marry someone of the opposite sex without being called "straight" by you, can't they? Yet you seem to have massive problems the other way around. Why? Not literally true (indecision), and that doesn't address my point about human sexuality. It is in no way easy to divide humans into two distinct groups according to their sexual orientation. (We could go to a science thread on this subject and look at psychology papers). There's no need to. Where same sex marriage is recognized, it's available to all adults regardless of their sexuality. You could have a marriage of convenience for money with a male Mexican immigrant who wanted citizenship. If you do, I promise I won't start pretending you're homosexual rather than either heterosexual or a closet bisexual, which are the current favourites.

Exactly, though what I believe, is not important to the debate at hand. Exactly, how I really feel is only important for those who like to assume things about me, with strawmen, and other false accusations, because they have no real ability to debate what I have to say.Like many things Artemis Entreri, of Evc, is a product of his environment. You should ignore him/her. Everyone else does, and for good reason. He/she doesn’t get it. Rule #8 is not about the poster, but about the information that the poster is posting. One should not misquote, or quote mine to unethically make a point. One should find valid data from some source to support his/her POV. Misrepresenting yourself is not the issue, what you really believe and what you say can be two different things entirely.

I don't. In fact, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying.If a bisexual wants to marry someone of the same sex, it's gay marriage. They are gay. They are married. Gay marriage. Sure there is. There's LOTS of ways to do it.Those who have had sex and those who haven't.
Those who have sex with people of the opposite sex exclusively. Those who have sex with people of the same sex.
Or you could flip it and say "Those who have sex exclusively with members of the same sex" - However, I think you'll find that a VANISHINGLY small group.I don't have any specific numbers in front of me, but I think you would find that a majority of the gay community has had sex with someone of the opposite sex.That's why the gays don't use the term "gay" as an EXCLUSIVE term but rather an INCLUSIVE term. "Anyone having sex with people of the same sex" - all gay. Notice you changed terms? Instead of "gay marriage" you said "same sex marriage". Why?Because if you used the term "gay marriage" which is what I was talking about, you would have to admit that I was right.If everyone is included under "gay marriage" (the topic of the thread by the way), then they can't really object to the word "gay". Can they?

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.

I think the problem is that when you declare someone who is bisexual as gay, you are defining them by their attraction to the same sex. Your definition neglects the fact that bisexuals are also attracted to people of the opposite sex, which just as significant and important to their lives. However, so far you have been actively dismissive of this attraction to the opposite sex saying they are gay and also happen to have sex with women or are attention seeking. It may not have been your intention, but it comes across that if a bisexual man is in a relationship with a woman it is somehow not genuine and is instead a pretence.
Do you not see how hurtful this could be, and why they may feel the need to speak out to defend themselves from such accusations? In a way you are denying one aspect of their identity, just as politicians legislating against gay rights deny them another aspect of their identity.Also I looked up LUG in wikipedia, because I'd never heard the term before. It seems it can be used as a derogatory term against bisexual women. It made me realise that people who are bisexual can potentially be subjected to hostility from both gay and straight people.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

It's same sex marriage. Like you and your Mexican. I think that if you want to discuss subjects like this, your English needs to be good enough to distinguish between phrases like "sexual orientation" and "sexual history". It's used to describe orientation when referring to people. A gay person can be celibate. What phrase do you think courts and legal documents use? No-one has to be gay in order to have a same sex marriage. People are under no obligation to call their same sex marriages "gay marriages" because you want them to, or because the writer of the O.P. uses slang. But would you and your Mexican, with your same sex marriage of convenience, be having a gay marriage?You seem to want to back up your desire to call bisexuals "gay" by deciding that all same sex marriages (the correct legal term) have to be called "gay marriages".If someone's sexual orientation is bisexual, it remains so whether they marry someone of the opposite sex or the same sex. That applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals as well.

Those, 'one time at camp' stories seem to be similar or perhaps the emo boy fetish for kissing?

Yes.Can you understand that discounting a persons opinion because they haven't had enough same sex sex is just as much condescension, needling, goading and monkey poking as anything I'm doing?Can you understand that being nitpicky about terminology derails the entire movement?Why on Earth would anyone want to help you if the first thing you do is beat them up for not using your particular term when you yourself switch off terms whenever you feel it applies?

But it's totally irrelevant in regards to the law, rights, marriage, etc.Like I've been saying, no one is talking about bisexual rights. No one is talking about bisexual marriage.They are talking about gay rights and the bisexuals aren't marching around complaining that they aren't covered by gay rights legislation.So, they are perfectly willing to accept the label of "gay" when it suits them.It's not MY definition. I didn't invent the word "gay". It's not my fault that they've been accepting the term for decades. I'm not the one that posted this. Someone did, but I'm not about to dig back through 10 pages of posts again to find it.Someone very specifically said they knew a lot of gay guys who had claimed to be bisexuals and then finally said "Yeah, I was just fooling everyone, myself included".So, given that this exists - how DARE I suggest that it may exist.
Of course, had one of the bisexuals or gays on the thread said it, because they've paid the gay tax and had "a sufficient amount of gay sex to be allowed to speak", then no one would raise a stink. ...primarily by lesbians who are sick of these girls "playing at being lesbians" while at college, then dropping it like a trend that's gone out of style when they get back to the real world.I'm not making this sh1t up. I shouldn't be accosted for pointing out what is happening in the real world.