[ShepherdsDog]

Ryan Seacrest??

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

I've never heard of a gay hetero.

Bigot. That's discriminatory against gay heterosexuals!

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Ryan Seacrest??

[peck420]

Brenda Brenda:

I've never heard of a gay hetero.

Now you are bringing non-citizens into the mix, which is a whole other can of worms.

Point is, a particular group should not have to add different documents to a legal procedure than another group, based on sexual orientation, race or religion.

So...aside from my brain fart, are you upset that I showed you that that particular LBGT sticking point is a myth, with well established circumvention methods...or that I used myself as a roundabout example for it?

I am all for equal rights, but I am also for complete political and legal honesty (yes, yes, I know...don't worry, the shit I smoke is that good ).

I just happen to prefer the honesty more as it affects all of us, not just 2-5% of us.

[Brenda]

peck420 peck420:

Brenda Brenda:

I've never heard of a gay hetero.

Now you are bringing non-citizens into the mix, which is a whole other can of worms.

Point is, a particular group should not have to add different documents to a legal procedure than another group, based on sexual orientation, race or religion.

So...aside from my brain fart, are you upset that I showed you that that particular LBGT sticking point is a myth, with well established circumvention methods...or that I used myself as a roundabout example for it?

Having to pay $363,000 in estate taxes because your same sex spouse died while your neighbour, who signed the same contract, but her spouse is of the opposite sex is a myth?
WHY would there be a difference? You claim that they should just add another contract to that contract, but WHY should they?

$1:

I am all for equal rights, but I am also for complete political and legal honesty (yes, yes, I know...don't worry, the shit I smoke is that good ).

Not every straight couple wants to marry either. It is all about choice. Everyone should be able to make the same choice.

$1:

I just happen to prefer the honesty more as it affects all of us, not just 2-5% of us.

I don't understand where your 'legal honesty' comes from. Equal right is honest, imho.
Why do you care if it does not affect you? Why would you want to keep others from being able to have what you have with one signature?

[peck420]

Brenda Brenda:

Having to pay $363,000 in estate taxes because your same sex spouse died while your neighbour, who signed the same contract, but her spouse is of the opposite sex is a myth?
WHY would there be a difference? You claim that they should just add another contract to that contract, but WHY should they?

That is what they force multitudes of straight couples to do...right now. As it stands right now, I don't actually exist as a spouse (pertaining to benefits, inheirantence, etc) to my wife as I am not American.

$1:

Not every straight couple wants to marry either. It is all about choice. Everyone should be able to make the same choice.

If they don't want to get married then they really don't belong in a debate about marital benefits and rights...?

$1:

I don't understand where your 'legal honesty' comes from. Equal right is honest, imho.

Legal honesty and equality are two separate animals. Legal honesty is representing the law in a direct and honest manner that includes all the laws pertaining to your circumstance. Equality is about...equality.

So, LBGT asking for equality...no problem, you don't got it, go for it.

LBGT making dubious claims about what they can and can't do based on their definitions of certain legal mechanisms, while completely ignoring the legal mechanisms that are currently in place to handle those discrepancies...not legally honest.

$1:

Why do you care if it does not affect you?

It does affect me. By fortune or misfortune, my wife's family immigrated to the US before portions immigrated to Canada. She still has family in the US, and holds dual citizenship. I have far, far fewer rights in my straight marriage then any LBGT US citizen that can get a civil certificate has.

$1:

Why would you want to keep others from being able to have what you have with one signature?

One signature? The only thing that signature grants me (in the US) is the title as my wife's spouse. As a non-citizen (with no intention of becoming a citizen), married to a citizen, everything else is covered by separate legal documents. Keep in mind that this only occurs in the US. In any other country we are just two married Canucks and treated as such.

Thankfully, the only major thing we have to deal with in the US is potential inheirantence issues. Everything else comes back to Canada (health coverage, she has no personal benefits in the US, etc), where we have full rights as spouses.

