you guys will hate me....

[Bitchslapper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zergplex Says

I can't really understand that sentiment. I have always had gays tell me I can't know how it feels to be gay because I can date women, and had straight people tell me that I'm not a part of them because I can date guys. Bisexuals may be looked a bit more favorably by society in general, but in reality bisexual seems to mean you can get shit on by BOTH sides. Everything gays hate about straights can be used against bisexuals, and vice versa. Everyone still seems hooked on the sterotype of bisexuals being people who want their cake and eat it too, when the only reason a few of us bisexual is to not limit our chances of finding the right person by eliminating a gender.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. Some straight people would say I'm "just another fag" and some gays would say I "don't have the courage to admit who I really am." Pfft, fuck that shit. I'm prefectly comfortable with who I am, and if someone doesn't like that, then that's thier problem, not mine.

 

[Queersetti]

Rather than address Cigan, Zergplex and MzChrista point by point, I will try to respond to the overall issue. I hope no one minds or feels slighted.

This board is different from most GLBT forums in which I have participated, in that the majority of the active participants are bisexuals, and in some ways, a bisexual focus predominates. In most GLBT forums, the agenda is primarily gay and lesbian driven, and bisexual issues take a lesser role. I regret that MzChrista feels that the board sometimes makes her feel like she should apologize for being gay, but I must admit, I understand where she is coming from. I have bitten my tongue many times while reading posts of the "we are all really bisexual" or "nobody should limit themselves to one gender" variety.

At the same time, I am sorry that Cigan feels condescended to by my assertion that gay identity is unique to those who are actually gay. I am puzzled by this, as most bisexuals I know insist that bisexuality is a distinct orientation, and not simply a matter of being "half straight and half gay". If bisexuals are neither gays in denial nor straights on a fling, but a distinct category, then I don't understand why recognizing that being gay is something distinct would offend anyone.

I recognize that there is a great deal of gradation in human sexuality, but I believe that at either end of the scale, the categories of straight and gay exist as ontological categories. If others disagree with me, I think that could lead to a very interesting discussion. But if "gay" and "bisexual" define two distinctly different types of people, then it seems to me that it is incumbent on us to recognize that no matter how much we like, empathize or attempt to understand each other, no complete understanding or empathy is possible, at a core level. Nobody who is not gay will ever fully understand what it is like to be gay, whether they engage in same sex activities or relationships or not. At the same time, gays can not ever totally understand what it means to be bisexual, no matter how much we might empathize with our bi friends.

To bring it all back to the particular issue under discussion on this thread, I think that this is one of those issues where semantics creates a problem. The issue is not "gay marriage" but "same sex marriage". Bisexual couple of the same sex are just as effected by this issue as are gay couples, and more so than gays who have no intention to marry. Those of us who are gay ought to keep that in mind.

At the same time, I would ask that bisexuals keep in mind that there is always going to be sensitivity among gays to the possibility that many bis will abandon any stance of solidarity with us if maintaining it becomes too personally dangerous. That attitude may underline the bristling from some gays when bis take a position on GLBT issues that differs from their own.

I hope we can all see each other here as individuals and not merely exemplars of whatever categories we might most closely fit into. Let's all assume good will on each other's parts while we discuss these very emotional issues.

 

[Queersetti]

I think you're refering to polyandry, rather than polygamy. Oh, and thanks for apologizing to me for misconstruing something I said...oh wait, you didn't do that. Never mind then.

Polyandry specifically refers to having more than one husband, polygamy can mean either. The specific term for having multiple wives is polygyny.

Poly means many. -andry denotes maleness, -gyny femaleness. -gamy denotes marriage (as in bigamy, monogamy, etc.)

 

[Bitchslapper]

At the same time, I would ask that bisexuals keep in mind that there is always going to be sensitivity among gays to the possibility that many bis will abandon any stance of solidarity with us if maintaining it becomes too personally dangerous. That attitude may underline the bristling from some gays when bis take a position on GLBT issues that differs from their own.

Isn't it unfair though for gays to accept bisexual people to automatically be on thier side? That's no more fair then straight people expecting the same thing, isn't it?

As someone who considers himself to be bi, I would prefer not to be drawn into the issue if too many people insist on treating it as a confrontation.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Polyandry specifically refers to having more than one husband, polygamy can mean either. The specific term for having multiple wives is polygyny.

Poly means many. -andry denotes maleness, -gyny femaleness. -gamy denotes marriage (as in bigamy, monogamy, etc.)

I'd like to know what "dictionary" you got that from.

 

[Queersetti]

Isn't it unfair though for gays to accept bisexual people to automatically be on thier side? That's no more fair then straight people expecting the same thing, isn't it?

As someone who considers himself to be bi, I would prefer not to be drawn into the issue if too many people insist on treating it as a confrontation.

That's a very good point. The idea that there is a natural alliance between gays and bis is entirely culture specific. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in some instances, bis would more naturally align themselves with straights than with gays.

 

[Bitchslapper]

That's a very good point. The idea that there is a natural alliance between gays and bis is entirely culture specific. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in some instances, bis would more naturally align themselves with straights than with gays.

Well, aside from the fact that assumptions rarely have a logical leg to stand on, why assume that bis would necessarily have "alliegance" with either party?

 

[Queersetti]

I'd like to know what "dictionary" you got that from.

And you accuse me of trying to pick fights with you?

 

[Queersetti]

Well, aside from the fact that assumptions rarely have a logical leg to stand on, why assume that bis would necessarily have "alliegance" with either party?

Who assumed they did?

 

[Bitchslapper]

And you accuse me of trying to pick fights with you?

