[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

raunchydog wrote:
 If you want to see what an incredible 
 variety of female sexual appetites 
 there are, check out the Vagina 
 Monologues created by Eve Ensler who 
 interviewed 200 women and helped 
 empower womens' sexuality by letting 
 them talk about their Vagina. 

The majority of women interviewed by 
Shere Hite said that the best part of 
love-making was the 'cuddling', not the 
thrusting. But the question is, why do
women think they need the thrusting, if
they don't have an orgasm? I mean, they
could just get themselves off anytime
they wanted to and avoid a big mess.

Naturally, men don't want to talk about
this, it's too much of a threat to their
ego since their universe revolves around
their penile member, as you can see from
the comments posted here. LOL!

Thanks for the information. It was
interesting hearing the women describe
how they could fake their own orgasm.
But, why would a woman need a man 
thrusting in order to fake it? 

As a charitable performance, two women 
demonstrate the various types of orgasm:

'The Vagina Monologues - The Moans'
http://tinyurl.com/d9lyp6

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- 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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- 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.  :-)  :-)  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


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.


Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
immature trolls of someone's stung!
gotcha-games that seems to be about the
only way they know how to answer something
they don't want to talk about.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend 
jstein@ wrote:
 
  And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy*
  was talking about polyamory!

 Raunchydog was projecting a bent, feminist
 sexism onto the word polygamy,

Barry, you can't wipe out your howling errors in
this thread by snipping my explanation of what
they were:

  Nor did he notice, apparently, that she was
  quoting somebody else.
 
  He also didn't notice that the person she was
  quoting was making a *devil's advocate* argument,
  even though that's explicitly stated in the first
  paragraph he quotes.
 
  He has no idea whatsoever what it is that's being
  argued in Raunchy's post, but on the basis of his
  total confusion he accuses Raunchy of being
  sexist and, in a later post, a bigot.

You screwed up, badly. You were so hot to find a way to 
attack Raunchy that you didn't bother to read her post.

You do this *all the time*. You try to make yourself 
look smart by dumping on somebody else--preferably a 
woman--and end up making yourself look RELY 
REELY STPID.

And then when you get self-defensive and try to cover 
up your errors, as in the post I'm responding to, you 
just look RELY REELY STOPIDER.

 which *describes* a form of polyamorous marriage.
 Only one form, as it turns out, and you did it,
 too, getting all defensive

Here's Judy getting all defensive:

  Did you hallucinate that I mentioned polyamorous
  marriage?

Judy's *making fun of Barry*.

 because you had said that there were good reasons
 for not allowing polygamy,

I said no such thing. You were in too much of a hurry
to challenge me, in the hope that I'd give you something
to attack me about, that you didn't read what *I* said
either. Let's have another look, shall we?

-
 If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
 marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as
 substantial as there is in favor of same-sex
 marriage, you might have a point (although there
 would still be good arguments against it), but
 there isn't.
-

Now, what did I tell Shemp there was a good argument
against? BIG HINT: It wasn't polygamy.

 and then tried to wiggle your way out of it by 
 quibbling words.

Here's Judy quibbling words:

  Did you hallucinate that I mentioned polyamorous
  marriage?

Judy was *making fun* of Barry.

 I will give you the benefit of the doubt and 
 suggest that you were probably thinking of 
 the word polygamy as most people; that is,
 as practiced by Mormons; that is, a form of 
 sexist patriarchy.

Gosh, that's big of you.

But as it happens, most *polyamorists* don't think of 
polygamy as a form of polyamory. That's just your 
peculiar definition.

In any case, the polygamy Raunchy and I were both 
referring to, of course, *was* the patriarchal type. If 
you had been following the actual argument instead of 
trying to find a way to dump on Raunchy and me, you'd 
know it wouldn't have made any sense to refer to any 
other kind.

 It is not the only form of polygamy or poly-
 amorous marriage, which my post was intended 
 to bring out. Instead it brought out in 
 Raunchydog only her standard hatred of men 
 and tendency to speak about them in cliches.
 WRONG cliches, scientifically, but she doesn't
 care about that.

Nope. You've got the sequence backwards. Raunchy 
quoted the devil's advocate argument you're so 
freaked out about *before* you asked your question.
 
You didn't bring out a thing but your inability to 
read, your penchant for trying to impose your
idiosyncratic definitions on everybody else, and your 
burning need to attack others that's so urgent you 
can't take the time to figure out what they're 
actually talking about.

You read the phrase men are sexually voracious and 
immediately said to yourself, Aha! I can use this to 
attack Raunchy!

*Of course* it's a sexist assumption. That was the
whole *point*, dumbass.

Plus which, all the feminists *I* know insist women 
have just as strong sexual appetites as men. So it's 
not a feminist argument at all; to the contrary.

Knowing he's in a hole, Barry just can't stop digging:

 The problem is probably really mine. I had
 been lured into a false sense of being able to
 deal with sexually-rational human beings by
 being back in France again. I should have known 
 better to bring up real discussions of sex and 
 sexuality with sexual barbarians.  :-)

In fact, you haven't got a *clue* as to what Raunchy or 
I think about sexuality. And given your knee-jerk 
reaction to what Raunchy quoted, you're hardly in a 
position to accuse anybody else of not being sexually 
rational. That one phrase freaked you out so badly 
your mind just stopped working.

 For the record, that is what I consider most
 members of this forum, although that is not 
 entirely their fault. On the whole, the mem-
 bers of this forum have grown up in and had
 their sensibilities shaped by two of the most
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_re...@... wrote:
snip
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
   
Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift 
the burden of proof and make a devil's advocate 
argument.

snip
 The differences Raunchy pointed out
 ARE NOT TRUE, Shemp. That's the point. 
 They are cultural and social myths *about*
 men and women that do not hold up when
 examined scientifically.

Right. It was a *DEVIL'S ADVOCATE* argument that
Raunchy was quoting that deliberately *invoked* those 
myths. See what Barry quotes from her post, where it
SAYS THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Barry knows he screwed up, but he just can't bring 
himself to admit it. Big surprise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 

no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 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.

Says Barry, having tried to steer the conversation
away from ugly finger-pointing and blame by
calling Raunchy an ignorant sexual and sexist bigot.

horselaugh

snip 
 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

YES. IT WAS A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ARGUMENT THAT RAUNCHY 
QUOTED.

snip
 You people are SUCH sexual barbarians. Gay marriage
 is not a civil rights issue any more than straight
 marriage is.

Exactly. That's why we're arguing in favor of it,
because it *shouldn't be* a civil rights issue any
more than straight marriage is.

Unfortunately, some people think otherwise. Those
are the folks we're arguing *with*, loser.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 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.

No, she didn't like the sidebar because it involved 
Barry calling Raunchy an ignorant sexist bigot on the 
basis of his utter confusion as to what the argument 
was that she was quoting.

Barry *could* have introduced the topic of polyamory 
without attacking Raunchy (and me), but he was much 
more interested in attacking than in discussing 
*anything*. Big surprise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 

salsunsh...@... wrote:

 On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  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.
 
 Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
 immature trolls of someone's stung!
 gotcha-games that seems to be about the
 only way they know how to answer something
 they don't want to talk about.

As if Stupid Sal had even the vaguest notion of what it
was we were talking about, or why we're laughing at
Barry's ridiculous misunderstanding of it. She'll just
happily swallow Barry's incredibly lame attempt to
defend himself from the indefensible.

(And she appears to be posting at 4:22 a.m. Fairfield
time. Maybe if she'd get some sleep, she wouldn't be
quite so gullible?...Naah.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 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.
 

Barry seems to have forgotten that it was Shemp who wanted to discuss gay 
marriage from his anti-gay POV using the box turtle, and slippery slope 
arguments and that Shemp initiated the discussion with What about that 
disgusting butt thing the guys do? 

