--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > raunchydog: > > > > You've now called me (1) a wingnut; and (2) a bigot. > > > > Whether or not I am those things, I am not inclined to debate > > with you over these issues when you stoop to name-calling. I > > suspect that you do that in order to get OUT of debates because > > at your core you really don't believe your arguments hold weight. > > And FAR more sexist and bigoted than you are. > > And that's saying something. :-) > > I agree with everyone who's said that the only > reason you posted what you did was to stir up > trouble and push buttons and then sit back and > feed on the discord. And that's as stupid as > it is childish. > > But Raunchy is spouting feminist bullshit about > polyamory without knowing ANY of the actual facts > about it. She's got this image in her mind of > Mormon guys with lots of submissive wives. That's > as far from an accurate picture of what polyamory > is as Maplethorpe's photos are from what most gay > men are. > > If you're going to be sexual bigots, AT LEAST > try to learn a little something about the real > nature of the things you're bigoted about... >
I haven't said anything about polyamory. That's your little piece of bait you've thrown into the mix with the same intent to obfuscate and derail a discussion of gay marriage as Shemp. The point I've made still stands. Whether you argue for polygamy, polyamory, or box turtles they are separate issues having distinct differences from gay marriage. Sorry, polyamory isn't going to ride to the coat tails of gay marriage any time soon. You don't have the numbers or a ground swell of public interest that would elevate it to the level of a civil rights cause as has gay rights and gay marriage.
