What about BiSexuals ... and Marriage ??? [Archive] - Born American

Thawts

02-24-2004, 02:59 PM

If life is all about personal happiness ... sexual fulfillment ...

and for homos that requires 'marriage' ...

then, what about bi -sexuals?

Two homos 'hook up' ... one is secretly BI.
Shouldn't he be allowed a woman once in a while? for his personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for his sexual fulfillment’s sake ???
Would you have him sneak around ... suffer GUILT ???
Would you have him 'cheat' on his 'spouse' ???
If his 'spouse' agreed, would you allow all three to 'marry' each other ???

Two female homos (lesbians) 'hook up' ... one is secretly BI.
Shouldn't she be allowed a man once in a while? for her personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for her sexual fulfillment’s sake ???
Would you have her sneak around ... suffer GUILT ???
Would you have her 'cheat' on her 'spouse' ???
If her 'spouse' agreed, would you allow all three to 'marry' each other ???

A man (secretly BI) and a woman (also, secretly BI) get married.

Shouldn't the man be allowed a woman once in a while? for his personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for his sexual fulfillment’s sake ???
Would you have him sneak around ... suffer GUILT ???
Would you have him 'cheat' on his 'spouse' ???
If his 'spouse' agreed, would you allow all three to 'marry' each other ???

Shouldn't the woman be allowed a man once in a while? for her personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for her sexual fulfillment’s sake ???
Would you have her sneak around ... suffer GUILT ???
Would you have her 'cheat' on her 'spouse' ???
If her 'spouse' agreed, would you allow all three to 'marry' each other ???

If both 'spouses' agreed, would you allow all FOUR to 'marry' each other ???

What if one of the men is 'in love with' TWO women ???
... and all five agree ... would you allow all FIVE to 'marry' each other ???
for his personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for his sexual fulfillment’s sake ???

What if one is a pedo? ... would you allow a CHILD in the 'marriage'?
for their personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for their sexual fulfillment’s sake ???

What if one is a beasty? ... would you allow their PET in the 'marriage'?
for their personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for their sexual fulfillment’s sake ???

WHERE DOES IT END ??? !!!!!

MARRIAGE is a union of, and a commitment between, ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, before God and mankind, for the purpose of having and raising their own children, as the BASIC unit of civilized society !!!

champion

03-02-2004, 11:57 AM

Well, how about this novel idea - work it out before getting married. I don't know what kind of communication you expect from that kind of relationship, but I wouldn't consider being 'secretly' anything a productive part of any relationship.
Furthermore, those who believe a marriage should only be a man and a woman can continue believeing that and living in accordance with that, just like those who don't 'believe' in interfaith, interracial, or other kinds of marriages can continue believeing that. Hey, I don't believe marriage should turned into a game show, but there it is, and I have no right to demand that others believe the same thing. I'm not too big on 70 year olds marrying 18 year olds either - doesn't mean I or anyone else can stop it though.

Thawts

03-02-2004, 12:18 PM

SOOOooo...

If the 'spouse' of a BiSexual agreed, you would allow all three to 'marry' each other ???

If both 'spouses' of both BiSexuals (married to each other) agreed, you would allow all four to 'marry' each other ???

... you know ... for their personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for their sexual fulfillment’s sake ???

champion

03-02-2004, 02:38 PM

Perhaps the question that really needs to be answered here is why you're so concerned with other's sex lives?

Thawts

03-02-2004, 11:15 PM

In a word ... AIDS! ... to use multiple words ... the wrath of God upon my kids and grandkids ... upon USA ... the world.

Originally posted by bluespacething
homosexuals don't want to marry people of the opposite sex,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine we me ! ... Don't ! ... That's their free will choice.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bluespacething they choose people of the same sex...why deny them the right to marry?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the same reason that:
I cannot be a PILOT of a train ... that is an ENGINEER !
I cannot be a CATCHER in the NHL … that is a GOALIE!
I cannot call 1 shoe a PAIR ... a PAIR is TWO !
I cannot SWIM to a mountain top ... SWIM is moving through WATER !
I cannot BURN water ... to BURN is to oxidize, Water is already oxidized (hydrogen).
To MARRY one of the SAME sex, makes NO sense !
MARRIAGE is between one MAN and one WOMAN !

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bluespacething
What personal harm does it do to you Curt, that you don't want a homosexual to marry another homoesexual? Other than perhaps offending you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does much more than offend me. It shakes my very foundation !
I'm trying to play this game of life, the very best way I know how, and you are changing all the rules ... midstream !
What is up, and what is down? ... where is the goal? ... what is good and what is evil?
What is the meaning of the word IS ???

This is not about me. I am sure. I am ready to leave this world.

This is about my next generation and following generations.
It is about our nation and the world.
=========================================================================
Marriage, as one man and one woman, is about far, far more than me. It is honored by Christians, Jews and Muslims, the world over, and has been since recorded history!

For all of recorded history, up until 50 or so years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness!
Would you think a person was 'right', if they stuffed food in their EAR until they starve to death?
Would you think a person was 'right', if they ate turds, like bananas!
Mankind learned centuries ago, that we must dispose of human waste properly, because of rampant spread of all kinds of diseases.
Would you think a person was 'right', if they submersed any part of their body in human feces?

=========================================================================

It is about much more than "somewhere some people are having buttsex".

I have raised several children. It is incredibly difficult to keep them away from 'stuff' that others keep telling them is OK.
Most agree that a child and his rearing, is much better if mom and dad teach the same stuff.
If not, confusion and self justification ensues. God does not give a spirit of confusion, but of a sound mind.
Imagine if every home, city, state is teaching something different.

That's what erks me so much, about 'diversity' being USA strength. USA strength was UNITY!
Focusing on our sameness, rather than our differences.

