LOL…I mean, most of the time, the people I see using it are the ones who are straight supremists.
So by your “logic” X~Slayer(ALE), virgins, regardless of which gender they are and desire, are neither straight nor gay. Is that right? Interesting …
Too bad your definitions conflict with any reality.
OK, so I’ve spent some time educating myself since my last post, so I feel I must share the wealth. The “if” in your quote above depends on the state. If you travel with your spouse, be sure to check the map here before receiving head. Sodomy isn’t just for homosexuals.
So I would take your statment even further. Sodomy, regardless of the sexual preference/orientation of the performers, shouldn’t be illegal.
I don’t get some of the distinctions I’m seeing here.
It’s like what Rick Santorum said the other day, actually. For those who don’t know, while speaking about this issue, the Senator from Pennsylvania said “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
The interviewer, who perhaps sensed what would happen when the public read the above, gave Santorum a chance to clarify or restate his position. He didn’t. Instead, he made the (to me) strange argument:
“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”
The whole text is at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL, and I think it makes it clear that he does indeed have a problem with gays because he says ‘allowing’ them to have sex, or letting anybody who doesn’t fit his norms of sexual behavior, do what they want would “undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family” and that these behaviors “destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families . . . all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family,” even when it’s between healthy and consenting adults.
So he has no problem with gays, just with gay sex. So I guess if they all vowed celibacy and stopped having parades, he’d have no beef with them.
Santorum, and I guess some people who support him, will argue that this is not prejudice, but I think anybody with sense will see it’s frickin’ stupid. (Nearly all) people who are gay are going to want to have sex with each other, just like (nearly all) people who are straight, and pretending otherwise is moronic.
He’s utilizing the old political trick of explaining the difference between the same thing. I’m straight and in no way turned on by gay sex, but I’m not prejudiced against gays, which Santorum clearly is. He’s just attempted to find a way to explain in his prejudice that he thinks will make him sound understanding and somewhat tolerant. I can’t imagine anyone buying it, but anyway, even his dopey position acknowledges that, whether or not someone engages in sex, they still have a sexual orientation.
I knew I was straight, and counted myself as such, years before I first had sex. Being celibate is not the same as being asexual or not intiating sexual relationships. Some people have a chosen/defined/whatever sexuality and just don’t get into relationships for all sorts of reasons.
I posted about the above controversy because I think it’s relevant and interesting (that’s code for ‘infuriating’), but I don’t think these kinds of gray areas are really the issue. I think the issue at stake is mostly about privacy.
Legally, there are a few different possible circumstances here, and I think each is true in some states. The laws can say:
- Sex between two men (anal and probably oral) is illegal.
- Anal sex is illegal regardless of who does it.
- Homosexual sex (two men OR two women) is illegal regardless of method.
According to www.dumblaws.com, there are states in which each of these is the case, and sometimes it’s even more restrictive.
None are easy to enforce. How you can differentiate – i.e., make anal sex illegal for two men, but not a man and wife or two women with, ahem, toys – confuses me because I don’t know how it’s legal, or what the logic is, really. For that matter, how can masturbation be legal in some of these situations?
Pardon my snobbishness, but I’m stunned that any are on the books at this point in history. As I said, leaves me with a bad feeling about the people making the laws (like I need more reasons for that ;)).
LIke the Catholic Church, Santorum believes you can be gay, you can’t just do those icky gay things. :rolleyes:
Slayer, there are other ways to have sex other than “insert tab A into slot B.” If I have to explain them to you, I pity your sexual partner(s). Both straight and gay people have anal intercourse. Both straight and gay people have vaginal intercourse (well, lesbians, anyway). Both straight and gay people perform fellatio and cunnilingus. Both straight and gay people perform frottage. Both straight and gay people mastrubate and perform mutual masturbation. Both straight and gay people abstain from sex.
What part of this don’t you understand?
Esprix
I think by his definitions I’d be bisexual, too, just because I tried once to have sex with a guy. Didn’t work out, and I have no interest in trying again. But by his standards because I tried, I’m irretreviably bisexual. :rolleyes: