SuaSponte wrote:
Sweetie, I’m flattered you got through as much as you did. Good for you!
All of your arguments for same-sex couples adopting are valid and right on. As of right now, some states allow it, and some states don’t, and the numbers change month to month depending on what legislation is being passed or not in which states.
Yes and no. On the one hand, there are purely material grounds to defend marriage - adoption of children, the inequality of the institution from a legal standpoint, etc. But does it somehow cheapen marriage to relegate it to just those things? Yes, and I think any opposite-sex couple would agree that their marriages is more about love than what material gains they get by being married. It’s a two-front fight, and both have their place. Ultimately I think it will be the legal wranglings that will push the issue ahead in the courts, if/when it comes to that.
Yeah, but it’s the only place I can go two-stepping these days… 
Lamia asked:
Good start…
As our dear Gaudere quoted, in England they’re going by the “what plumbing you were born with” as the definition of sex, and Sua seems to think the states go with current medical or legally changed gender. Although I know of no American cases off the top of my head, I’d be willing to bet that the “once it’s done it ain’t our business” mindset would prevail - if they were opposite sex when married, and neither wants a divorce, then the marriage stands, but if one wants out, they can use it (or non-procreativity) as the cause for divorce. The fact of the matter is that, at the moment, I don’t believe anyone has laws to cover such a contingency, but this would seem to be the simplest way to handle it, which of course means the government would likely do the exact opposite. 
And with it being such a small number of people, I don’t know how many people would object so fiercely as to take them to court and/or enact prohibitive legislation (but, again, never underestimate the power of ignorance).
PeterB wrote:
Nothing, frankly - can’t help what you’re attracted to. However, acting on your attractions might get you into legal hot water, so I’d advice being well-informed before starting any relationship with someone that young.
A friend of mine once noted that as he was never attracted to men any older than 5 years older than himself, but was always attracted to those younger than himself. At 23, he was interested in 18-28 year olds. But as he’s gotten older, it seems it still holds true, which, on the plus side, widens his dating pool - at 35, he’s attracted to 18-40 year olds. I’m about the same, myself.
Ew! Facial hair? I’m sure it’s completely ruined his good looks. For me, way back when, it was Christopher Atkins in “The Blue Lagoon.” {SIGH}
Don’t be so hasty. Why, someone on this very board…
My own pet theory is that most people are bisexual, and since the majority of them choose to only engage in opposite-sex relationships, in a sense they’ve “chosen” to be straight. Just my theory, nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me.
Sycorax wrote:
Well, it wasn’t the gay community’s idea to use the word "gay, but, as matt pointed out, it’s just common usage - “gay women” are lesbians, and “gay men” are, well, gay men. When we speak of the “gay community,” it used to mean “gay men and gay women,” but women need their own space and identity as well (I mean, it’s hard enough to be a woman in today’s society, let alone a gay woman), so the trend went to “gay and lesbian,” meaning “gay men and lesbian {women}.” Now, to be really PC, it’s “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning and straight allies,” but that would just be silly. Me, I prefer “queer” - it encompasses all. “Homosexual” is just so… clinical. Bleh.
Donelan had a great cartoon where a woman turns to a man at a party and says, “Gay my ass! We’re lesbians!”
Esprix