We should be celebrating our Americanism! NOT our 'something dash Americanism'!

champion

03-03-2004, 12:59 PM

Thawts, you obviously have some issues. You don't want same-sex marriage occur. Fine. Don't marry someone of your same gender. I respect the fact that your religious beliefs dictate your opinion here. That's fine too. However, your religious beliefs do not dictate the law. You cited AIDS as a resaon same-sex marriage bothers you. This demonstration of your lack of knowledge is appalling. "Study to show thyself approved", indeed. Study, learn, inform yourself.
This is an issue of equality - you can try to skew that and toss red herrings left and right, but it won't work. I've heard more ignorant rhetoric than could possibly be posted here and it all has one common thread: ignorance. This issue will not be muddled by yours.
Enjoy your freedom of religion, speech, and speak your mind as much as you want - this will be resolved, and equality and fairness will prevail.
-Champi
:)

Thawts

03-03-2004, 03:02 PM

If the 'spouse' of a BiSexual agreed, you would allow all three to 'marry' each other ??? ... Yes or No ...

If both 'spouses' of both BiSexuals (married to each other) agreed, you would allow all four to 'marry' each other ??? ... Yes or No ...

... you know ... for their personal happiness’ sake !!! ... for their sexual fulfillment’s sake ???

Try and remember:
Homos have ALWAYS had EXACTLY the SAME access to MARRIAGE, as any and all heteros ...
Pick any member of the OTHER sex and MARRY them! ... or don't ... that's you free will choice!
But, you can NOT MARRY a member of the SAME sex because ...

For the same reason that:
I cannot be a PILOT of a train ... that is an ENGINEER !
I cannot be a CATCHER in the NHL … that is a GOALIE!
I cannot call 1 shoe a PAIR ... a PAIR is TWO !
I cannot SWIM to a mountain top ... SWIM is moving through WATER !
I cannot BURN water ... to BURN is to oxidize, Water is already oxidized (hydrogen).
To MARRY one of the SAME sex, makes NO sense !
MARRIAGE is between one MAN and one WOMAN !

It's not about religion nor sex! It IS about the word MARRY!

champion

03-03-2004, 03:14 PM

It's not about religion nor sex! It IS about the word MARRY!

Good point. It is about the word marry.
mar'ry: 1a: to become united with in matrimony b. To take as a husband or wife. c. To give in marriage. 2. To perform a marriage ceremony for. 3. To obtain by marriage <marry power> 4.(naut.) To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands. 5. To unite in a close, usu. permanent way. - vi. 1. To take a husband or wife : wed 2. To enter into a close relationship : unite.
-Webster's II New College Dictionary, ISBN 0-395-96214-5

Thawts

03-04-2004, 12:02 AM

Good point. It is about the word marry.
mar'ry: 1a: to become united with in matrimony b. To take as a husband or wife. c. To give in marriage. 2. To perform a marriage ceremony for. 3. To obtain by marriage <marry power> 4.(naut.) To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands. 5. To unite in a close, usu. permanent way. - vi. 1. To take a husband or wife : wed 2. To enter into a close relationship : unite.
-Webster's II New College Dictionary, ISBN 0-395-96214-5

http://www.merriamwebster.com/

Main Entry: 1mar·ry
Pronunciation: 'mar-E also 'mer-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing
Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married
transitive senses
1 a : to join as HUSBAND and WIFE according to law or custom

Main Entry: 1hus·band
Pronunciation: 'h&z-b&nd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English husbonde, from Old English husbonda master of a house, from Old Norse husbOndi, from hus house + bOndi householder; akin to Old Norse bua to inhabit; akin to Old English buan to dwell -- more at BOWER
1 : a MALE partner in a marriage

Main Entry: wife
Pronunciation: 'wIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural wives /'wIvz/
Etymology: Middle English wif, from Old English wIf; akin to Old High German wIb wife
1 a dialect : WOMAN b : a woman acting in a specified capacity -- used in combination <fishwife>
2 : a FEMALE partner in a marriage

Note: MARRY does NOT mean ...
to join as HUSBAND and ANOTHER HUSBAND according to law or custom.
to join as WIFE and ANOTHER WIFE according to law or custom.

Remember:
A MALE CANNOT be a WIFE!
A FEMALE CANNOT be a HUSBAND!

MARRY DOES mean ...
to join as HUSBAND (one MALE) and WIFE
(one FEMALE) according to law or custom.

champion

03-04-2004, 12:51 AM

Thawts

03-04-2004, 09:30 AM

Look, as I've said before, you can think whatever you want and live your life in accordance with what your faith tells you is right. I, and everyone else, have that same right. It's happening. It's here. You have no legal, logical means to stop it. Have a nice day.
What we have today, in USA, is ANARCHY! ... disrespect for rule of law!
What we have is blatant rebellion(is as witchcraft(Godlessness)) ... "All authority comes from God".

Champ, we ALL could feel descriminated against.
I am 6'6" tall ... I bump my head a lot. ... suffer ...
I have to scruntch down to use a mirror, in a public restroom.

I could scream and holler, "It's just not FAIR!" ... Try and force billions of tax dollars to be wasted, to 'get MY way".

I choose to realize, that I am above the norm, in height. ... that door height and mirror placing, is at normal (majority) position, as it should be, in a representative democracy.

We would consider a person insane, if he shoved food into his EAR, until he starved to death!
We would consider a person abnormal, indeed very strange, if he chose to 'walk' on his hands, all of the time, instead of his feet!

It is insane, to use an anus for intercourse!
That totally and obstinantly disregards the fact that the main reason for intercourse is procreation!
That totally and obstinantly disregards the fact that it is filthy and dangerous ... extremely destructive to self and society!

And it is rediculously insane, to think that two men could be married to each other!

champion

03-04-2004, 06:53 PM

Ah, there it is....the "ewww, anuses" response. I have to say (again) your concern with other's sex lives is disturbing. But, you are free to concern yourself with whatever you want. Furthermore, rest assured that gays do not have that market cornered by any means, and if you want to stop marriage based on the possibility of anal sex occuring - well, that just rules out everyone with an anus, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you'd like to get sworn affadavits testifying abstainence for this particular act. But maybe poeple will lie. Better go with the polygraph - we could just tack it on to the legal end of the marriage process: "Did you bring your identification? Did you pass the No Anal Sex polygraph?" Yeah, that'll work.

Anarchy? No, pal, what we have here is a conflict between what the Constitution says and what people are allowed. Equal protection, equal treatment, the government shall not discriminate. We have a pretty shaky record on these issues, and historically it has required great action by the citizens for the government to take notice. I'm thankful that we have people in the streets waiting to marry, not riot, ala 1960's.

