--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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. > > Standard Raunchy. "You attempt to *expand* the > discussion and take it away from the narrow, > angry focus *I* wanted it to take. Therefore > you have 'attacked' me and attempted a diversion." > > I merely wanted to steer a conversation away from > the ugly finger-pointing and blame *you* wanted > it to remain on and onto a more lofty plane, in > which wider and less agenda-driven discussions > might take place. >
I get it. Barry doesn't like an agenda-driven discussion talking about gay marriage. He prefers a less agenda-driven discussion about polyamory, which is not on anyone's agenda but his. > > 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. > > I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. > Barry doesn't care about a discussion about gay marriage. He cares about a discussion about polyamory that doesn't seem to interest anyone and now he's petulantly stamping his foot that NOBODY CARES about his agenda. > It's such a non-issue to me that the very idea > that anyone could find it threatening bores me to > tears. I was trying to introduce something that > *doesn't* bore me to tears. You want everyone to > stay focused on the gay marriage non-issue so that > you can pretend to be more liberal than they are. > Poor Barry is bored to tears about gay marriage. Geez, would it kill him to allow a topic germane to a discussion affecting people who live in the USA and not his adopted Spain, which was egalitarian enough to legalize gay marriage? > All while spouting crap about men being more > sexually "voracious" than women. That's something > that anyone who had ever studied a bit of scien- > tific sexuality should know is crap. Probably you > *DO* know it's crap, but it advances your victim- > mentality agenda to pretend it's not, so pretend > you do. I have not personally expressed an opinion about the comparative sexual appetites of men and women. > > 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. > > You people are SUCH sexual barbarians. Gay marriage > is not a "civil rights" issue any more than straight > marriage is. It's a NON-ISSUE. The *problem* (as I > see it) is that you live in a completely unbalanced > nation with unbalanced views of sexuality that lead > them to believe that sex ITSELF is an issue. Gay rights/civil rights would be a non-issue, if it were legal in the US, but since it is not, it is a fair topic for discussion whether Barry likes it or not. > IMO, the healthiest cultures on the planet are those > in which sex is seen as being of such little impor- > tance that its various expressions are never even > *perceived* as an issue. That would include ancient > Tibetan society and many Polynesian cultures. Some > of these cultures were patriarchal, some matriarchal, > but the thing they had in common was a belief that > sex was NO BIG DEAL. It wasn't *important* enough > to develop laws and rules about. > > It's only in the puritanical, uptight. religiously- and > culturally-repressed countries of the world in which > sex and sexuality are viewed as being important enough > to be thought of as "issues," or to make binding laws > about. > > Keep arguing about gay marriage if you want, Raunchy. > You may do so believing that you are "liberal" on the > issue. All I see is another form of agenda-laden > repressed behavior, on both sides. Barry thinks I should stop talking about agenda-laden gay marriage and talk about agenda-laden polyamory instead.
