So what’s his problem with non-monogamous relationships? I like non-monogamous relationships, and I’m tired of pretending we’re all more straitlaced than Ozzie and Harriet just so some people will like us.
Apparently, he thinks that God designed men and women to choose a mate, then stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Somehow it disappoints God, as far as I can read what this guy means.
But he did say that in the Bible’s story of Lot’s offering his daughters to the two guys who wanted to “know” his visitors, it had nothing to do with being gay and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not helping the poor, etc.
So sodomy really shouldn’t have come to mean anything having to do with sex.
**matt_mcl wrote:
So what’s his problem with non-monogamous relationships? I like non-monogamous relationships, and I’m tired of pretending we’re all more straitlaced than Ozzie and Harriet just so some people will like us.**
I agree with Matt_mcl here. One of the great joys of GLBT relationships is the ability to define the roles as best fits the individuals rather than accepting pre-designated roles as per what society says is “right.”
I would also suggest that John Stott (the guy that vanilla refers to) look closely at heterosexual relationships and see how long those last.
Pull the beam out of your own eye! 
Remember me mentioning I got interviewed by “The Daily Show” at Gaylaxicon a couple of weeks ago? The segment will be on tonight, October 19, on Comedy Central at 11:00 pm EST (and will re-air at 1:30 am, 10:00 am and 7:00 pm tomorrow). Tune in and see me make a complete jackass of myself! yee haw!
Esprix
I’m bumping this thread intentionally for Rook’s benefit. Let’s hope he takes advantage of it. :rolleyes:
Esprix
OOooooh! A “slippery slope” if I ever saw one! Pounders, take note. Esprix has started “bumping.” It won’t be long until he starts debating pre-Trib. vs. post-Trib. Rapture with the best of them!!! 
Fine, I’m cross-posting, so sue me. For an interesting article on the gay community and the high-tech community, go see this thread.
On another note, this is entirely lissener’s fault. He says he thinks the thread should die, and then it sinks. Lousy thread-killer…
Esprix
Nevair!
OK, so here’s a topic of discussion. An openly gay guy called Stephane Prud’homme is running as the Canadian Alliance (right-wing) candidate in Laurier-Ste-Marie, a riding that includes Montreal’s gay village. He’s their only gay candidate, presumably because the leader, Stockwell Day, is a big old homophobic closet queen who thinks that gay people’s Charter of Rights freedoms ought to be put to a national referendum and who wanted to use the Notwithstanding Clause to keep us from getting our rights when he was the finance minister in Alberta, not to mention all the other nasty stuff that his party caucus has said about queer people.
Is M. Prud’homme a bastard (selling his gay brothers and sisters down the river so he can get a tax cut) or an idiot (thinking that Stockwell Day and the Alliance are not homophobic)?
Incidentally, he has no chance of winning, partially because he’s either a bastard or an idiot, partially because he’s running for a homophobic party in the largest gay village in North America, and partially because he’s also running against the leader of the Bloc Québécois.
Well, the answer to the question in your second paragraph is obviously “Yes” – unless he’s a Canadian version of a Log Cabin Republican – the U.S. group who sides with the party that customarily plays to the religious right and the “Family Values” voter. I do not understand their thinking, if any.
I’m curious about the Canadian parties’ stance on gay rights issues. From previous posts I gather that the Liberals are akin to our Democrats – a “mass market” party that is generally supportive but includes a broad range of people, some of whom are not; the NDP is supportive, and the Alliance is emphatically not. Is this right? What is the stance of the PCs and the PQs?
[side joke]
Parti Quebecois: We support the rights of all consenting adults to do whatever they wish in bed, so long as they speak French while doing so.
[/end joke]
This isn’t a part of what the last couple of posts are about, but I’ve been wondering, why do heterosexuals care so much about what we do in bed? They have tried over time to outlaw us, outlaw our sexuality, and even outlaw discussion of us. Why are they so threatened by something that has nothing to do with them? It strikes me as more than just a religious/“moral” issue with them. Any ideas?
[OT JOKE]
Bouchard proves that Quebecois are even inedible by disease.
[/OT JOKE]
With a name like Prud’homme… 
Amazing that an openly gay member of this same party is even running I take it M. Day isn’t campaigning for M. Prud’homme?