[Brenda]

peck420 peck420:

Brenda Brenda:

Having to pay $363,000 in estate taxes because your same sex spouse died while your neighbour, who signed the same contract, but her spouse is of the opposite sex is a myth?
WHY would there be a difference? You claim that they should just add another contract to that contract, but WHY should they?

That is what they force multitudes of straight couples to do...right now. As it stands right now, I don't actually exist as a spouse (pertaining to benefits, inheirantence, etc) to my wife as I am not American.

You can solve that problem by becoming American. A gay person can not just become straight. See the difference?

$1:

$1:

Not every straight couple wants to marry either. It is all about choice. Everyone should be able to make the same choice.

If they don't want to get married then they really don't belong in a debate about marital benefits and rights...?

What?

$1:

$1:

I don't understand where your 'legal honesty' comes from. Equal right is honest, imho.

Legal honesty and equality are two separate animals. Legal honesty is representing the law in a direct and honest manner that includes all the laws pertaining to your circumstance. Equality is about...equality.

I really do not get your point here. This thing IS about marriage equality for all American citizens.

$1:

It does affect me. By fortune or misfortune, my wife's family immigrated to the US before portions immigrated to Canada. She still has family in the US, and holds dual citizenship. I have far, far fewer rights in my straight marriage then any LBGT US citizen that can get a civil certificate has.

This is not about immigration laws. That is a whole different can of worms, like I said. Become a citizen. Simple solution. You can become a dual citizen, I can't here in Canada.

Just for the record, do you reside in Canada or in the US?

$1:

$1:

Why would you want to keep others from being able to have what you have with one signature?

One signature? The only thing that signature grants me (in the US) is the title as my wife's spouse. As a non-citizen (with no intention of becoming a citizen), married to a citizen, everything else is covered by separate legal documents. Keep in mind that this only occurs in the US. In any other country we are just two married Canucks and treated as such.

Thankfully, the only major thing we have to deal with in the US is potential inheirantence issues. Everything else comes back to Canada (health coverage, she has no personal benefits in the US, etc), where we have full rights as spouses.

You CHOOSE not to become a citizen. That is your choice. You can. Then your problem will be solved. Therefore, your argument is invalid and has nothing to do with equality, but with your CHOICE.

[CanadianJeff]

Stratos I frankly think your points as so badly worded and strung out that I'm not even quite sure what point your trying to make here. Sorry I'm just really not sure how to respond because it's difficult to even tell what your trying to say.

[westmanguy]

Well,

On a lighter note. This means I have another path to U.S. citizenship if my far-fetched fantasy of marrying an American guy, getting citizenship, and moving to Washington, D.C. ever happens (Spent last summer there as an intern and have an incredible drive to get back to the Beltway someday).

That's why DOMA has always been of particular interest to me. It effects immigration too. Just yesterday, after the SCOTUS ruling a NY state judge issued an injuncture stopping the deportation of a same-sex spouse. The American husband couldn't sponsor his husband (as legally married in the state of NY) because the federal government, which governs immigration, didn't recognize their marriage.

So this has an INCREDIBLE impact on thousands of American/foreign-national couples to sponsoring their partners for legal status and citizenship.

Yes -- another Republican nightmare. On top of the "amnesty" for those damn Democratic-voting Latinos, there will be now more gays flocking to U.S. shores! (/sarcasm)

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

A gay person can not just become straight.

I'm curious: Why not?

Gays argue that straight people can turn gay all the time. Why can't a gay person go straight?

Are gays like muslims in that once you convert they never let you go?

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

A gay person can not just become straight.

I'm curious: Why not?

Gays argue that straight people can turn gay all the time. Why can't a gay person go straight?

Are gays like muslims in that once you convert they never let you go?

I personally have never heard a gay person argue that a straight person can turn gay in a serious manner.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

I personally have never heard a gay person argue that a straight person can turn gay in a serious manner.

I, on the other hand, have it on good authority that straight guys need to be careful around gay guys or else they'll get sucked in.

[Xort]

Could someone explain the logic that this statement:

$1:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Means that homosexuals can not be denied federal benefits.