My point to Shemp was that using such arguments do not support a case against 
gay marriage. It's simply a ploy of the rightwing to avoid discussing issues 
about gay marriage that DO matter. In context of the discussion I saw Barry's 
polyamory sidebar as another box turtle added to Shemps list of types of 
marriages we must accept if we want to accept gay marriage. The purpose of such 
meanderings is to derail a discussion of gay marriage on issues such as:

Adoption
Hospital visitation rights
Transfer of property upon the death of a spouse
Non-discrimination in the workplace
Hate crimes
Tax, Health and Economic benefits
Shared property
Repeal of Don't ask don't tell
Repeal of DOMA
 
 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. 
 

No one took Barry's bait to talk about polyamory so he could prove (once again) 
what prudes we are on FFLife and how sexually free he is.  Now he's mad about 
it and wants to blames me for everyone's lack of interest in his topic.

 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.
 

Barry is mad that his polyamory train collided with the gay marriage train.

 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.  :-)  :-)  :-)


Spoken like a true libertine: All you folks on FFLife are just a bunch of 
barbaric prudes and I'm not.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Richard J. Williams]

raunchydog wrote:
 Barry seems to have forgotten that it 
 was Shemp who wanted to discuss gay 
 marriage from his anti-gay POV using 
 the box turtle, and slippery slope 
 arguments and that Shemp initiated the 
 discussion with What about that 
 disgusting butt thing the guys do? 

For the record, I am against it,  so I've 
got to agree with BillyG and Shamep: it's 
an immoral disgusting habit that should 
be discouraged! I am opposed to most male 
thrusting - it's usually serves no 
purpose, and it's downright dangerous 
during an epidemic. Just for the record, 
and in my opinion.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
  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.
 
Sal Sunshine wrote:
 Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
 immature trolls of someone's stung!
 gotcha-games that seems to be about the
 only way they know how to answer something
 they don't want to talk about.
 
So, now it's all about Judy and RD.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[meowthirteen]

-- h.
And what did you have for dinner?

...listening.















- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy* was
  talking about polyamory!
 
 Raunchydog was projecting a bent, feminist
 sexism onto the word polygamy, which 
 *describes* a form of polyamorous marriage.
 Only one form, as it turns out, and you did
 it, too, getting all defensive because you
 had said that there were good reasons for
 not allowing polygamy, and then tried to wig-
 gle your way out of it by quibbling words. 
 I will give you the benefit of the doubt and 
 suggest that you were probably thinking of 
 the word polygamy as most people; that is,
 as practiced by Mormons; that is, a form of 
 sexist patriarchy. 
 
 It is not the only form of polygamy or poly-
 amorous marriage, which my post was intended 
 to bring out. Instead it brought out in 
 Raunchydog only her standard hatred of men 
 and tendency to speak about them in cliches.
 WRONG cliches, scientifically, but she doesn't
 care about that.
 
 The problem is probably really mine. I had
 been lured into a false sense of being able to
 deal with sexually-rational human beings by
 being back in France again. I should have known 
 better to bring up real discussions of sex and 
 sexuality with sexual barbarians.  :-)
 
 For the record, that is what I consider most
 members of this forum, although that is not 
 entirely their fault. On the whole, the mem-
 bers of this forum have grown up in and had
 their sensibilities shaped by two of the most
 sexually-ignorant and sexually-repressed
 cultures on the planet -- 1) America, and 2)
 the TM movement. How *could* they have a 
 balanced view of sex and sexuality?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... 
wrote:

 raunchydog wrote:
  Barry seems to have forgotten that it 
  was Shemp who wanted to discuss gay 
  marriage from his anti-gay POV using 
  the box turtle, and slippery slope 
  arguments and that Shemp initiated the 
  discussion with What about that 
  disgusting butt thing the guys do? 
 
 For the record, I am against it,  so I've 
 got to agree with BillyG and Shamep: it's 
 an immoral disgusting habit that should 
 be discouraged! I am opposed to most male 
 thrusting - it's usually serves no 
 purpose, and it's downright dangerous 
 during an epidemic. Just for the record, 
 and in my opinion.


Habit? Really? What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is 
nobody's business and that is basic to the whole discussion about gay marriage. 
You're antiquated POV lost ground in 2003 when the Supreme Court invalidated 
anti-homosexual sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, meowthirteen meowthirteen@ wrote:
 
  ---
  *Turquoise:
  How was your dinner?
  I bet it was lovely.
  I wonder if you ate outside,if the weather was gorgeous
  and what you had brought to you...
  I wonder if you had really nice wine with it.
  I hope you had good conversation and are having bella serah.
 
 It was great. Thanks for asking. I got to sit
 in a lovely Provencal restaurant in Nice under
 the stars and eat great food and drink good wine
 with people who would have been bemused to the
 point of uncontrollable laughter by all of the
 prudery and sexual uptightness being discussed
 on this forum as if it were important. :-)
snip
 Yep. I think that polyamory is an interesting 
 fascination (as opposed to the discussions here
 about sex and sexuality, which could be taking
 place between Puritans and Shiite Muslims as 
 far as I can tell).
snip
 But on this forum you have a number of people who
 *claim* to have the answers, one way or another. 
snip
 They're still hung up about sex. Some on one side,
 some on the other.

I strongly suspect meowthirteen, unlike Barry, has
actually *read* the discussions and is astute
enough to recognize how wildly and self-servingly
off Barry's portrayal of them is.

snip
 It's not particularly my
 thing as it is a number of my friends' thing,
 but I've learned much from their openness and
 their willingness to treat sex and sexuality
 as things that don't *require* rules, much less
 the need to obey them.

Actually, polyamory has quite a few rules about
sex and sexuality. They may be different from one
polyamorous group--or even couple within a group--
to another, but the one thing all polyamorists
seem to agree on is that obeying the rules a group
or couple has set up is essential for successful
polyamorous relationships.

Either Barry's polyamorous friends neglected to
tell him that, or he immediately expunged it from
his memory. Barry *really* doesn't like rules.

(Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
supporter of the posting limits.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... 
wrote:

 raunchydog wrote:
  Barry seems to have forgotten that it 
  was Shemp who wanted to discuss gay 
  marriage from his anti-gay POV using 
  the box turtle, and slippery slope 
  arguments and that Shemp initiated the 
  discussion with What about that 
  disgusting butt thing the guys do? 
 
 For the record, I am against it,  so I've 
 got to agree with BillyG and Shamep: it's 
 an immoral disgusting habit that should 
 be discouraged! I am opposed to most male 
 thrusting - it's usually serves no 
 purpose, and it's downright dangerous 
 during an epidemic. Just for the record, 
 and in my opinion.

They say there's 600 different species of bacteria that live in the human 
mouth.  French kissing is disgusting too, but I bet you've done it, and will 
willingly involve Willy with such again -- willy nilly, eh?

There's folks who actually eat shit hot out of the chute, and they're not dying 
from it.  The stomach acids etc. are pretty good at disinfecting anything, and, 
the normal human has an array of defenses should any bacteria get into the 
blood stream.  And, hey, all dogs eat cat shit, right?  Protein in them thar 
turds.  

They say most farm boys have stuck their prongs into sheep etc.  Seems to me 
that they're likely to be hetero for the most part, yet, these guys are not 
especially singled out for their germy-sex the way homosexuals are, because, 
why? don't know -- probably cuz most farm boys grow out of it, but homosexuals 
don't.  Something like that.  The farm boys have eventual deniability as 
their trump card. They're made fun of when we attend to the concept 
hillbillies in the movie Deliverance, but that's about it.  There's not much 
hype in the media about it, yet there's an obvious -- if approximate -- 
equivocation of animal--human sex to human-anal-sex in terms of disease risks. 

Thus, the immoral disgusting label turns out to be a political not a 
science-based argument. 

The funny part is that hetero anal-sex with women is a huge dynamic in the porn 
industry.  Apparently hetero men just gots ta hav it.  Yet, Willy, we hear 
nothing from you about this practice being exactly the same as a homosexual 
anal encounter.

