Consensual heterohaggis in a mutually respectful meal is fine, but it does not belong in public.
Are you marrying the haggis. or just planning to cheat with it behind your wife’s back?
Really, I don’t think you should be interested in what I do with my haggis behind closed doors.
Og has ordained that certain acts with haggis are unOgly!
I know what it is. You guys are trying to push the haggis agenda, but it really just is a cover for the casu marzu agenda. Next thing you know people will be saying what’s the big deal? It’s all consensual. And before you know it we’ll all be eating lutefisk!
I think that’s kinda what it is, though. Just as very few people are entirely straight or entirely gay (IMHO), very few will fall directly in the center.
It sucks, but yeah, it’s a catch-all. I don’t think there’s a straight/gay purity test involved; if I’m a one or two on the ol’ Kinsey scale, I’m definitely not purely heterosexual but I might well identify that way. Or go the “straight but not narrow” route.
I get you though; one same sex experience in college does not necessarily a bisexual make. I just think we’re so used to labels and categories that we want a really solid definition of “bisexual,” but I really don’t think there is one.
Aside: if I have three to six tabs open in Chrome the title of this thread reads “Urbanredneck is a homo”.
No. There are still standards of proper behavior in MY America.
Or marrying lutefisk. It’s a slippery slope.
First they served me haggis. And I said nothing.
Then they served me casu marzu. Still I said nothing.
Then they served me lutefisk.
The doctor says I should be able to get back on solid foods in a week or two.
See what happens when you don’t check your cis/bi-romantic privilege? Aromatics are not asexual.
That’s sort of my point, though. I’m not arguing that bisexual people have to hit the exact middle of the Kinsey scale: I’m arguing that if you don’t hit the furthest either end of the scale, it doesn’t automatically make you bisexual. I don’t like when “bisexual” is used as a homonym for “not exactly straight.” At least partially because I think there’s an uncomfortable symmetry with the old “One drop” rule in racial issues. Sort of a “One cock” rule: touch one cock that’s not yours, and you’re out of the Straight Person club for the rest of your life.
Not that I’m going to start interrogating people who identify as bisexual to make sure they’re up to snuff, of course. I’m not trying to police what labels people apply to themselves.
No, they’re a kind of potpourri.
You may be inferring a great deal more about his position than is justified by the arguments Ethilrist has been making here. It is, after all, possible to hold the position that there is no “wrong” choice to be made, and still feel unready to take the stand that choices do not exist.
“Alas,” you say.
Not me. While I might find the hexagonal cross-section aspect of it to be nice, I’m pretty sure that the ninety-degree bend near the end would be more trouble than it’s worth.
I think this is probably true. And also that the Kinsey scale has more than 3 numbers for a reason – we aren’t all gay, straight, or exactly in-between.
Dan Savage talks about “rounding to straight”. If you are mostly attracted to the opposite sex, but could possibly be interested in a person of the same sex in the right circumstances, but those circumstances have (almost) never come up, then you will likely round yourself to straight, partly for social/stigma reasons, partly because it’s sort of simpler.
That’s my personal experience. In general, I find men more sexually attractive than women. I have only dated men. But I believe that if I lived in a society where I would be socially stigmatized if I dated men, and in a world where I had to pursue women to marry and have natural children, that I would have been able to find a nice girl that I was attracted enough to, and settled down with her. I gather not everyone feels that way, but I suspect a lot of straight people do.
And to argue honestly with people who are terrified that accepting gays means more people will become gay, I think you have to admit this. Yes, there are some people who are the flip-side of me. They are mostly gay, but could probably live a heterosexual life reasonably happily if society strongly directs them to. Some of those people will choose to be gay if there’s no stigma and no social pressure. Yes, there are people who have a choice, and some will make a different choice depending on social mores.
Now, I don’t much care who my neighbor marries, and there seem the be plenty of people who are happy to breed the next generation. So I’m okay if more people choose to be gay – I think that’s a much better outcome than making the “obligate gays” miserable. But I do think some people will make that choice.
Time to update this thread.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=878345
Amen.
I don’t often click on a thread while saying “Let’s see how fast this jackass gets his ass handed to him”, but when I do…
Oh, and this one has a bonus: an epic derailment by a guy who might be gay, might be autistic or just Buddhist, but certainly confused. Confused enough to keep blathering after the mods ask him to “take it outside”…
See, there is no mod–mods are just an illusion. And even if there were mods, they couldn’t tell the Universe what to do.
“First, there is a mod
Then there is no mod
Then there is.”
I think I’m going to throw myself a Ravenman pride parade for this post. It is an accomplishment of some measure, so I’m sure the bigot in question will be okay with that.