'Why would you not get with someone else?' Well, people fake orgasms for many reasons... and sex isn't everything. I'm a man and I've faked it(lol) because it was simply not going to happen, I was exhausted and the other person wasn't that great in getting the job done.

You're gay(or bisexual) if you are attracted to your same sex. Simple. Having a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex DOES NOT make you gay. I don't know what's so complicated about that. For instance if I had a threesome and there was a man involved, I'm primarily going to be enjoying the woman. How does that make me gay or bi because there was contact with a man? Or if I went into a completely dark room and never saw the person who got me off... it could have been someone of either sex... so the act is asexual however it is the thought or preference that defines your sexuality.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

Why is it always framed as being GAY that is or isn't genetic? The genetics of heterosexuality are never questioned. I'm sure what you meant was "I don't think sexuality is genetic." My point is that this topic is always framed in such a way that heterosexuality is the healthy default, and homosexuality the aberration. Instead of people saying "being gay is a choice", they should be saying "all sexuality is a choice." This will never happen, because most of the 'choice' crowd can't think this far ahead to realise their own argument makes all living people constant bisexuals in flux.

Let's not mince (HAH!) words here. I think your definition of "choice" isn't choice at all. It's a collection of environmental experiences that shape behaviour. There is no overarching conscious decision making process across those shaping experiences. The idea that such experiences can impact on sexuality might be controversial but it isn't unthinkable -- however, to call it "choice" is erroneous.

Finally, your own argument about handedness isn't reassuring. Left handers die younger on average, so some 'leftophobes' could argue that we should abolish left-handedness to improve quality of life. What would you say to them?
>> ^NetRunner:

Personally, I don't think being gay is genetic. I know that's not what lefties are supposed to say, but I think on some level it's a formative choice, something on par with how you "decide" to be right- or left-handed.
In theory you could "cure" people from being left-handed, but it seems like it would be a somewhat pointless and ultimately self-hating exercise.
Being left handed doesn't hurt anyone, so why should we care which hand they use to write with? It just adds to the color and variety of our society.

Some of the things this homophobic homosexual has voted against:

SB 777 Normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality in public and private schools. Bans all teaching and activities that "promote a discriminatory bias against" these sexual orientations.

AB 1185 Would have codified existing legal protections for transgender people born in California which allows them to obtain a court order reflecting their correct gender and any accompanying name change.

SB 44 Affirms that same-sex couples married before Prop 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of where they were married and that couples married outside of California after Prop 8 must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of spouses under California law.

AB 43 Replaces state language on marriage of a "man and woman" to marriage of "two persons". Legalizes homosexual marriage.

AB 102 Changes the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, allowing one or both parties to indicate changes in their last names. Grants marriage license to domestic partners, including homosexuals.

AB 394 Requires the State Dept of Education to "monitor adherence" to AB 537, passed in 2000 which prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in public schools.

AB 629 Revamps state sexual education requirements, making it illegal to "reflect or promote bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality or transexuality in sex education. Prohibits teaching "religious doctrine" in sex education.

AB 2654 Adds to the special protections against "anti-homosexual discrimination" found in AB 14.

the list goes on and on and on

Were, perhaps (okay, definitely)...but Bowie abandoned the androgynous image long ago. Starting about the time Low was released, he was moving to a more "lounge lizard" look...much to my dismay when I managed to catch a concert around that time. I was very disappointed when he strolled out on stage, at least until he started singing.

Perhaps not surprisingly, by the time he termed his declaration of his bisexuality "the biggest mistake I ever made", he had pretty much abandoned the androgynous look altogether. Nowadays there's no trace left in his appearance (Bowie at the premiere of Moon).

I'm just glad that so many of his performances are available on film, because I rather miss Ziggy.

I'm not gay, I'm bisexual. I thought we cleared that the other night when you were groping my mantits, blankman (or do you still insist on calling you Pauline?)
anyway, folks, I hope you won't bore me to death. be there or be a rectangular thingy

what about bisexuality?

Regina Spektor breaks my heart

All power to gay/straight/bisexual love!!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Jesus is a bisexual polygamist.

I'm convinced that all women who don't admit it are secret bisexuals...unless they don't like men. Then they are just lesbians.

truly phenomenal and terrifying video. i'm just not sure how to process the last few minutes of my life.

"...rosie o'donnell at a bisexual bridal shower..."

It starts with baby-raping pedophile weasels, moves to bisexual birds with presumed parents, lesbian cloning lizards, 2g1c three horned rhino, elephants hung like whales, wine-fucking pigs, and it just keeps going. Thats what she said.

That white supremacist looks distictly gay/bisexual.

He reminds me of Howie Mandell.

>> ^SSIops:
So if a guy kissed her...would that make him bisexual?


only eskimo kisses.