Your 'slippery slope' tactics are tired. They also show the basic fundamental flaw in your argument. Where does it end? What's next? Well, my friend, heterosexuals marrying is just one step away from homosexuals marrying, and therefore, according to your argument, ought not to be tolerated. Rediculous, right? Right.
-Champi

Thawts

03-05-2004, 01:05 AM

Champ: "if you want to stop marriage based on the possibility of anal sex occuring - well, that just rules out everyone with an anus, doesn't it?"
This highlights just how perverted your thinking and reasoning is.
Not everyone, with an anus, has engaged in buttsex.
Not everyone, with an anus, has even considered buttsex.
The GREAT majority of humans are repulsed at the idea of buttsex.
The GREAT, GREAT majority of humans are repulsed and disgusted at the practice of ingesting human feces and urine.
They regard it MENTAL ILLNESS! ... and rightfully so.

Search the web:
mental illness sex feces (key words)
TOP 20 WEB RESULTS out of about 17,000
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene - Communicable Disease - Cryptosporidiosis
... City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Bureau of Communicable ... it causes more severe illness in persons with HIV ... contact with stool (feces), including anal sex or touching the ...
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/cd/cdcry.html - 14k - Cached
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene - Communicable Disease - Giardiasis
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Bureau of Communicable Disease. Giardiasis. What is giardiasis? Giardiasis, an intestinal illness, is caused by a microscopic parasite called Giardia lamblia. ... contact with stool (feces), such as anal sex or oral-anal ...
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/cd/cdgia.html - 7k - Cached
Untitled Document
... contact with individuals with mental illness or developmental disabilities. ... basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion ... Presence of feces or urine on the floor or ...
www.utexas.edu/cee/dec/tcleose/cultdiv/chapter6.html - 109k - Cached
James Blake Colburn - Mental Illness - the International Justice Project
... prosecutor also acknowledged Colburn's mental illness in his opening statement ... had been eating his feces and drinking his urine. ... in an apparent attempt to force her to have sex ...
www.internationaljusticeproject.org/illnessJColburn.cfm - 51k - Cached

sex feces (key words)
TOP 20 WEB RESULTS out of about 163,000 (just appalling and astounding!)
www.creativestudios.com/journal/archive/2002_07_14_archive.html - 30k - Cached
The Body's Experts answer your questions about SafeSex
Thank you for your question. Giardia is a parasitic infection. This parasite is found in the feces of humans, and possibly beavers and other wild and domestic animals. This infection is spread in ... ... Home > Forum on Safe Sex and HIV Prevention ... oral-anal sex (rimming) to your partner. If you were rimming your partner (with potential exposure to feces), and they ...
www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/Hepatitis/Q9213.qna - 21k - Cached - More pages from this site
GayHealth: Home
... adding an all-natural (albeit stinky) spice to your sex life. Scat, like so many things, is truly ... Putting your partner’s feces into your mouth, which can happen even if ...
www.gayhealth.com/iowa-robot/common/activity.html?record=25 - 26k - Cached - More pages from this site
Examination Room
... pictures, free site, free pics, enema, feces, shit, ass, anal, rectal, enema, fetish, nozzle ... peeing, urinate, phone sex, phone sex, phone sex, speculum, inside, vagina, speculum ...
www.watergirls.com/exam.htm - 29k - Cached

By far, the great majority is baffled ... "What on earth, does FECES have to do with SEX?

=======================================================

Champ: "Equal protection, equal treatment, the government shall not discriminate."
My reply:
Champ, we ALL could feel descriminated against.
I am 6'6" tall ... I bump my head a lot. ... suffer ...
I have to scruntch down to use a mirror, in a public restroom.

I could scream and holler, "It's just not FAIR!" ... Try and force billions of tax dollars to be wasted, to 'get MY way".

I choose to realize, that I am above the norm, in height. ... that door height and mirror placing, is at normal (majority) position, as it should be, in a representative democracy.

=======================================================

Champ: "heterosexuals marrying is just one step away from homosexuals marrying"
My reply:
This highlights just how perverted your thinking and reasoning is.
(2 + 2 = 4) is just 1 numeral away from (2 + 2 = 5)! ... they both, must be very, very close to correct!
37 is just 1 numeral away from 937! ... they both, must be very, very close to equal!
COMA is just 1 letter away from COMMA! ... they both, must be very, very close to meaning the same thing!

champion

03-08-2004, 09:41 PM

Champ: "if you want to stop marriage based on the possibility of anal sex occuring - well, that just rules out everyone with an anus, doesn't it?"
This highlights just how perverted your thinking and reasoning is.

Oh, I see. You obsess about other people's sex lives, and I have perverted thinking. UH HUH.
However, I have to commend your research skills; quite a plethora of smut sites there. Good job. Although, it is the internet...we all know what the mainstay of online activity seems to be.
Anywho, seeing how I don't want to muddy the debate waters with your (still disturbing) obsession, I wanted to bring up a different aspect. I have a friend who looked up the RCW on the status of marriage requirements in this state. It seems that one of the reqs is that the couple in question must not be related closer than second cousin. So, second cousins can marry here. Question I'm trying to find the answer to is this a constant from state to state? If not, does another state (say, fourth cousins and out) have to recognize the marriage of second cousins in this state, if they move to that state? Does anyone know? I have to say, I previously thought that it was a uniform law, but I'm not sure. Anyone?

Thawts

03-09-2004, 08:53 AM

Champ: "heterosexuals marrying is just one step away from homosexuals marrying"
My reply:
This highlights just how perverted your thinking and reasoning is.
(2 + 2 = 4) is just 1 numeral away from (2 + 2 = 5)! ... they both, must be very, very close to correct!
37 is just 1 numeral away from 937! ... they both, must be very, very close to equal!
COMA is just 1 letter away from COMMA! ... they both, must be very, very close to meaning the same thing!

Do you NOT agree, that the above is perverted thinking and reasoning?

Liberty1776

03-09-2004, 04:20 PM

Why is gay marriage even talked about. Who cares if two gay guys want to get married? How is that hurting anyone else. The gov't shoudln't have any role in marriage.

fourteen

03-09-2004, 04:42 PM

Why is gay marriage even talked about. Who cares if two gay guys want to get married? How is that hurting anyone else. The gov't shoudln't have any role in marriage.I must agree with this. A legendary politician once said... "There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Pierre Trudeau said that.