Me? I likes my sex to be out-of-the-shower clean.  I think any thinking man 
would opt for that and assert that women should smell like themselves instead 
of the thin layer of surface bacteria that grows in their tropic zones.  The 
trite metaphor of the teen boy smelling his finger after having stuck it in a 
vagina and being, oddly, impressed that it still stinks long after the sex 
act is damned goofy, since he's not smelling her, he's smelling bacteria that 
lived on her skin. Her vagina is, typically, quite germ free, and the odors 
that emanate from her vaginal juices are not off-putting -- real women taste 
good!  Anal sex's immoral only if we say that exposing one's immune system to 
challenge is immoralbut then we get into the issues of immoral smokers, 
drinkers, etc. who harm themselves far more deeply.

I would suspect that homosexuals go to great lengths to be as anally clean and 
empty as possible.  Don't know.  If not, then I suppose some of them are able 
to positively interpret the odors of fecal material into the same badges of 
honor via the same psychological method that boys with stink fingers use.

Oh, it takes all kinds in this world, eh?

Edg


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[meowthirteen]

--ooops 
I posted before I read all the listed...


Grand merci;
many thanks for allowing me to live vicariously through you;
enjoy Europe .
I appreciate the mindset there, as opposed to America, 
the Puritans made dark what needn't be
(my opinion)



You , full of heart,enjoy...















- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, meowthirteen meowthirteen@ wrote:
 
  ---
  *Turquoise:
  How was your dinner?
  I bet it was lovely.
  I wonder if you ate outside,if the weather was gorgeous
  and what you had brought to you...
  I wonder if you had really nice wine with it.
  I hope you had good conversation and are having bella serah.
 
 It was great. Thanks for asking. I got to sit
 in a lovely Provencal restaurant in Nice under
 the stars and eat great food and drink good wine
 with people who would have been bemused to the
 point of uncontrollable laughter by all of the
 prudery and sexual uptightness being discussed
 on this forum as if it were important. :-)
 
  *Speaking more to the post now,there is a forum on Craigslist 
  called polymory and it explains more what it is .Visiting 
  there on occasions will give a idea of what people in that 
  lifestyle do/ think...
 
 Yep. I think that polyamory is an interesting 
 fascination (as opposed to the discussions here
 about sex and sexuality, which could be taking
 place between Puritans and Shiite Muslims as 
 far as I can tell). It's not particularly my
 thing as it is a number of my friends' thing,
 but I've learned much from their openness and
 their willingness to treat sex and sexuality
 as things that don't *require* rules, much less
 the need to obey them.
 
  -Personal side note-it's not what I thought,and there's a 
  train of thought that was brought up there that some are 
  wired this way.
  I'm going to keep this short,it could get deep .Psychology 
  hypothesis,
  past life injury,fear,inadequate brain synapsis...list 
  goes on infinately,as for why a participation in this 
  type of relationship.
 
 I'm assuming you're still talking about polyamory.
 So I find it curious that you only mention *negative*
 hypotheses for why people might adopt it. I see a 
 number of positive ones.
 
  I found it interesting the feelings the people shared involved.
  I like to understand as many as I can, so as to help me not judge .
  I think all are in the Process and I am working on letting 
  everyone be at their own spot in the Process.I don't even have 
  to understand.
  I just need to not cause suffering .I don't have all the answers, 
  and I certainly have not heard them all either.I have so much 
  more to hear, and understand,and not understand-and let go ,fly...
  
  *sprinkle * 
  *sprinkle*
  Some mirth upon you -
  it got on your cheek!
  Ope!There goes a smile creeping up!
  Let the warmth of the day soak into you;
  it is not too hot
 
 Indeed. An openness to discussions of non-mainstream
 sex and sexuality is IMO a great thing, and I praise
 you for having that 'tude about it all. As you say,
 no one has the answers. But on this forum you have a
 number of people who *claim* to have the answers, one
 way or another. I don't think that they do, and as I've
 suggested this morning, the fact that *whatever* their
 perspective on non-mainstream sexuality they consider
 it a big enough deal to argue about *as if* they had
 the answers the biggest tell. 
 
 They're still hung up about sex. Some on one side,
 some on the other.
 
 I prefer my French friends and coworkers, who place
 sex and sexuality in their true perspective, from my
 point of view. That is, about on the same level as
 what to order for dinner and which type of wine to
 order. It's really not all that serious, people...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote:

 On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  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.
 
 Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
 immature trolls of someone's stung!
 gotcha-games that seems to be about the
 only way they know how to answer something
 they don't want to talk about.
 
 Sal



Judy's latest 'gotcha,' whatever it represents in her own mind, is simply 
another example of her ongoing never-ending perpetual nitpick and nag persona 
including her ulgy, nasty personal attacks on anyone she disagrees with - 
particularly anyone who dares criticize her overblown illusory self image and 
arrogant self-superior and self-righteous condescending ego trip.

She's just another really creepy human being.

I'll repeat my advice: One would do well to just stay away from her. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Vaj]

On Jun 15, 2009, at 10:48 AM, do.rflex wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
salsunsh...@... wrote:


On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


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.


Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
immature trolls of someone's stung!
gotcha-games that seems to be about the
only way they know how to answer something
they don't want to talk about.

Sal




Judy's latest 'gotcha,' whatever it represents in her own mind, is  
simply another example of her ongoing never-ending perpetual  
nitpick and nag persona including her ulgy, nasty personal attacks  
on anyone she disagrees with - particularly anyone who dares  
criticize her overblown illusory self image and arrogant self- 
superior and self-righteous condescending ego trip.


She's just another really creepy human being.

I'll repeat my advice: One would do well to just stay away from her.



Unfortunately the internet is open season for people with personality  
disorders. Even in the best therapeutic situations, personality  
disorders are difficult to treat. Emailing incessantly to a  
personality disordered person is not going to help them change, esp.  
an elderly adult who clearly has decided to act out these negative  
traits and destructive emotions till her dying day.


Without strict moderation, such people can destroy otherwise fun and  
productive email lists, so therefore the best policy is to ignore  
them if moderators are not willing to ban them. It can be fun to  
watch someone very patient play cat and mouse with them if the cat  
is extremely patient to the point where it exposes the persons  
underlying flaws repeatedly. But even such patient behavior will not  
typically help the person change. And the last person who was that  
patient has now left this list.


Since most email clients have easy scripting options, it's easy to  
simply tag the offending persons email address and have it be  
redirected to the trash or recycle bin. That's  just one reason why  
an email client is the superior way to view a list like FFL, you can  
avoid the mindless spew.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
 
  On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
  
   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.
  
  Look any minute for either Judy's or RD's
  immature trolls of someone's stung!
  gotcha-games that seems to be about the
  only way they know how to answer something
  they don't want to talk about.
  
  Sal
 
 Judy's latest 'gotcha,' whatever it represents in her own mind, is simply 
 another example of her ongoing never-ending perpetual nitpick and nag persona 
 including her ulgy, nasty personal attacks on anyone she disagrees with - 
 particularly anyone who dares criticize her overblown illusory self image and 
 arrogant self-superior and self-righteous condescending ego trip.
 
 She's just another really creepy human being.
 
 I'll repeat my advice: One would do well to just stay
 away from her.

Man, you just *gotta* chuckle at Chuckles. He's as out
of at as Sal, maybe more so.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 (Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
 people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
 didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
 supporter of the posting limits.)

Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)

Judy would prefer that people forgot the reason 
*for* the posting limits, and that it's all about
three people who used to habitually make 450 to 600 
posts per month. 

Those three people were her, and Shemp, and one
other person who has since reduced his posts to
a mere fraction of anyone else's and is no longer
a part of the equation. (And if Judy disputes this 
I still have the numbers, including the two-week 
period in which she fired off 264 posts and Shemp 
made 305.)

For those who weren't here then, the complaint was
that a few people (mainly these three, because when
the subject came up other overposters voluntarily
reduced their posts to less than half of what they
were doing before, while Judy and Shemp actually
*increased* their number of posts in response to
the requests from others to cut back) were trying 
to drown out other voices on this forum by 
posting so much.