I don’t know this race, nor Canadian politics, nor the Canadian system of government enough to comment with any conviction, but on the surface he just sounds like a conservative gay guy who wants to run for office. Is there something nefarious and/or personal agenda-esque involved?
Esprix
Best I’ve ever been able to find out, when you get right down to the root of it, is - “It’s icky.” :rolleyes:
Esprix
In chat, we were looking at the pics at that hot or not site (you know, the one where you rate pictures), and I said that in my experiences talking with gay men online, the ones i’ve come across arent that picky about men. Seadiver refuted and said the gay men she knows are picky as hell. So, now i’m not sure. I’d say that I have seen pickiness, but i’ve also seen a lot who werent very picky at all. So fellow gay guys, what do you all think about this?
I like to wear flannels, t-shirts, jeans and Doc Marten boots – does that make me a lesbian in a man’s body (a la Eddie Izzard)? 
And now for the “ask” part of the ATGG post:
Why is it that the terms “homosexual” and “gay” more often than not only refer to men (as in the phrase “gay/lesbian/bisexual”)? Aren’t lesbians “gay”?
Maybe it’s just a semantic thing, but it niggles at me…
jr8
“My God – they’ve got guns!”
– Eddie Izzard
I do agree that religion isn’t the only reason that some straights think gay sex is so abhorrent and repulsive. This is my hypothesis (untested, and perhaps untestable).
Let’s face it (and I’m a straight male myself), there are a lot of straight males who look on sex as an act of victimization and contempt by the male against his sexual object. It’s no accident that the word “fuck,” the vernacular for the sex act, is also used to mean “to despise” (“fuck you”), to cheat (“they fucked him over”), or to ruin (“all fucked up”).
The straight with this kind of mentality projects his sexual outlook onto you, the gay, and believes he is the target of the gay’s lust, i.e. that you are targeting him for the victimization and contempt that he normally reserves for women. No, the normal gay tells him, we only want to sleep with people we love and care about, not with anybody unwilling. But he doesn’t believe you, because his mentality doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t care, except maybe to avoid the legal punishment, whether women consent or not, enjoy sex or not, so he doesn’t believe you care either.
Obviously, I’m not tarring all straights with this broad brush, but I do see a lot of hard-core haters who have no visible religious fanaticism or motivation, and I really do think this may be why they hate.
I think it was waterj2 who asked, being in the Nav, if there would ever be people that were openly gay. When I served, I knew one.
I think it will be a little bit longer Hell, I took severe flak just for talking to the guy during fire drills. But I think he was aslo trying to get out by being gay, so it’s hard to say if he even really WAS.
Well, you know me, Doob - I’m an equal opportunity slut, so “picky” isn’t exactly my first descriptor. Then again, although I can never tell who I’ll find attractive for what reasons, 90% of the time I will steadfastly look at someone and say “hot” or “not.” It’s weird - I just know it when I see it (like, for example, when I saw your picture… ;)).
My female friends compared to my gay male friends? Neither is more or less pickier than the other as groups, but as individuals, yeah, some are more or less than others. I don’t think the two can be compared as groups except on case-by-case basises.
Esprix
Welcome to our patriarchal society. As my dear friend Steve Capsuto outlines in his book Alternate Channels, when the news media first started “covering” homosexuality, women were all but absent. At the time, “homosexual” was the term of choice, but whence came Stonewall came a new awareness of the community, and “gay” took over as the preferred term; and, again, women seemed to be left out of the picture. So this, plus the lesbian community having their own unique needs as women and therefore wanting to identify their own community as unique, gave rise to “lesbian,” leaving “gay” to refer to mainly gay men, even though lesbians are, indeed, gay women (and sometimes you will still see references to “gay men and women”). So they get their own identifable, unique sub-culture within the queer community. And “gay men” is usually shortened to “gay” simply for brevity - you try saying “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning and straight allies” a million times a day!
Esprix
Wow, way cool theory. Are you sure no one’s pursued a similar idea? It sounds like it has merit - sex (by both men and women) is used, both subtly and grossly, as a weapon, so having it used against you (a straight man) when you’re used to being the wielder… neat!
Esprix
Well, if he was, I’m sure he appreciated somebody going out of their way to be nice to him - kudos to you.
Esprix