Thawts

03-10-2004, 12:01 AM

Why is gay marriage even talked about. Who cares if two gay guys want to get married? How is that hurting anyone else. The gov't shoudln't have any role in marriage.
Dear Liberty and Fourteen,

Try and remember:
Homos have ALWAYS had EXACTLY the SAME access to MARRIAGE, as any and all heteros ...
Pick any member of the OTHER sex and MARRY them! ... or don't ... that's you free will choice!
But, you can NOT MARRY a member of the SAME sex because ...

For the same reason that:
I cannot be a PILOT of a train ... that is an ENGINEER !
I cannot be a CATCHER in the NHL … that is a GOALIE!
I cannot call 1 shoe a PAIR ... a PAIR is TWO !
I cannot SWIM to a mountain top ... SWIM is moving through WATER !
I cannot BURN water ... to BURN is to oxidize, Water is already oxidized (hydrogen).
To MARRY one of the SAME sex, makes NO sense !
MARRIAGE is between one MAN and one WOMAN !

It's not about religion nor sex! It IS about the word MARRY!

Main Entry: 1mar·ry
Pronunciation: 'mar-E also 'mer-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing
Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married
transitive senses
1 a : to join as HUSBAND and WIFE according to law or custom

Main Entry: 1hus·band
Pronunciation: 'h&z-b&nd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English husbonde, from Old English husbonda master of a house, from Old Norse husbOndi, from hus house + bOndi householder; akin to Old Norse bua to inhabit; akin to Old English buan to dwell -- more at BOWER
1 : a MALE partner in a marriage

Main Entry: wife
Pronunciation: 'wIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural wives /'wIvz/
Etymology: Middle English wif, from Old English wIf; akin to Old High German wIb wife
1 a dialect : WOMAN b : a woman acting in a specified capacity -- used in combination <fishwife>
2 : a FEMALE partner in a marriage

Note: MARRY does NOT mean ...
to join as HUSBAND and ANOTHER HUSBAND according to law or custom.
to join as WIFE and ANOTHER WIFE according to law or custom.

Remember:
A MALE CANNOT be a WIFE!
A FEMALE CANNOT be a HUSBAND!

MARRY DOES mean ...
to join as HUSBAND (one MALE) and WIFE
(one FEMALE) according to law or custom.

Liberty1776

03-10-2004, 06:44 AM

That's nice. I like your anologies, they really make sense!

Now, let's take a look at a definition of "marriage license" from a dictionary that matters. Black's Law Dictionary. Black's is used in courtrooms.

marriage license. A license or premision granted by public authority to those who wish to intermarry.

interrmarry. see miscegenation

miscegination. Mixture of races.

You don't even need a lisence. YOu talk about leftist judges legislating from the bench, well you are trying to legislate morals! Stop. If two gay guys want to get married and they do, how does that hurt you?

champion

03-10-2004, 03:40 PM

[QUOTE=Thawts]
I cannot be a PILOT of a train ... that is an ENGINEER !

Since you insist on these analogies, let's look at one. Pilot...engineer...aren't they still "driving" the train, regardless what title you use? Is it just the word that bothers you?

Thawts

03-10-2004, 05:06 PM

I cannot be a PILOT of a train ... that is an ENGINEER !
Since you insist on these analogies, let's look at one. Pilot...engineer...aren't they still "driving" the train, regardless what title you use? Is it just the word that bothers you?
Yes ... we heteros have called our union "marriage" forever.

You could call yours "homorage" ... you 2 are "homoried" ... etc.

Extending our 'driving' analogy:
Isn't is smarter and safer, to 'drive' down a paved or concrete highway, that was created for traffic ...
unless you're really into 'mudding', then you might enjoy plowing through a boggy swamp, or maybe even a sewer!
You're going to get real dirty, though, from what I hear.
I hear the swamp is very nasty! ... and the sewer contains many diseases.

Thawts

03-10-2004, 05:57 PM

Liberty,

Race = Sexual Choice ... does not compute!
One cannot choose to be of a certain race.
Some (Micheal Jackson, Carmen Electra) choose their skin tone.

No one can FORCE anyone to sexulate ... at all ... period!
There are serious laws to avoid that ... rape, etc.

No one, save rape, is out to insist that any man sexulate with any woman ... certainly not with any other man.

No one, save rape, is out to insist that any woman sexulate with any man ... certainly not with any other woman.

Sexulating is a free will CHOICE !!!

God does NOT force any humans to do ANYTHING, except breathe oxygen, eat food and drink water. He gave us every single one a FREE WILL!

He does NOT force us to drink alcohol, let alone become an alcoholic, but He may create in us an inclination to consume alcohol, and a propensity to become addicted to it.

"What is it to the clay, what the potter makes of it?"
God desires your love.
He loves YOU and wants you to want and even need His love.
"Love God above ALL things."
"If you love me, keep my commandments." (including the TEN commandments)
Keeping His commandments (resisting temptation) is how He accepts that we do love Him.
Petitioning Him for His help/power, to help us resist temptation, rewards Him with assurance that He is needed.

God does NOT force us to use illegal drugs, let alone become an addict, but He may create in us an inclination to use drugs, and a propensity to become addicted.

He does NOT force us to view pornography, but He may create in us an inclination to view it, and a propensity to become addicted to it.

He does NOT force us to commit adultery, but He may create in us an inclination to do it, and a propensity to become addicted to it.

He does NOT force us to commit homosexual acts, let alone become an active homosexual, but He may create in us an inclination to do them, and a propensity to become one.

He does NOT force us to lie, cheat, steal, gossip, etc., but He may create in us an inclination to do those things, and a propensity to become addicted to them.

Once again:
God desires your love.
He loves YOU and wants you to want and even need His love.
"Love God above ALL things."
"If you love me, keep my commandments." (including the TEN commandments)
Keeping His commandments (resisting temptation) is how He accepts that we do love Him.
Petitioning Him for His help/power, to help us resist temptation, rewards Him with assurance that He is needed.

champion

03-10-2004, 06:38 PM

You could call yours "homorage" ... you 2 are "homoried" ... etc.