I don't see how those are connected.

[westmanguy]

Sigh...

There's a difference between jokes/comments made in jest and legitimate comments. You, perhaps, have a different take on it, but I (and most people I know, my age, tend to have the same view) view sexuality as more of a [i]spectrum[/] that is more fluid than static.

That does not mean that people's sexual orientation can or does change dramatically in their lifetime. It just means people are not cookie cutter "100% straight", "100% gay", "100% bi--or rather 50% each" in their sexualities. Look up Kinsey. The idea is similar to the left-centre-right political spectrum.

Some individuals might be solidly heterosexual or homosexual in their gender attractions. Others can be more towards the middle. I know guys, who for society's need to label and box consider themselves "straight" but are what I think of as more "bi-curious". At the end of the day women do it for them the most, but they're open to same-sex experiences and have genuine interest/curiosity in it.

Gay guys deserve some blame on this file too. Bisexuality and bi-curious tendencies are legitimate. Someone who says they are bi, does not have to be in the "stepping stone stage" and just too afraid to make the full leap to being gay. Given, in my own experience most guys I've known to be bi, have ended up making the leap to being gay.

I, myself, am probably 80-90% gay. Women's bodies do not repulse me and I actually have a genuine curiosity about the female upper body (hah). Whenever I'm inebriated with friends I tend to get touchy feeling with girls in the upper half. But the "downstairs" is not of any interest to me and likely never will be. I can't change that.

And, besides, if you suggest gay people can turn straight, then are you willing to admit, that if you wanted to, you could turn yourself towards same-sex attraction? Because that ability to "change" would have to go both ways.

So of course gay guys dream about seducing the "straight" guy all the time. Its a huge fantasy for a lot of gay guys. Its because we spend years of our life in the closet pretending to be straight. And given the natural demographics that fewer than 15% of men are gay/bi, the chance that some guy we find hot is straight, is pretty damn high.

(On a side note...take the gay porn industry...multi-billion dollar venture and a HUGE subset of the videos are 'straight' fantasies which I'd guess make up over 1/3rd of the industry. Guys want to see other guys who appear/seem straight in the films)

There are lots of stories about experiences where two friends - one gay and one supposedly "straight" - have a history of fooling around. I've heard these stories from a lot of gay friends. I think the other friend can legitimately be straight, but are more fluid on the Kinsey scale in that they're probably more 65% straight and have a serious curiosity about their same-sex they want to fool around with. But just because they fooled around with guys and enjoyed it doesn't mean they don't find opposite-sex relations "better" in the sense they are more satisfying sexually. People can enjoy sex with either gender and have a preference towards one set of relations being superior for their own tastes.

In my own characterization I qualify a guy as "definitely not straight" on the giving/receiving thing. If a guy is fooling around with another guy and is dominant in all/most roles they are likely just bicurious and not necessarily gay. But if they're more submissive and doing most of the "work" then there is no way on earth that guy is straight. Could be bi. But not straight.

Any guy that enjoys and wants to perform oral sex on another guy, isn't a raging 100% heterosexual and they have same-sex attractions there whether they can admit it to themselves or not (which means they're not at the 100% straight side of the spectrum).

[westmanguy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

I personally have never heard a gay person argue that a straight person can turn gay in a serious manner.

I, on the other hand, have it on good authority that straight guys need to be careful around gay guys or else they'll get sucked in.

Haha, even in my drunkest moment, I have enough common sense to never violate a guy's private space and "make a move".

Anybody who is stupid enough to make a move on a guy that by all degrees is straight and has made no indications or signs of interest is bloody asking for a nosebleed.

I assume you're talking more about the situation where a dude could be sleeping and then awoken from an undesired friend doing something...that is incredibly stupid/idiotic. Its different though then if a guy hits on a guy at the bar. Any self-assured straight guy takes that as a compliment, and says "no thanks though" and moves on. In Vancouver I know straight guys who hit up gay clubs every other weekend to get themselves free drinks from other guys and just enjoy the music. They tag the gay guys along and then leave at night.