That's the world Judy would like to go back to.
That's what *she* considers appropriate. You newbies
have only had to deal with 50 of her posts per week.
Imagine having to scroll past that amount of hatred
and bile *150* times per week. THAT is what Judy 
thought was a good system.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
  usually serves no purpose, and it's downright 
  dangerous during an epidemic. Just for the 
  record, and in my opinion.
 
raunchydog wrote: 
 Habit? Really? What two consenting adults 
 do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's 
 business and that is basic to the whole 
 discussion about gay marriage. You're 
 antiquated POV lost ground in 2003 when 
 the Supreme Court invalidated anti-homosexual 
 sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

Yes, I am opposed to most male thrusting, on
general principles, whether it's perpetrated
upon women or upon men. It serves no purpose 
and should be discouraged. Thrusting is a habit
most men are addicted to. Most women who are
addicted to male thrusting are just feeding
the male ego.

According to a recent survey of women, mere 
thrusting hardly ever gives women satisfaction; 
apparently most women tolerate this male custom 
simply to avoid embarrassing the men, i.e., 
women feel sorry for the thrusting men.

Read more:

Subject: Viagra
From: Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: October 10, 2001
http://tinyurl.com/mxx8lv

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 Man, you just *gotta* chuckle at Chuckles. He's as out
 of at as Sal, maybe more so.

But that's not possible ! ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
  usually serves no purpose, and it's 
  downright dangerous during an epidemic. 
 
Duveyoung wrote:
 Apparently hetero men just gots ta hav it.  
 Yet, Willy, we hear nothing from you about 
 this practice being exactly the same as a 
 homosexual anal encounter...
 
Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
thrusting - it serves no useful purposes and
it is disgusting and dangerous. You seem to
be in denial. Apparently you're still into
thrusting. Stop projecting. I already told
you, I'm not gay.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

nablusoss1008 wrote:
 Man, you just *gotta* chuckle at Chuckles. 
 He's as out of at as Sal, maybe more so.
 
So, Nabby, why do you suppose that people
are so addicted to thrusting? According to
Edg, he's just got to have it. Perhaps the 
idea of a large, ever-erect, penile member 
is just a male fantasy, and is quite 
irrelevant to the world as a hole. 

You know what I mean, Jim?

Read more:

'The Hite Report'
A National Study of Female Sexuality
by Shere Hite 
Seven Stories Press, 2003 
http://tinyurl.com/ngs9pd

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
   usually serves no purpose, and it's 
   downright dangerous during an epidemic. 
  
 Duveyoung wrote:
  Apparently hetero men just gots ta hav it.  
  Yet, Willy, we hear nothing from you about 
  this practice being exactly the same as a 
  homosexual anal encounter...


Why don't you ask Alexander Stanley for inside information about this matter ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
   usually serves no purpose, and it's 
   downright dangerous during an epidemic. 
  
 Duveyoung wrote:
  Apparently hetero men just gots ta hav it.  
  Yet, Willy, we hear nothing from you about 
  this practice being exactly the same as a 
  homosexual anal encounter...
  
 Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
 thrusting - it serves no useful purposes and
 it is disgusting and dangerous. You seem to
 be in denial. Apparently you're still into
 thrusting. Stop projecting. I already told
 you, I'm not gay.


I don't get WillyTex. Are you saying that men or just gay men should not thrust 
when they have sex?  How much fun is that?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

do.rflex wrote:
 Judy's latest 'gotcha,' whatever it represents 
 in her own mind, is simply another example of 
 her ongoing never-ending perpetual nitpick and 
 nag persona including her ulgy, nasty personal 
 attacks on anyone she disagrees with...

Yeah, you really got Judy this time, and you 
really put a stop to her never-ending perpetual 
nitpick and nagging and ugly, nasty personal 
attacks on anyone she disagrees with. LOL!

From: John Manning
Subject: Re: Local clown gets waxed. 
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: July 7, 2003 
 
LYING clowns have no credibility Willytex. 
Because you are a LYING clown, you are not 
worthy of a response other than what Unc 
suggested below:

Take your head and turn it as far to the 
right as possible and look around.  Now
do the same thing, turning to the left.
Now look up and down.  Notice the same odd, 
dull, brownish tint that you see in all 
directions?

That's because your head is up your ass,
Willy. Get back to me when it isn't and 
you might be worth talking to...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
   usually serves no purpose, and it's downright 
   dangerous during an epidemic. Just for the 
   record, and in my opinion.
  
 raunchydog wrote: 
  Habit? Really? What two consenting adults 
  do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's 
  business and that is basic to the whole 
  discussion about gay marriage. You're 
  antiquated POV lost ground in 2003 when 
  the Supreme Court invalidated anti-homosexual 
  sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.
 
 Yes, I am opposed to most male thrusting, on
 general principles, whether it's perpetrated
 upon women or upon men. It serves no purpose 
 and should be discouraged. Thrusting is a habit
 most men are addicted to. Most women who are
 addicted to male thrusting are just feeding
 the male ego.
 
 According to a recent survey of women, mere 
 thrusting hardly ever gives women satisfaction; 
 apparently most women tolerate this male custom 
 simply to avoid embarrassing the men, i.e., 
 women feel sorry for the thrusting men.
 

IMO sex without trusting is like overcooked pasta, it's not nearly as 
satisfying to a woman's taste buds as al dente.

 Read more:
 
 Subject: Viagra
 From: Willytex
 Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
 Date: October 10, 2001
 http://tinyurl.com/mxx8lv

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
  thrusting - it serves no useful purposes 
  and it is disgusting and dangerous... 
 
 I don't get WillyTex. Are you saying that men 
 or just gay men should not thrust when they 
 have sex?  How much fun is that?

Why would a real woman need a male thrusting? 
That's the question I guess. Maybe some women
like to live dangerously, I don't know. Shere
Hite said in her report that over 85% of women
don't reach orgasm with male thrusting. I mean,
what is it with all the trusting? Is it true 
that most women just feel sorry for the man
doing the thrusting and want to build up his
ego. How much fun is that?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  Yes, I am opposed to most male thrusting, on
  general principles, whether it's perpetrated
  upon women or upon men. It serves no purpose 
  and should be discouraged. Thrusting is a habit
  most men are addicted to. Most women who are
  addicted to male thrusting are just feeding
  the male ego.
  
  According to a recent survey of women, mere 
  thrusting hardly ever gives women satisfaction; 
  apparently most women tolerate this male custom 
  simply to avoid embarrassing the men, i.e., 
  women feel sorry for the thrusting men.
 
RD wrote: 
 IMO sex without trusting is like overcooked pasta, 
 it's not nearly as satisfying to a woman's taste 
 buds as al dente.
 
Maybe so, but have you tried it without all the
thrusting? Maybe you don't really need all the
thrusting, I don't know. But it is strange that
men and women think they have to have the thrusting;
it's like an addiction. It's to the point that
women are demanding that the men take Viagra, 
for even more thrusting. Some women will do anything
to get the thrusting - others are self-starters and
seem to do fine. But it's difficult to give up the
thrusting when you are in denial. Did you see 'When
Harry Met Sally'? Men will probably never know if 
all their thrusting means anything - it could be
all fake just to stroke their ego. 

  Read more:
  
  Subject: Viagra
  From: Willytex
  Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
  Date: October 10, 2001
  http://tinyurl.com/mxx8lv
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_reply@ wrote:
 
I am opposed to most male thrusting - it's 
usually serves no purpose, and it's 
downright dangerous during an epidemic. 
   
  Duveyoung wrote:
   Apparently hetero men just gots ta hav it.  
   Yet, Willy, we hear nothing from you about 
   this practice being exactly the same as a 
   homosexual anal encounter...
   
  Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
  thrusting - it serves no useful purposes and
  it is disgusting and dangerous. You seem to
  be in denial. Apparently you're still into
  thrusting. Stop projecting. I already told
  you, I'm not gay.
 