Straightiage? Heteriage? Breediage? Union? Life partnership? Marriage? It's all semantics. To borrow from Shakespeare "A rose called by any other..."

Thawts

03-10-2004, 11:56 PM

Straightiage? Heteriage? Breediage?

You see ... we heteros don't need these.

WE already have MARRIAGE !!! It is OURS! You get your OWN !!!

joshbaumgartner

03-24-2004, 06:27 PM

Straightiage? Heteriage? Breediage?

You see ... we heteros don't need these.

WE already have MARRIAGE !!! It is OURS! You get your OWN !!!

The word issue is a total red herring.

It is not the government's role to define language. That's up to the individual users of language to determine. Government constantly changes the definitions of the terms it uses. Just about every law ever passed resulted in some kind of alteration to the way one or more words were defined within the legal context. Does this mean that every time a law is written we have to change our vocabulary? Only if we are lawyers.

If the government had to only use universally defined terms for law, we'd never have a single word of code. No word in this language has a universal definition that results in it being used the same by everyone who uses it. We can try and cite dictionaries, but they are not so much definitions as they are reported 'most common understandings' of a word. Neither is a word's usage limited to what is in the dictionary, nor is it always appropriate to use, despite its dictionary-given meaning.

Changing what the government recognizes as marriage doesn't have to change your understanding or use of the word. Therefore, it does not affect the usage by churches or anyone else of the word.

The simple truth of the issue is not a battle over the use of a word. It is a distinct movement by a group that has until recently been completely shut out of public involvement, demanding that since their preferences have now been recognized as acceptable under the law (there is no more government-sponsored imprisonment or overt punishment of gays in America), that they should now have the right to participate as equals within our society. To those who didn't want their activities accepted in the first place, this is more fuel on the fire, and they are determined to draw a firm wall to hold back this invasion of 'their' society.

But those of us devoted to liberty have to recognize that while we may not share their preference (indeed we may find it grotesque), if we wish to defend those liberties we do hold personally dear, we must be willing to recognize those who desire liberties we many not personally wish to exercise. I am happily married with four kids, but I certainly do not want to deny a gay or lesbian the opportunity to have a family either. I am a white male, but I am devoted to equal rights by race and gender. I have my own personal faith, but I am willing to die for your right to have a completely different belief. I value my liberty greater than any precious metal or gem, and I recognize that my liberty is only as secure as my willingness to defend the liberties of my neighbor.

Josh

Thawts

03-25-2004, 01:52 AM

Dear Josh,

Freedom (liberty) does NOT allow us to do any thing we want.

One cannot eat 600 boiled chicken eggs at one feeding.
One (human) cannot swim under water, without scuba gear, for hours.
One cannot shoot one's self without being harmed.
Etc., etc.

Civilized people come to realize that each cannot be free to murder another because that takes away the other's freedom to live on.

Some love speed. Some can drive, safely, faster than others.
The majority of civilized people compromise with a maximum miles per hour, for the safety of all, to the disgruntlement of those who love speed and can safely handle it.

We punish those who drive faster, even if they can 'handle' more speed.
One is not free to drive at night without lights on. ... on the wrong side of the road.
Etc., etc.

One is not free, in most populated areas, to urinate, let alone crap, on the ground, because of rampant spread of all kinds of disease.
This may irritate one with a need, but it is for the good of all.
It risks harming anyone in the area.
Search the web for "sex feces". Most of us assume that they have nothing to do with each other.
To ingest feces seems insane! ... not to mention unsafe.
'Rimming', licking another's anus, is a common practice for homos.
It is insane for us to NOT accept such practices as insane!

Sex is for procreation, NOT simply for pleasure alone, as eating food is for nourishment, not just pleasure alone.
Eating may relieve a head ache and/or a stomach ache, but those are simply to encourage us to nourish our bodies.
Orgasmic pleasure is to get us to procreate, NOT simply to get us to feel pleasure.
We regard it insane, to eat/purge/eat/purge/eat/purge/eat, no matter how much we love to eat, because it will destroy our body.
We regard it insane, to eat/eat/eat/eat when we are already obese, because it is self destructive.

We must recognize it is insane, to abuse an anus by misusing it as a vulva!
We must know that the only real purpose for semen, is for conception.
We must know that the only correct place for semen is in the prostate or in the vagina.
We must know that the only correct place to put food is in the mouth, Not the ear ... nor the rear!

We can, insanely (out of touch with reality), pretend that coitus is 'making love', when it is actually making a baby.
We can, insanely (out of touch with reality), pretend that buttsex is coitus ('making love'), when it is actually abuse/misuse of the body.
We can, insanely (out of touch with reality), pretend that two members of the same sex, are 'married', when they are simply misusing the word.

joshbaumgartner

03-25-2004, 05:49 PM

Thawts,

Liberty DOES mean that we can do anything we want...up to the point where we hurt others (i.e. infringe upon their liberty). You say one cannot eat 600 eggs at a sitting. But it's not the government's place to tell me I can't try.

To ingest feces seems insane! ... not to mention unsafe.
'Rimming', licking another's anus, is a common practice for homos.
It is insane for us to NOT accept such practices as insane!

Not to mention a very common practice amongst heteros, as are even more disgusting scat fetishes. But it is not my place to stop two consenting adults from doing it when it does me no harm for them to do it. By the same token, it is not the government's place to make the practice illegal, and certainly not to declare that two people can't get married because they practice it. Educating people about the dangers inherent in the act? Sure. But not infringing on the liberty of those who still desire to do it.

There is nothing wrong or insane about engaging in sex merely for the pleasure of those participating it. If you feel differently, that is fine. There is no requirement for you to enjoy sex, or to have it at all. But are you trying to say that somehow I am insane to want to have sex with my wife nightly with no desire to have another child (and consequently taking precautions to prevent such an occurance)?

There is nothing wrong or insane about eating for pleasure either. Our caloric intake in this country is WAY above our needs. This may not be healthy for some of us, but that is a personal choice, and one lives with the consequences (having to live with being overweight). It is not the government's place to tell me I can't have an Ultimate Triple Cheeseburger with a large milkshake just because it isn't healthy for me. And while I am lucky enough to have a high metabolism and not be personally worried about weight, even if I was 400 pounds the government shouldn't prevent me from making that choice. It can educate me about the consequences, but not prevent me from making the choice.

