Your confused , I know more about your sexuality than you do

Merinda · Post by **Merinda** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:26 pm

Hi ladies ,

I honestly cant believe how narrow minded the general population is , I refer to the subject of sexuality , it appears that if you dont do the same as us then you must be from the other side.
I dont know how many times I've heard someone say --

" Gay ! , well obviously he's Gay , I've never seen him with a women".

or " I dont believe a word , your Gay , you just dont realize".

To my knowledge , Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to someone of the same gender , in practice or thought.

But according to the general population, you are Homosexual if --

-- you're A-sexual
-- you're ugly and no one from the opposite sex wants you
-- you're a nerd and no one from the opposite sex wants you
-- you've been in a number of bad relationships and decided to go it alone
-- You speak in a flamboyant tone
-- you take an interest in a feminine hobby eg: sewing
-- you shave your body hair
-- your nails are too long
-- your hair is long and styled
-- you look like a village person

-- oh yes , I nearly forgot , dressing in womens clothing

I am a supporter of Gay rights , Gay marriage and fully accept homosexuality as part of humanity , but I am intollerant to the misuse and / or abuse of the label.

Post by **KimberlyS** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:17 pm

A very thought provoking post Merinda. The only thing I real disagree with you on is gay marriage. And only because the word Marriage is a religion term with a definition of man and woman. I agree gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Call it what ever type of relationship you want, civil union is a common term. But you want more people to accept it especially the religious, we need to use a different term. Of course some of the religious would not accept it in anyway. But they will also fight the fact that there are references to gay people in the bible and they were part of society.

kim
joe in a skirt

Leeza · Post by **Leeza** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:01 pm

I believe that I got hung by my thumbnails on this subject once before but here I go again.

KimberlyS wrote

The only thing I real disagree with you on is gay marriage. And only because the word Marriage is a religion term with a definition of man and woman.

I agree with Kim on this and the rest of her post. I think there would be less hostility towards gay unions if the word marriage was not used. I also think that gays in a union should have the same rights as a married hetro couple.

On a lighter note, I believe the old meaning of "gay" was "fun loveing or fun to be around" or as we might phrase it today "the life of the party".

Leeza

Merinda · Post by **Merinda** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:57 pm

Leeza & Kimberly ,

I wont hang you for your opinions ,

In relation to the use of the word "Marriage" to describe a legal gay union , it may not be the best term , I probably should have said that I support legal gay unions.
However the point of this post is to point out that people will judge your sexuality based on " just being outside the stereotypical so-called normal".

Just because someone has not had a relatioship with the opposite sex doesn't mean they're homosexual , you may well suspect , but you should keep an open mind unless proper evidence surfaces.

Myself one time being so-accused because I was not in a relationship over many years , I then declare that I am not gay and they then argue that I must be because I dont have a relationship with the opposite sex.
By what definition do they think they know more about my sexuality than do ?
The reason for no relationship at the time was simple rejection , I cant start a relationship if the opposite sex wont come to the party.
They said I was talking s--- and they said the real reason I couldnt get a woman was because I was interested in men .

What a shock it must to people from my past when they discover I am married , they probably think its a marriage of convenience or something equally ridiculously false.

Leeza · Post by **Leeza** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:32 am

Thank you, Merinda, my thumbs were starting to hurt just thinking about it.

If you ever figure out what "normal" is would yo let me know. I have been looking for the "normal" person most of my life although I realy don't want to find them.

I think most people who appear normal may be in that range of normal in some areas just to be outside of the normal range in others. Even though I am trying to throw a little hummor at it, I do know what you mean.

Often I am reminded of the circumstances around the scripture where Jesus sayes, "Let you who are without sin throw the first stone." Those who are makeing the accusations are usually hideing something in their lives that is far worse.

Maybe when they call us gay for being different they are just trying to divert attention away from themselves and the things they are trying to hide.

I am getting too serious for just haveing one cup of coffee so I will shut up for at least the next 30 seconds.

Leeza

Absaroka · Post by **Absaroka** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:14 am

Merinda thank you for clearing that up. I always wondered what being gay meant. When I was a kid the word was queer and among other things if you wouldn't let someone copy your homework you were queer. I'm relieved to know that as long as I have masculine hobbies that I am not queer even if people didn't copy my homework.

To further confuse things of course there are all the gay people in heterosexual relationships.