 
 I don't get WillyTex. Are you saying that men or just gay men should not 
 thrust when they have sex?  How much fun is that?


Raunch,

You don't get Willy?  WTF are you mentioning this fact for?

No one gets Willy. So dump the idea that you're sooo damned special, hee hee. 

If only Willy were able to match the posting smarts that, say, Nab does, then 
maybe someone could get Willy.  Nab is able to keep a consistent presentation 
of his POV, and this distinguishes Nab from Willy who seemingly cannot 
understand what anyone here is writing about -- his wheel spins but the hamster 
is dead.  Nab'll getcha good if you slip up dogmatically, but Willy is like a 
little kid at a party who goes around saying fuck just to see the reactions.  
I'd say that Willy's contributions here have almost no value compared to Nab's 
fine service unto us all in which he keeps the concepts in focus.  

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
   thrusting - it serves no useful purposes 
   and it is disgusting and dangerous... 
  
  I don't get WillyTex. Are you saying that men 
  or just gay men should not thrust when they 
  have sex?  How much fun is that?
 
 Why would a real woman need a male thrusting? 

Duh? It feels good?

 That's the question I guess. Maybe some women
 like to live dangerously, I don't know. 

I happen to like thrusting as long as I have a partner skilled and sensitive 
enough to know what feels good to me. Thrusting is not dangerous. Where in the 
world did you ever get such an idea?

Shere
 Hite said in her report that over 85% of women
 don't reach orgasm with male thrusting. I mean,
 what is it with all the trusting? Is it true 
 that most women just feel sorry for the man
 doing the thrusting and want to build up his
 ego. How much fun is that?


Not true. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels sorry for him, I 
suggest she fine a more interesting partner. Your best bet for discovering what 
a woman likes in the sack is to ASK her. If you're listening to your mate, she 
will give you far more reliable information about what pleasures her than you 
will ever find from reading a book. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  (Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
  people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
  didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
  supporter of the posting limits.)
 
 Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
 folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)

Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything
I've said except the one aside he quotes above.

Actually what I was referring to is the way he keeps
such careful track of my posts to make sure I don't
go over 50 per week--even though, as he knows, since
the limit was imposed, I've never done so deliberately
and only a few times accidentally.

But he keeps hoping, because then he'd have a whole
week when he could lie up a storm without the lies
being immediately exposed.

And that, of course, is why he was in favor of the
posting limit in the first place.

snip
 For those who weren't here then, the complaint was
 that a few people (mainly these three, because when
 the subject came up other overposters voluntarily
 reduced their posts to less than half of what they
 were doing before, while Judy and Shemp actually
 *increased* their number of posts in response to
 the requests from others to cut back) were trying 
 to drown out other voices on this forum by 
 posting so much.

Seems impossible for Barry to make a post without
at least one lie in it. In the paragraph above, we
have three. (1) Nobody reduced their posts by half
in response to the complaints; (2) we didn't--or at
least *I* didn't--increase the number of my posts
in response to the complaints; and (3) none of us
was trying to drown out others on this forum. The
very idea that anybody could do so even if they
wanted to is absurd.

So Barry, when are you going to admit your gigantic
boo-boos about Raunchy's post?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
  thrusting - it serves no useful purposes 
  and it is disgusting and dangerous. 
 
Edg wrote:
 I'd say that Willy's contributions here have 
 almost no value compared to Nab's fine
 service unto us all in which he keeps the 
 concepts in focus...

So, you don't want to talk about the male
thrusting. That's understandable - you're 
in a state of denial. You're addicted to the
thrusting - you've got to have it. Even if it
serves no useful purpose; even if it is living
dangerously; even if the thrusting brings no 
satisfaction to the woman getting thrusted.

Thrusting is a male ego thing, and men don't 
really want to talk about it. But what I want
to know is, why do the women all think they 
have to have the thrusting?

So, listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male 
thrusting - it serves no useful purposes  and 
it is disgusting and dangerous. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

  Why would a real woman need a male thrusting? 
 
raunchydog wrote: 
 Duh? It feels good?
 
  That's the question I guess. Maybe some women
  like to live dangerously, I don't know. 
 
 I happen to like thrusting as long as I have a 
 partner skilled and sensitive enough to know what 
 feels good to me. Thrusting is not dangerous. Where 
 in the world did you ever get such an idea?
 
Because you might get pregnant? Or give birth to a
bastard? Or give birth to a moron? Or you might get 
a disease? It's disgusting what some people will
do for sexual pleasure - it's very selfish of the
men to demand the thrusting - it's really a form of
rape, and it's often violent thrusting. Thrusting
is the problem, not the solution.

  Shere Hite said in her report that over 85% of 
  women don't reach orgasm with male thrusting. 
  I mean, what is it with all the trusting? Is it
  true that most women just feel sorry for the man
  doing the thrusting and want to build up his ego. 
  How much fun is that?
 
 Not true. If a woman has sex with a man because she 
 feels sorry for him, I suggest she fine a more 
 interesting partner. 

Maybe so, but according to Shere Hite in her report, 
over 85% of women reported that they failed to reach 
orgasm with thrusting.
 
 Your best bet for discovering 
 what a woman likes in the sack is to ASK her. If 
 you're listening to your mate, she will give you far 
 more reliable information about what pleasures her 
 than you will ever find from reading a book.

Not according to Sally in the movie 'When Harry met
Sally'. Any woman can fake it and many do, just to
please the man. It's common knowledge - maybe you
are one of the honest ones. But you're saying that 
all the man has to do is ask 'How was it for you?',
What happens to the man's ego when you say 'Hey, 
Buddy, it was not good for me you selfish pig'? 

LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   (Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
   people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
   didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
   supporter of the posting limits.)
  
  Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
  folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)
 
 Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything
 I've said except the one aside he quotes above.

Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
than three days into the week. :-)

What's fascinating is that she undoubtedly 
believes that all these folks like Sal and 
do.rflex and I who throw out an occasional
post designed to push her buttons and *get*
her to blow all her posts within a couple
of days DON'T HAVE to ever respond to any-
thing she says. 

Why bother? We OWN her ass. We can make her 
post out without ever interacting with her
directly at all. 

Sal started things rolling this week with one
simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to. 

And Judy undoubtedly believed every time she
hit the Send button that she was winning. :-)

And you know what the funniest thing will be?

She won't be able to resist responding to this
post, either. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
(Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
supporter of the posting limits.)
   
   Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
   folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)
  
  Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything
  I've said except the one aside he quotes above.
 
 Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
 than three days into the week. :-)

And once again Barry's not able to respond to
what I wrote, this time in the post he's
responding to.

 What's fascinating is that she undoubtedly 
 believes that all these folks like Sal and 
 do.rflex and I who throw out an occasional
 post designed to push her buttons and *get*
 her to blow all her posts within a couple
 of days DON'T HAVE to ever respond to any-
 thing she says. 
 
 Why bother? We OWN her ass. We can make her 
 post out without ever interacting with her
 directly at all.

Meaning my posts exposing their lies and
stupidities stand unrefuted. For some reason,
Barry thinks this is a Good Thing for him and
his dittoheads.

(Actually, he's hoping his boast will discourage
me from exposing him and the dunces. But it just
gives me yet another opportunity to demonstrate
what losers they are.)
 
 Sal started things rolling this week with one
 simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
 that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
 it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
 allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to.

More like a half dozen, actually. (Barry has
counting problems.)

 And Judy undoubtedly believed every time she
 hit the Send button that she was winning. :-)

No, rather that Sal *lost*, big-time, every time
I pressed the Send button.

Let's remember what Sal claimed: that what I'd
said about Obama fighting for the Defense of
Marriage Act in court, with a brief that was as
damaging as it could possibly be to gay rights,
was my insane fantasy and that I was only able
to find fringe bloggers to back me up.

By fringe bloggers, she meant *gay* bloggers,
exposing her own homophobia--gays are just the
fringe, nobody who needs to be paid attention
to.