By the same token, it is not insane to participate in sexual practices that maybe to you or I seem ridiculous. Afterall, a guy who gets off on licking a woman's latex boot might seem rediculous, but who are we to deny him the right to do it, or to marry the boot wearer for that matter? Is he insane? More than likely he is the perfectly mild-mannered fellow at the office who'd you'd never guess had such a fetish.

The only real purpose for semen, or food for that matter, is what the owner of such should desire to do with it. If they want to put either in their genitals, their ear, their behind, their bellybutton, between their toes or on the top of their head, then so be it, it is not my concern, nor that of the government.

Unless a practice harms others who are not consenting, no practice, no matter who outlandish, should be banned by the government. Nor should the government use negative coercion (denial of benefits or rights) to eforce compliance with such.

We must be very careful when it comes to government recognition of rights. Note I use the word recognition. The government does not grant rights, it only recognizes rights. If we use our government to infringe on our rights, then liberties that we hold dear become endagered. You may feel safe today thinking that you practice conventional behavior and have nothing to fear, just as one might feel they have nothing to fear from Patriot I/II since they aren't a terrorist. But you couldn't be more wrong.

The government's responsibility is to recognize the rights of its citizens and to protect them. The government is the tool of the people for their own good, not a seperate entity that should ever seek what may percieved as in its interest at the expense of its citizens.

Josh

Thawts

03-26-2004, 05:55 AM

Dear Josh,

Can we agree, yes or no?

1.There are things we can NOT do, no matter how much we may want to.
ie. 600 eggs.
We don't need these to be monitored.

2.There are things we CAN do, but can NOT allow any of us to do.
ie. murder.
We DO need government or the majority, to monitor these.

3.There is a concept known as rationing, for the good of ALL, even though individuals may 'feel' restricted and even cheated.
ie. group ship wrecked on desert island.
We DO need government or the majority, to monitor these.

Josh, "Unless a practice harms others who are not consenting"

Here is the rub!
Many of us do NOT consent to:
a.Higher prices, because some shop lift.
b.Higher auto insurance premiums, because some drive drunk, or too fast.
c.Higher medical insurance premiums, because some smoke, drink, drug or engage in 'high risk' activities.

anbeau

03-26-2004, 12:25 PM

No matter what the government or anyone else says, they're gonna do what they want anyway, irregardless if they're married or not. At least if they're married they may not be as promiscuous and spread aids and the like.

Thawts

03-26-2004, 04:29 PM

I'm afraid you're dreaming.
Consider the divorce rate.
Consider adultery and/or fornication percentages.
Homos are just human too.

joshbaumgartner

04-03-2004, 09:19 PM

Well, if you are just anti-marriage, then that's one thing, but not really the debate here.

I'm afraid you're dreaming.
Consider the divorce rate.
Consider adultery and/or fornication percentages.
Homos are just human too.

joshbaumgartner

04-03-2004, 09:31 PM

Dear Josh,

Can we agree, yes or no?

Again, it's all a question of liberty.

1. Attempting to eat 600 eggs doesn't harm others, so it is innappropriate for the government to prevent it. The potential of me successfully completing the attempt is irrelevant.

2. Murder does harm another and infringe on their rights without their consent, and thus it is approriate for the government to protect the one that would be harmed by acting to prevent me from murdering them.

3. As for the last one, I don't have the foggiest what you are saying, so I can't really comment.

1.There are things we can NOT do, no matter how much we may want to.
ie. 600 eggs.
We don't need these to be monitored.

2.There are things we CAN do, but can NOT allow any of us to do.
ie. murder.
We DO need government or the majority, to monitor these.

3.There is a concept known as rationing, for the good of ALL, even though individuals may 'feel' restricted and even cheated.
ie. group ship wrecked on desert island.
We DO need government or the majority, to monitor these.

As for the following, thanks for providing a perfect example of what is commonly known as a 'nonsequitor', which is a logical fallacy consisting of a disconect between 'A' and 'B' in which the link between 'A' and 'B' is absent, but 'B' is written as if it derived logically from 'A'.

Josh, "Unless a practice harms others who are not consenting"

Here is the rub!
Many of us do NOT consent to:
a.Higher prices, because some shop lift.
b.Higher auto insurance premiums, because some drive drunk, or too fast.
c.Higher medical insurance premiums, because some smoke, drink, drug or engage in 'high risk' activities.

Thawts

04-04-2004, 11:52 PM

Again, it's all a question of liberty.

1. Attempting to eat 600 eggs doesn't harm others, so it is innappropriate for the government to prevent it. The potential of me successfully completing the attempt is irrelevant.
Josh, freedom does NOT mean 'free to do ANYthing we WANT to do', because there are things that are IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how much we may want to do them!
My point is that it is impossible for two of the same sex to MARRY, because the word MARRY means a commitment between God, ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, all to each other, as the basic unit of every civilized society.

2. Murder does harm another and infringe on their rights without their consent, and thus it is approriate for the government to protect the one that would be harmed by acting to prevent me from murdering them.
It HARMS the 'recipient' when HIV/AIDS, or any disease, is transmitted.
It HARMS all society, when homos acts degrade it. ... degrade and mock marriage ... degrade and mock procreation ... degrade and mock the family unit.

3. As for the last one, I don't have the foggiest what you are saying, so I can't really comment.
Josh, there are things that any individual can possibly do and may want very much to do, that a society cannot allow them to do, for the good of the whole society.

As for the following, thanks for providing a perfect example of what is commonly known as a 'nonsequitor', which is a logical fallacy consisting of a disconect between 'A' and 'B' in which the link between 'A' and 'B' is absent, but 'B' is written as if it derived logically from 'A'.

Many of us do NOT consent to:
a.Higher prices, because some shop lift.
b.Higher auto insurance premiums, because some drive drunk, or too fast.
c.Higher medical insurance premiums, because some smoke, drink, drug or engage in 'high risk' activities.
a.Many 'quick stop' store managers add 2% to 5% markup, just to compensate for stolen (shop lifted) goods. We ALL are forced to pay that markup, just because of the few thiefs.
We don't consent to it. We are FORCED to pay it. ... also b. and c.

joshbaumgartner

04-09-2004, 01:07 AM

My point is that it is impossible for two of the same sex to MARRY, because the word MARRY means a commitment between God, ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, all to each other, as the basic unit of every civilized society.