Yes I did. So what? Do you want to answer the question now or do you have some problem with quoting your sources?

 

[Bitchslapper]

Who assumed they did?

You did obviously.

 

[Queersetti]

Yes I did. So what? Do you want to answer the question now or do you have some problem with quoting your sources?

I have no "sources" unless you count a college education. Look the words up yourself if you think I am wrong.

 

[Queersetti]

You did obviously.

Do you want to have a serious conversation, or do you want to continue to act like an ass?

As I said, "the idea that there is a natural alliance between gays and bis is entirely culture specific."

 

[Bitchslapper]

Well, let's see. You continue to insult me, then you accuse me of not wanting to have a serious discussion...does anyone else see a problem with that?

I tend not to accept "facts" that come out of thin air. If that means I don't want to have a serious discussion, so be it. But the fact remains, the only things you say to me are insults.

 

[Queersetti]

Well, let's see. You continue to insult me, then you accuse me of not wanting to have a serious discussion...does anyone else see a problem with that?

I tend not to accept "facts" that come out of thin air. If that means I don't want to have a serious discussion, so be it. But the fact remains, the only things you say to me are insults.

That's not so. I corrected a misstatement you made in a completely dispassionate and nonjudgmental way, and it caused you to have a hissy fit.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I've never had a "hissy fit" and your "correction" was incorrect (and unsupported) and would never have been made if you did not hate me. Can you not make a single post without saying something negative towards me?

 

[Queersetti]

Here you go, shithead. From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time

Main Entry: poly·an·dry
Pronunciation: 'pä-lE-"an-drE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek polyandros, adjective, having many husbands, from poly- + andr-, anEr man, husband

Main Entry: po·lyg·y·ny
Pronunciation: -nE
Function: noun
: the state or practice of having more than one wife or female mate at one time

 

[Bitchslapper]

I'll take that as a No.

 

[Queersetti]

I'll take that as a No.

I'll treat you with respect when you earn some.

If you had an iota of class, you would acknowledge that I was right, and that, as usual, you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Yeah, you were right, but I already admitted that when I ceased to dispute it. You should've been glad to be able to move on and gratified by the mere fact that you were correct. Instead (as I have pointed out before) you'd rather pick a fight.

However, just because I have different opinions does not mean I "don't know what I'm talking about." And being a moderator does not give you the right to control or censor my statements if they are within the bounds of the rules otherwise (as they have been).

You, however, have not followed those rules.

As far as respect, I am surprised you think I expect any from you, other than refraining from insulting me at every turn. I'd like you to explain how calling me a shithead is a sign of class.

I'm fighting the urge to call you an arrogant fascist, but that would bring me down to your level wouldn't it?

 

[Queersetti]

Yeah, you were right, but I already admitted that when I ceased to dispute it. You should've been glad to be able to move on and gratified by the mere fact that you were correct. Instead (as I have pointed out before) you'd rather pick a fight.

However, just because I have different opinions does not mean I "don't know what I'm talking about." And being a moderator does not give you the right to control or censor my statements if they are within the bounds of the rules otherwise (as they have been).

You, however, have not followed those rules.

As far as respect, I am surprised you think I expect any from you, other than refraining from insulting me at every turn. I'd like you to explain how calling me a shithead is a sign of class.

I'm fighting the urge to call you an arrogant fascist, but that would bring me down to your level wouldn't it?

I have done nothing that in any way controls or censors you on this forum. It is unconscionable that you imply that I have.

If you wish to accuse me of abusing my position as moderator, I suggest that you PM Laurel and lodge a complaint.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Oooh, I'm scaaared!!! He's calling me out, oooh I'm quakin' in my boots! (BTW, I was just being sarcastic there)

Congratulations, you've just joined the I Like To Twist Bitchslapper's Words Just For Fun club. Your card will arrive in 6-8 weeks.

 

[Queersetti]

Oooh, I'm scaaared!!! He's calling me out, oooh I'm quakin' in my boots! (BTW, I was just being sarcastic there)

Congratulations, you've just joined the I Like To Twist Bitchslapper's Words Just For Fun club. Your card will arrive in 6-8 weeks.

That club seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, doesn't it?

If it was just me, I would seriously question whether or not I was being unfair to you, but you've had similar problems with how many other posters here? You really ought to consider whether or not you think it's all about everyone else being mean to you and examine your own part in fostering the negative reactions you receive.

 

[Bitchslapper]

That club seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, doesn't it?

If it was just me, I would seriously question whether or not I was being unfair to you, but you've had similar problems with how many other posters here? You really ought to consider whether or not you think it's all about everyone else being mean to you and examine your own part in fostering the negative reactions you receive.

But it's not you, is it? You see, as much as you'd like to believe it, not everything revolves around you or what you think just because you're a moderator.

Last time I checked, that club was about 4 strong including you, so I don't really think that's call for concern, considering that there are, what, several hundred members here and several dozen active posters?

 

[Netzach]

Actually in some states the civil union legislation does account for straight people. I'm not entirely sure how it works. I think it mostly has to do with people who are devoted to each other, but do not necesserily want to be bound for life. I think mostly it's decided based on personal reasons within couples. But I know there is infrastructure for it in some places. Though not many.

I want to be bound for life and shed the stupid religious dated heteronormative fucking idiocy, and make it my own.

I hate that my girls B and R are not able to just draw up a quick prenup, get hitched, everything has ramifications and decisions. Apparently they knew some girls who ran off to Vermont and got legally married and it didn't work, and getting UN married is like 9000 times more complex than if they were het....they have to live in the state for 2 years to file, so it's f-d up.