This was after I'd posted material from *Andrew
Sullivan*, whose Atlantic Monthly blog is one of
the two or three top blogs; and from *DailyKos*,
one of the two or three top political blogs,
which fanatically supported Obama. These were
what Sal claimed were fringe blogs.

After having pointed that out, I posted a press
release issued by the ACLU and the five top gay
rights organizations in the country expressing
their distress at Obama's actions.

And finally, I posted links to ABC, CBS, and
Huffington Post, along with links to several
other A-list blogs. AP had a piece on Sunday that
was published in newspapers across the country,
and MSNBC had its own story, as well as the
Village Voice and the Advocate.

And Barry doesn't think Sal lost with her
ignorant and homophobic remark.

 And you know what the funniest thing will be?
 
 She won't be able to resist responding to this
 post, either.

Barry, dear, predicting that I won't be able
to resist responding to one of your posts has
never stopped me from doing so. It's possibly
your *least* effective ploy (although none of them
are very good).

You just keep losing, and losing, and losing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
(Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
supporter of the posting limits.)
   
   Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
   folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)
  
  Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything
  I've said except the one aside he quotes above.
 
 Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
 than three days into the week. :-)
 
 What's fascinating is that she undoubtedly 
 believes that all these folks like Sal and 
 do.rflex and I who throw out an occasional
 post designed to push her buttons and *get*
 her to blow all her posts within a couple
 of days DON'T HAVE to ever respond to any-
 thing she says. 
 
 Why bother? We OWN her ass. We can make her 
 post out without ever interacting with her
 directly at all. 
 
 Sal started things rolling this week with one
 simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
 that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
 it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
 allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to. 
 
 And Judy undoubtedly believed every time she
 hit the Send button that she was winning. :-)
 
 And you know what the funniest thing will be?
 
 She won't be able to resist responding to this
 post, either.



For her to think that obsessively and endlessly rehashing and repeating the 
same tired worn out nastiness and ugly and mean spirited and vindictive 
personal attacks - even using the exact same phrases over and over, week after 
week, month after month, year after year - is actually getting anywhere or 
actually producing anything worthwhile for anyone - is almost tragic.

It's apparently just about the only thing she really knows how to do here.

I'm waiting to see if we can get her to break her early 'posting out' records.  
Ha Ha Ha...

If she can't see what's so obvious however, I'm beginning to think in the back 
of my mind that she just may be starting to lose it upstairs. And that's NOT so 
funny.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:

 (Except, of course, for the rules that keep other
 people from doing or saying what he'd rather they
 didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong
 supporter of the posting limits.)

Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding
folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)
   
   Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything
   I've said except the one aside he quotes above.
  
  Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
  than three days into the week. :-)
  
  What's fascinating is that she undoubtedly 
  believes that all these folks like Sal and 
  do.rflex and I who throw out an occasional
  post designed to push her buttons and *get*
  her to blow all her posts within a couple
  of days DON'T HAVE to ever respond to any-
  thing she says. 
  
  Why bother? We OWN her ass. We can make her 
  post out without ever interacting with her
  directly at all. 
  
  Sal started things rolling this week with one
  simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
  that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
  it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
  allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to. 
  
  And Judy undoubtedly believed every time she
  hit the Send button that she was winning. :-)
  
  And you know what the funniest thing will be?
  
  She won't be able to resist responding to this
  post, either.
 
 
 
 For her to think that obsessively and endlessly rehashing and repeating the 
 same tired worn out nastiness and ugly and mean spirited and vindictive 
 personal attacks - even using the exact same phrases over and over, week 
 after week, month after month, year after year - is actually getting anywhere 
 or actually producing anything worthwhile for anyone - is almost tragic.


Hmmm, I seem to remember someone who obsessively talked about pinky petals and 
colorless sap by endlessly rehashing and repeating the lecture.  

Seeing as Judy isn't claiming enlightenment, I'd say we have to give her even 
more opportunities to drill it home to you bastards, cuz, you know, she's 
spiritually handicapped, ya see?

The three rules of dealing with a troll: beat on them with the truth, rub their 
noses in the truth, and enjoy them sizzling on truth's grill.

It's astounding that FFL's Sal-Bar-do.r are so crippled in this debate when 
they do have some fine intellects (sorry Sal, I meant to write Bar and do.r 
only -- didn't mean to elevate you beyond your ability to rise up to meet that 
status.)  Frankly, it gives being smart a bad name when all the intellect is 
used for is childish pride in pulling another's chain.  Shame, shame, shame.

On the other hand, who wants them to really roll up their sleeves and have at 
these easily trounced freaks?  Yeah, let's call them that, cuz only a freak 
would be as prideful as they when they're simply being cruely ignorant. It's 
not natural.  No one is born this way. Thus, all of them have obviously been 
deeply broken by life.  Only water-truthing them can heal them.  

But, hey, they're fucking wrong, and we know it, so why go through the process 
when at the end of it, those who know these cybersnots for what they are will 
NOT be even a titch more clear about them than they were long long ago about 
the troll natures of Sal-Bar-do.r that were so broadly displayed?  And those 
who side with them (er, are they any?) will not be convinced by any argument of 
deep excellence, since, by their very nature as dittoheads they eschew thinking 
of every sort.

And now Willy comes along with this use of the word thrusting.  GAWD how 
creepy is this guy going to get?  It's one thing to want America to be 
genocidal, but to get so hung up on one word reveals yet another sick dynamic 
in Willy's personality -- makes his war mongering all that much more odious, 
vile and conceptually corrupt.

Edg






 
 It's apparently just about the only thing she really knows how to do here.
 
 I'm waiting to see if we can get her to break her early 'posting out' 
 records.  Ha Ha Ha...
 
 If she can't see what's so obvious however, I'm beginning to think in the 
 back of my mind that she just may be starting to lose it upstairs. And that's 
 NOT so funny.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Robert]

 (snip)
 Hmmm, I seem to remember someone who obsessively talked about pinky petals 
 and colorless sap by endlessly rehashing and repeating the lecture.  
 (snip)
He was just describing his experience...of how the transcendent manifests...
Most people still don't get it.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
 And now Willy comes along with this use of the 
 word thrusting. GAWD how creepy is this guy 
 going to get?  

So, you're in favor of men thrusting into other 
men, but Willy is the vile creep for opposing 
such behavior? Go figure.

 It's one thing to want America 
 to be genocidal, but to get so hung up on one 
 word reveals yet another sick dynamic in Willy's 
 personality -- makes his war mongering all that 
 much more odious, vile and conceptually corrupt.

Non sequitur.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Duveyoung]

And, yeah, you guys out there, learn to fucking fuck will ya?

If your partner isn't coming almost every time you make love, you ain't making 
love.

If the stats that report that most women are not coming from thrusting are 
true, (I think they are,) then why don't you men get jiggy with your ladies as 
to what their needs are and how to most pleasurably meet them?  Talk about 
giving women the perfect right to complain; it's embarrassing to be a man just 
on the basis of these stats alone. WTF?

And, just in case you men didn't actually know about it, there is a way to 
insure that a woman's clitoris is stimulated with every thrust, and your rate 
of helping your mate to orgasmic accomplishment rockets upwards.  Not that 
clitoral stimulation is the only method or even the best method.

And, you guys, wake the fuck up! Women are far more orgasmic than men -- shit, 
they can come just having their nips tweaked if they're deeply in love, and 
when something like that happens, a man is astoundingly aware of the importance 
of the fact that the woman's mind is the actual sex partner and that she can be 
talked to via any sensual input.  Watch a woman read a Hallmark card -- she's 
swooning, and you dummy guys out there think you can't please her with actual 
touches and kisses and thrusty-thrust-thrusts?  Women are built from the ground 
up to redline their chakras.  If you can't find a way, barring some physical 
malady, it goes to the man's heart values IMO.  If his energy isn't spot on, 
the woman will pick up on it every single time. If he's just knocking off a 
piece of ass, no wonder most women are not going to have an orgasm, right?