If that were true, there would be no need for legislation, much less Constitutional amendment, to prevent it.

In any case, your point is obviously irrelevant to the issue of government's role in marriage due to your god comment. Clearly, there need be no involvement of god to have a perfectly legal marriage in this country.

It HARMS the 'recipient' when HIV/AIDS, or any disease, is transmitted.
It HARMS all society, when homos acts degrade it. ... degrade and mock marriage ... degrade and mock procreation ... degrade and mock the family unit.

Your anti-Liberty position, if adoption, would degrade the freedom of all of us, yet do we cancel your right to promote it?

Josh, there are things that any individual can possibly do and may want very much to do, that a society cannot allow them to do, for the good of the whole society.

Yes, like try and usurp the authority of the Federal Government to attempt to legislate their own brand of morality upon us all...for our own good of course.

a.Many 'quick stop' store managers add 2% to 5% markup, just to compensate for stolen (shop lifted) goods. We ALL are forced to pay that markup, just because of the few thiefs.
We don't consent to it. We are FORCED to pay it. ... also b. and c.

I have never been forced to buy anything at any store. We have a fair market capitalist system that, while far from perfect, does succeed in offering a variety of options for most situations. If I don't want to pay one store's prices, I'll shop elsewhere. When I choose to make a purchase, I am a consentual partner in the transaction.

Josh

Thawts

04-09-2004, 04:11 PM

My point is that it is impossible for two of the same sex to MARRY, because the word MARRY means a commitment between God, ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, all to each other, as the basic unit of every civilized society.
If that were true, there would be no need for legislation, much less Constitutional amendment, to prevent it.
There should not have to be laws to 'protect' new born infants from brutal, violent rape by an adult, because the tiny vagina (and/or anus) even mouth, is far too small to 'accommodate' a full grown erect penis, but there ARE evil idiots who try it out of obstinent rebellion (is as witchcraft (Godlessness)) for their own selfish peverted pleasure, and to prove "Ain't nobody gonna tell ME I cain't, nor must do nothin'"!
Too many suffocate because they can't breath with an erect penis rammed down their tiny throat! This is sad, sick, savage and satanic!

In any case, your point is obviously irrelevant to the issue of government's role in marriage due to your god comment. Clearly, there need be no involvement of god to have a perfectly legal marriage in this country.
WRONG !!! Marriage is a commitment between THREE persons; God, ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, all to each other, as the basic unit of every civilized society.
You can pretend (insanity is being out of touch with reality) that a mouth or anus is a vagina, but that does NOT make it one.
You can pretend, while cleaning house, washing clothes or dishes, 'receiving' an erect penis into your mouth or anus to the point of ejaculation, that you are a woman in coitus, but that does NOT make it that.
You can flutter, dressed only in womans underware, around you 'man' and pretend that you are married, but that does NOT make you married!
You are being LIED to, and you believe it.
You are lying to yourself and others, and trying to make them believe it.
You are trying to make TRUTH out of a LIE and that is impossible!
You are out of touch with reality!

Thawts

04-09-2004, 04:35 PM

It HARMS the 'recipient' when HIV/AIDS, or any disease, is transmitted.
It HARMS all society, when homos acts degrade it. ... degrade and mock marriage ... degrade and mock procreation ... degrade and mock the family unit.
Your anti-Liberty position, if adoption, would degrade the freedom of all of us, yet do we cancel your right to promote it?
You and any and every homosexual have EXACTLY the SAME freedom and liberty to pick ONE member of the OTHER sex and MARRY them, as does any and every heterosexual! ... or DON'T! That is your CHOICE !!!

Josh, there are things that any individual can possibly do and may want very much to do, that a society cannot allow them to do, for the good of the whole society.
Yes, like try and usurp the authority of the Federal Government to attempt to legislate their own brand of morality upon us all...for our own good of course.
For the good of all humankind! Jews, Christians and Muslims. Even pagans like original native Americans, Africans and South Americans who all found homosexual acts and beastiality to be crimes against nature.

Thawts

04-09-2004, 04:41 PM

a.Many 'quick stop' store managers add 2% to 5% markup, just to compensate for stolen (shop lifted) goods. We ALL are forced to pay that markup, just because of the few thiefs.
We don't consent to it. We are FORCED to pay it. ... also b. and c.
I have never been forced to buy anything at any store. We have a fair market capitalist system that, while far from perfect, does succeed in offering a variety of options for most situations. If I don't want to pay one store's prices, I'll shop elsewhere. When I choose to make a purchase, I am a consentual partner in the transaction.
So you consent to the extra 2% to 5% markup, do you?
Well most of us resent it! Having to pay for someone else's crime!

Export

04-11-2004, 09:06 AM

Excuse me, Thawts. I've been following your 'I'm-a-closet-homosexual' rants and, well, believe whatever you want. But I've got a question about one of your sentences there: "Even pagans like original native Americans, Africans and South Americans who all found homosexual acts and beastiality to be crimes against nature."

Are you 100% sure about this?

Look, man, I don't think you have researched this very well. You seem to have no problems finding porn, why don't you go and do some research on how common anal sex and homosexual acts were in Ancient Rome (that's Ancient CHRISTIAN Rome, to boot!), or how about some of the Native American rituals used by some tribes to draw out the spirits?

It's your fixation, but get some REAL info and come back later?

Thawts

04-11-2004, 12:12 PM

Export

04-12-2004, 09:39 AM

Ancient CHRISTIAN Rome !!! ??? Export ! ... They blatantly and obstinatly rebelled against God's word and commandments! Public ORGIES !!! ???
Export, they DESTROYED themselves !!! ... like many, many homos are today with HIV/AIDS !!!

Yeah, Rome sounds like it was a lot of fun, eh?

Are you just scared of AIDS or something?

Thawts, if you're going to knock the people who spread HIV/AIDS, then you're going after the wrong people. AIDS is currently being spread the fastest in (get ready!) middle-aged single/divorced women and men (around here, anyways.) They are the ones who were married when AIDS first arrived and missed all the important information on how not to spread it. The spread of HIV/AIDS has actually declined in the homosexual population - now you're more at risk as a hetero!