Remember the poster from the early 70's? It said "the army gave men mdeals for killing many men and a dishonorable discharge for loving one"

Absaroka

Merinda · Post by **Merinda** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:24 pm

Leeza wrote:
If you ever figure out what "normal" is would yo let me know.

Thats easy Leeza

A normal person has no mind of his/her own , they do what others do , they have no individuality , they wear the clothing styles of the majority , they dont see any argument as having any grey areas its either black or white , they follow the trends of the majority and anything out of that boundary is taboo , a normal person is quite often a hypocrite.

One of our sisters used the term "herd mentality" as a description on this forum a few years back , I think that says it all.

Post by **DonnaT** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:31 pm

KimberlyS wrote:Marriage is a religion term with a definition of man and woman.

If marriage is a religious term, then atheist shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Nor should marriages be performed by anyone other than an ordained preacher/minister of the cloth. No JP, no judge, no ships captain, etc.

Additionally, the government should not be involved in any way with marriage, including the issue of a license.

Also, if a religion sanctifies marriage between same sex couples, should any other religion's definition of marriage have authority over that religion's definition? Should the government be have authority to deny the marriage?

Leeza · Post by **Leeza** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:52 pm

Merinda wrote

A normal person has no mind of his/her own

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I is smart. I know I is smart - my head hurtzzzzz. lol

Donna wrote

Additionally, the government should not be involved in any way with marriage, including the issue of a license.

I will agree with you on that one. I guess my problem is with changing the meaning of words at what point do we wonder what is is?

Leeza

Virginia · Post by **Virginia** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:36 pm

Someone could be sentenced to hell for even considering removing a possible source of revenue from "the government." A marriage license gives the government not only another way to separate us from our money but gives them more fingers into our privacy - but I digress.

There are many and varied adages that can be used, to describe this "trip around the sun" that we all take. Some of us end up taking it with a variety of souls at various times during our life for many and varied reasons and some of us find that one "soul-mate" to take the trip with and some never really find anyone. It is my considered opinion that if one is fortunate enough to find someone that is willing to hold hands with you and step out into that vast unknown, then you are indeed a very fortunate traveller. Who care what your sex/gender is or what the sex/gender is of you fellow traveller? Just to have someone beside you as you take you shot at this - that -- THAT is the true blessing!!!!!! and the devil be damned!

Virginia

April Rose · Post by **April Rose** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:02 pm

I was married some thirty years ago by a justice of the peace. Does that mean my marriage is invalid? I suggest that it is not, because I love my wife. In a legal sense all marriages are civil unions because they offer certain legal protections to cohabiting couples,and rights of parenthood and inheritance. If two people of the opposite or the same sex join together for these legal reasons, it's a civil union.If they love each other it's a marriage.

SilverLady(SO) · Post by **SilverLady(SO)** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:11 pm

April Rose wrote:In a legal sense all marriages are civil unions because they offer certain legal protections to cohabiting couples,and rights of parenthood and inheritance. If two people of the opposite or the same sex join together for these legal reasons, it's a civil union. If they love each other it's a marriage. - - Emphasis added by SL

Amen!!

- SL

Aeryn · Post by **Aeryn** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:09 pm

KimberlyS wrote:Marriage is a religion term with a definition of man and woman.

Pretty sure Buddhism and maybe Taoism don't define marriage as between man and woman and they are religions. I think you meant Judism/Christian religion...

Post by **KimberlyS** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 pm

I can not disagree with you there Aeryn.

kim

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:31 am

DonnaT wrote:
KimberlyS wrote:Marriage is a religion term with a definition of man and woman.
If marriage is a religious term, then atheist shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Nor should marriages be performed by anyone other than an ordained preacher/minister of the cloth. No JP, no judge, no ships captain, etc.

Additionally, the government should not be involved in any way with marriage, including the issue of a license.

Also, if a religion sanctifies marriage between same sex couples, should any other religion's definition of marriage have authority over that religion's definition? Should the government be have authority to deny the marriage?

I agree with all of that and would like to add that marriage predated all the major religions and exists not only under every religion, but also under those with no beliefs at all.

This idea that religion controls the union of couple's is simply not true. They did not invent the idea and they are not entitled to say who can and can not marry. No one should be able to tell anyone else who they can love and share their life with. This is a private and personal choice and no has the right to interfere, IMHO.

Love always,
Elizabeth