Making love is making love.  Merely having sex is exploring how human body 
parts can be tinker-toy connected.  

The good news: tinkering around is wonderful if making love is 
happeningadds to the pleasures.

Edg







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   Listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male
   thrusting - it serves no useful purposes 
   and it is disgusting and dangerous. 
  
 Edg wrote:
  I'd say that Willy's contributions here have 
  almost no value compared to Nab's fine
  service unto us all in which he keeps the 
  concepts in focus...
 
 So, you don't want to talk about the male
 thrusting. That's understandable - you're 
 in a state of denial. You're addicted to the
 thrusting - you've got to have it. Even if it
 serves no useful purpose; even if it is living
 dangerously; even if the thrusting brings no 
 satisfaction to the woman getting thrusted.
 
 Thrusting is a male ego thing, and men don't 
 really want to talk about it. But what I want
 to know is, why do the women all think they 
 have to have the thrusting?
 
 So, listen, Moron, I am opposed to most male 
 thrusting - it serves no useful purposes  and 
 it is disgusting and dangerous.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[scienceofabundance]

 
   Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
   than three days into the week. :-)
  

I have no idea who wrote the above, but I would like  to propose that the FFL 
rules be changed so that we can offer each other our unused posts similar to 
senators, etc. offering their own unused speaking time to others.

It would only mean a little extra work for the moderators and the added value 
to the discussions on FFL would rapidly thrust the group to a whole new level.

Science

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote:

  
Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
than three days into the week. :-)
   
 
 I have no idea who wrote the above, but I would like  to propose that the FFL 
 rules be changed so that we can offer each other our unused posts similar to 
 senators, etc. offering their own unused speaking time to others.
 
 It would only mean a little extra work for the moderators and the added value 
 to the discussions on FFL would rapidly thrust the group to a whole new level.
 
 Science

That could lead to an auction of sorts on Ebay,
So, people could make a profit, selling their posts, 
For a fee..
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[Duveyoung]

I did that for Judy a while ago, and I got thoroughly abused for it.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote:

  
Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
than three days into the week. :-)
   
 
 I have no idea who wrote the above, but I would like  to propose that the FFL 
 rules be changed so that we can offer each other our unused posts similar to 
 senators, etc. offering their own unused speaking time to others.
 
 It would only mean a little extra work for the moderators and the added value 
 to the discussions on FFL would rapidly thrust the group to a whole new level.
 
 Science

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_reply@ wrote:
 
   
 Says Judy, two posts from posting out, less
 than three days into the week. :-)

  
  I have no idea who wrote the above, but I would like  to propose that the 
  FFL rules be changed so that we can offer each other our unused posts 
  similar to senators, etc. offering their own unused speaking time to others.
  
  It would only mean a little extra work for the moderators and the added 
  value to the discussions on FFL would rapidly thrust the group to a whole 
  new level.
  
  Science
 
 That could lead to an auction of sorts on Ebay,
 So, people could make a profit, selling their posts, 
 For a fee..
 R.g.


Absolutely.  We need to come up with an appropriate name for the auction site.  
It would also need to have a section where people could ask for sponsorship to 
pay the fee to buy more posts from those with posts for sale. 

Science

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

  Sal started things rolling this week with one
  simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
  that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
  it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
  allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to.
 
 More like a half dozen, actually. (Barry has
 counting problems.)

This is SO much fun. Judy, who has referred 
to almost everyone here at some point as 
REAAALLLY REAAALLLY STOOOPID, keeps 
falling for the same old trick. 

The only thing I have to do is exaggerate
the number of posts she's made about some
subject (or intentionally make a spelling 
or typing or grammatical error), and her 
compulsive Gotta edit the STOOOPID person
syndrome goes into overdrive and she...uh...
wastes another post or two. Or 50.

The thing that makes this so much fun from
my side is that WE KEEP TELLING HER WHAT
WE ARE DOING, and her ego is so large and
so out of control that she thinks *THAT*
is an attempt to fuck with her, and *not*
the things we *tell her* we are doing. And 
so she falls for the same things over and 
over, and does *exactly* what we intended 
for her to do.

For example, she has now claimed for years
that Sal, do.rflex, Vaj, myself, and others
here are trying to silence her, when not
only should it be obvious to her that we're
trying to get her to post MORE of her idiocy
and thus expose it (and in the process...a 
perk of sorts...post out early and remove
*herself* from the forum), but we actually
*tell her* what we're up to. But her ego can
never support the idea that *she* is the one
being manipulated, so she has to keep claim-
ing that we're trying to silence her.

Well, she silenced herself. Again. And she
will do it again next week. And the week after
that. And the week after that as well. And no
matter how often we *tell her* our tricks, and
*tell her* how they work, she will *still* 
fall for them, every time.

And *we* are the ones who are REAAALLLY 
REAAALLLY STOOOPID. Uh-huh.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

   Sal started things rolling this week with one
   simple post that Judy felt so threatened by
   that she spend almost a dozen posts refuting
   it. Sal, on the other hand, just sat back and
   allowed Judy to refute all she wanted to.
  
  More like a half dozen, actually. (Barry has
  counting problems.)
 
 This is SO much fun. Judy, who has referred 
 to almost everyone here at some point as 
 REAAALLLY REAAALLLY STOOOPID, keeps 
 falling for the same old trick. 
 
 The only thing I have to do is exaggerate
 the number of posts she's made about some
 subject (or intentionally make a spelling 
 or typing or grammatical error), and her 
 compulsive Gotta edit the STOOOPID person
 syndrome goes into overdrive and she...uh...
 wastes another post or two. Or 50.
 

Now who should we believe? The Barry who says he lied and made stupid 
intentional mistakes to trap Judy, the Barry who lies saying Judy was 
incorrect when he knew she was correct, or the Barry who just flat out lies for 
the hell of it to push buttons? Vile little habit, that. 

Take you pick folks, Barry doesn't seem to mind that no one has confidence in 
his credibility. Ya see folks, it's like this. Barry gives cover to ass kissers 
too intellectually weak to challenge his dominance. Barry doesn't like smart 
people. Especially, anyone like Judy who regularly mops the floor with him. By 
the time she has had him for lunch and leisurely picks her teeth with one of 
his stray bones, he knows down to his toes that she owns him. In utter denial 
and in an attempt to save face, he shrieks to the peanut gallery, See, we did 
it again, we got her to POST OUT! Hooray for our team. Meanwhile, Judy has had 
quite a satisfying snack.  

 The thing that makes this so much fun from
 my side is that WE KEEP TELLING HER WHAT
 WE ARE DOING, and her ego is so large and
 so out of control that she thinks *THAT*
 is an attempt to fuck with her, and *not*
 the things we *tell her* we are doing. And 
 so she falls for the same things over and 
 over, and does *exactly* what we intended 
 for her to do.
 
 For example, she has now claimed for years
 that Sal, do.rflex, Vaj, myself, and others
 here are trying to silence her, when not
 only should it be obvious to her that we're
 trying to get her to post MORE of her idiocy
 and thus expose it (and in the process...a 
 perk of sorts...post out early and remove
 *herself* from the forum), but we actually
 *tell her* what we're up to. But her ego can
 never support the idea that *she* is the one
 being manipulated, so she has to keep claim-
 ing that we're trying to silence her.
 
 Well, she silenced herself. Again. And she
 will do it again next week. And the week after
 that. And the week after that as well. And no
 matter how often we *tell her* our tricks, and
 *tell her* how they work, she will *still* 
 fall for them, every time.
 
 And *we* are the ones who are REAAALLLY 
 REAAALLLY STOOOPID. Uh-huh.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
 And, yeah, you guys out there, learn 
 to fucking fuck will ya?
 
So, it always comes back to thrusting, 
Edg. I thought so. That's all some guys
can think about, thrusting, every single
day, if not every hour. It's all about 
their penis and their pleasure. It's all 
about fucking, isn't it? Isn't that why 
you're here, Edg? Be honest. It's all 
about Judy, isn't it? That's what you 
really want. 