I was raised to not say too much if I don't know what I'm talking about, it's very unfortunate that you don't appear to have had the same experience.

Thawts

04-19-2004, 09:53 AM

Yeah, Rome sounds like it was a lot of fun, eh?

Go ahead, Export. FUN yourself to death! ... then into the firey pitts of Hell!

You are proud that homos have spread HIV/AIDS to heteros via Bi Sexuals?

I am not afraid of HIV/AIDS because I am not afraid to die. ... are YOU?

I fear God! ... "Knowledge and wisdom begin with fear of the Lord"

champion

04-29-2004, 02:14 PM

joshbaumgartner

04-30-2004, 12:00 PM

Interesting little tidbit of info...According to a poll conducted in 1958 by Gallup, 4% (of those polled) 'approved' of legal interracial marriage. For those of you not up on your history, 1958 is the year the Loving couple were expelled from Virginia for violating the law prohibiting interracial marriage, promting the eventual SCOTUS case, Loving v. Virginia. Four percent! Unbelieveable.

Perhaps just as interesting was a recent study that found that today, 71% of Americans approve of legal interracial marriage. That means there is nearly a third of the country that does NOT approve of interracial marriage! I can pretty much garuntee there aren't too many of those who are in that camp that don't oppose gay marriage as well.

Josh

champion

05-02-2004, 02:29 PM

I wonder if that study differentiated between legal interracial marriage and whether they themselves would be willing to be a part of such a marriage. I've meet many people who say they wouldn't marry someone of another race, but that people should be allowed to do so if they choose.

Export

05-03-2004, 11:14 AM

Go ahead, Export. FUN yourself to death! ... then into the firey pitts of Hell!

You are proud that homos have spread HIV/AIDS to heteros via Bi Sexuals?

I am not afraid of HIV/AIDS because I am not afraid to die. ... are YOU?

I fear God! ... "Knowledge and wisdom begin with fear of the Lord"

See, this is why I'm not a great fan of organized religion. Too much 'fearing' god and all this talk about who should be sleeping with who. Doesn't the bible also say that something like only 110,000 people are going to make it into heaven? Wouldn't that mean that you'd want to get people AWAY from your 'idea' of salvation?

I'd also like to say that no, I do not fear death. I'm into Zen Buddhism, and while I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm going to hell, I'm not worried about that because to me 'hell' does not exist.

Sure, Thawts, it may sound crazy to you, but to me it sounds no less crazy than thinking that I'm going to rise into the clouds one day because some book told me that a guy got nailed to a couple planks of wood thousands of years ago (if it even happened at all.)

joshbaumgartner

05-11-2004, 11:14 AM

I'd also like to say that no, I do not fear death. I'm into Zen Buddhism, and while I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm going to hell, I'm not worried about that because to me 'hell' does not exist.

It is a bit odd that those who are evangelical often continue to try and convince you to fear hell, without realizing the absurdity in trying to get you to fear something you have no belief in even existing. For many, heaven and hell, god and the devil, and all of that is an all-encompassing reality from which deviation is incomprehensible. If you do not accept god, then it is not that you don't believe he exists, it is that you are denying him, or blinding yourself to the truth. The idea that you could be an open-minded person, fully willing and eager even to seek and learn truth, and have been well informed about god, and yet still not accept that story as the truth as they do, is something unfathomable to them.

You are into Zen Buddhism. I am an agnostic; the only real spiritual 'belief' I have is in the basic concept of karma. But yet is amazing to deal with the evangelicals:

Do you believe in God?
- No.

If you deny God you will be damned for eternity in hell!
- I am not denying him or her, but since I also don't have a reason to believe in hell, I guess I'm not worried.

But you just said you don't believe in him...that is denying him.
- As in believing that god doesn't exist? No, I don't believe that either.

Yellowrose

10-28-2004, 02:13 PM

I read all of the your posts on this thread and I must tell you, I am exhausted now.

I have a question. Do you think people are born homosexual or do you think they choose to be?

champion

11-02-2004, 09:35 PM

I read all of the your posts on this thread and I must tell you, I am exhausted now.

I have a question. Do you think people are born homosexual or do you think they choose to be?

Good question. Yes, I believe so. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly those who 'experiment' - drinking parties, mostly - but by and large, those who are gay were always gay and those who are straight were always straight. Interesting to note, though, scientists still don't know if straight people are born that way, or if it's cultural influence.

A little story:
When I was in the 6th grade, my little sister was in 1st and was just learning to write. She is left-handed and so held the crayon (or pencil or glue stick) with her left hand. Her teacher insisted she was just being a troublemaker trying to get attention and made her sit on her left hand and write with her right hand. This went on nearly all year - she never said anything to our mother because she thought she was doing something wrong and didn't want to be in trouble at home too. A couple of months before the end of the school year, her teacher called our home to say she was considering holding Lisa back, that she wasn't grasping the concepts. Her brain just wasn't wired to learn the way her teacher insisted it should be and she was lost in the class. Well, she was held back, but fortunately, in a different class with a different teacher and today she is a honor student in college - and still left-handed.

The point is we don't know everything that we think we do and, especially when it comes to the brain, we know less than we don't.

-Champi

champion

11-06-2004, 03:11 PM

I read all of the your posts on this thread and I must tell you, I am exhausted now.

I have a question. Do you think people are born homosexual or do you think they choose to be?

Another point is why would anyone possibly choose to be gay? [other than, as I've said, isolated instances of experimentation] Depending on where you live and the time period, being gay can result in your death, outcast from the community, disownment from family, public humiliation, accusation of pedophilia, fired from your job, discharge from the military, loss of custody of your children, inability to marry who you love, -oh, wow this is really depressing- anyway, is seems there are some pretty powerful motivations to be straight, which is why some people remain 'closeted', so with all of the negative reprecussions - you could be killed! - why would someone wake up and say YES! I could easily fall in love with and be physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex, but I'm going be gay anyway! Doesn't happen. There are gay poeple and straight people, always have been, always will be. Again, let me use the dominant-hand analogy: Most people are right-handed, right? Most people are straight. A few are left-handed, right? A few are gay. And very, very, few people are truely ambidextrous, right? Very, very, few are truely bisexual.
-Champi