--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > > > 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.
You can talk about anything you want, and will. :-) I *never* tried to stop you. I merely added a new element to the mix, *expanded* the discussion. YOU reacted to this by saying: > > 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. In short, you accused ME of trying to "derail" the thing that YOU wanted to talk about, for merely introducing a side topic that was more interesting to me. You continue to do so. You have the right to continue to argue gay marriage with anyone who cares to do so. I am under no obligation to stick to that limited (and, in my opinion, narrow and pathetic) topic, and have the right to introduce "sidebars." What happened is that YOU DIDN'T LIKE the sidebar, because it gave other people a chance to talk about something else than the thing you wanted them to talk about. YOU are the one trying to control what's talked about here, Raunchy, not me. Talk *all you want* about gay marriage. I don't have to. And if I want to introduce a sidebar topic into a thread that YOU want to go the way that YOU want it to, tough shit for you. So far, only one person has expressed much interest in the IMO more interesting topic of sexuality free of puritanical "rules and regs." That's one more than last time. Not bad for a forum full of sexual barbarians. :-) :-) :-)