 If your partner isn't coming almost 
 every time you make love, you ain't 
 making love...
 
Go get 'em, Tiger! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote:

   Why would a real woman need a male thrusting? 
  
 raunchydog wrote: 
  Duh? It feels good?
  
   That's the question I guess. Maybe some women
   like to live dangerously, I don't know. 
  
  I happen to like thrusting as long as I have a 
  partner skilled and sensitive enough to know what 
  feels good to me. Thrusting is not dangerous. Where 
  in the world did you ever get such an idea?
  
 Because you might get pregnant? Or give birth to a
 bastard? Or give birth to a moron? Or you might get 
 a disease? It's disgusting what some people will
 do for sexual pleasure - it's very selfish of the
 men to demand the thrusting - it's really a form of
 rape, and it's often violent thrusting. Thrusting
 is the problem, not the solution.
 

Gee, WillyTex, you're turning out to be one of the best sources of 
misinformation about sex since grade school. Thrusting makes you pregnant? 
Nope. Not using contraceptives make you pregnant. Birthing a bastard or a 
moron? Nope. Disease? Nope. 
  
   Shere Hite said in her report that over 85% of 
   women don't reach orgasm with male thrusting. 
   I mean, what is it with all the trusting? Is it
   true that most women just feel sorry for the man
   doing the thrusting and want to build up his ego. 
   How much fun is that?
  
  Not true. If a woman has sex with a man because she 
  feels sorry for him, I suggest she fine a more 
  interesting partner. 
 
 Maybe so, but according to Shere Hite in her report, 
 over 85% of women reported that they failed to reach 
 orgasm with thrusting.
  

Well then, I'm in the 15% that do. Every woman is different in her lovemaking 
preferences, but if she loves you, and you listen to her with your heart, her 
body will speak to you clearly. Tune into the subtleties of her dance and her 
rhythm will become your rhythm.

If you want to see what an incredible variety of female sexual appetites there 
are, check out the Vagina Monologues created by Eve Ensler who interviewed 200 
women and helped empower womens' sexuality by letting them talk about their 
Vagina. http://tinyurl.com/kpyvv6 
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=enq=Vagina+Monologuesum=1ie=UTF-8ei=nCE3SrXrNITWMOKq6ZQNsa=Xoi=video_result_groupresnum=12ct=title#

  Your best bet for discovering 
  what a woman likes in the sack is to ASK her. If 
  you're listening to your mate, she will give you far 
  more reliable information about what pleasures her 
  than you will ever find from reading a book.
 
 Not according to Sally in the movie 'When Harry met
 Sally'. Any woman can fake it and many do, just to
 please the man. It's common knowledge - maybe you
 are one of the honest ones. But you're saying that 
 all the man has to do is ask 'How was it for you?',
 What happens to the man's ego when you say 'Hey, 
 Buddy, it was not good for me you selfish pig'? 
 
 LOL!


Well Willy, either you need to find a mate you can trust or learn to trust 
women and yourself more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:
[...]
 I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
 bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
 
 Aren't you?


Do you really perceive them as all being the same, or are you just trolling?

My guess is the latter.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
 bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
 
 Aren't you?

This is the box turtle argument.

Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing gay 
marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or 
marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal determination 
of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay marriage but not 
extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that certain states have 
provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a 
woman, it could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex 
couples but — if one is really so worried about people marrying box turtles and 
the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those who are (2) blood related; 
and (3) animals.

The box turtle statement above is really making the case against gay marriage 
by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage, 
but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you will have to allow 
something else you might not like.

Read more...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 [...]
  I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
  bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
  
  Aren't you?
 
 
 Do you really perceive them as all being the same, or are you just trolling?
 
 My guess is the latter.
 
 
 L.


In terms of marriage, all of those couplings are equal in the sense that they 
are not accepted, traditionally (except for heterosexual polygamy), as forms of 
marriage.

But if there are people that want to be part of such couplings (associations?), 
why be for just gay marriage and not the others?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
  bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
  
  Aren't you?
 
 This is the box turtle argument.
 
 Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing 
 gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or 
 marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal 
 determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay 
 marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that 
 certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as 
 between a man and a woman, it could also be specified that marriage rights 
 extend to same-sex couples but — if one is really so worried about people 
 marrying box turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those 
 who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals.
 
 The box turtle statement above is really making the case against gay 
 marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with gay 
 marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you will have 
 to allow something else you might not like.
 
 Read more...
 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
 http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm



That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that support 
gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
   bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
   
   Aren't you?
  
  This is the box turtle argument.
  
  Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing 
  gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or 
  marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal 
  determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay 
  marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that 
  certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as 
  between a man and a woman, it could also be specified that marriage 
  rights extend to same-sex couples but — if one is really so worried about 
  people marrying box turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two people; 
  those who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals.
  
  The box turtle statement above is really making the case against gay 
  marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with 
  gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you 
  will have to allow something else you might not like.
  
  Read more...
  http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
  http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
 
 
 
 That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that 
 support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites.


It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man  marrying a 
box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur argument, and pretend the 
high ground that you support all marriages equally when you don't. If someone 
wants to argue in favor of polygamy, that is a separate battle. 

I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought of it 
drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of men having anal 
sex in your consciousness. Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel 
compelled to share your prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as 
repulsed as you? You have missed the point completely if you think that such 
images have anything to do with gay marriage. 

Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of everyday 
life that couples in a committed relationship share, rather than the drama of 
pornography, would be just too much to ask of a wingnut. Wingnuts need outrage. 
It feeds their limbic, reptilian brain responsible for perpetuating hatred, 
bigotry and the oppression of people in the world for religion, gender, color 
and sexual identity. Keep your outrage, fan the flames of it. Such an argument 
is weak in the face of honorable treatment of people.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
snip
  The box turtle statement above is really making the
  case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
  is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
  but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
  you will have to allow something else you might not like.
  
  Read more...
  http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
  http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
 
 That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
 that those that support gay marriage and not other
 kinds of marriage are hypocrites.

Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.

If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
marriage, you might have a point (although there
would still be good arguments against it), but
there isn't.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 snip
   The box turtle statement above is really making the
   case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
   is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
   but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
   you will have to allow something else you might not like.
   
   Read more...
   http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
   http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
  
  That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
  that those that support gay marriage and not other
  kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
 
 Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
 opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
 kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.
 
 If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
 marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
 substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
 marriage, you might have a point (although there
 would still be good arguments against it), but
 there isn't.



I don't know what you mean by substantial but I suspect you mean significant 
numbers.  Certainly, there are WAY more gays than any of the other members of 
groups mentioned.

But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon numbers; that is, simply because 
of the power of voting or influence given by substantial numbers should not 
dictate who does and does not get civil rights.

About a month or two ago I posted an article from a Canadian newspaper 
specifically about the slippery slope argument (sorry, I can't remember when 
nor do I have the reference or link) regarding gay marriage in Canada where 
it's been legal for several years and, yes, there are several movements afloat 
to legalize both polygamy and incest.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

 If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
 marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
 substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
 marriage, you might have a point (although there
 would still be good arguments against it), but
 there isn't.

Knowing from my friends that there is a small 
movement in favor of polyamorous marriage, 
please present the good arguments against it.

Consider the case of, say, two men and two 
women who have been living together for years,
raising children and apparently doing so quite
successfully. I'd like to hear the good argu-
ments for why they should not be allowed to
marry and enjoy all the benefits of marriage 
(tax and otherwise) as a group of four people 
rather than a group of only two.

Anyone is invited to jump in and participate.
Obviously, I see no problem with such an 
arrangement. I´d be interested in seeing who
does, and for what reasons. 

( I expect this to push more buttons than gay
marriage, but for the life of me I don´t under-
stand why. I´m interested in whether someone
can put their objections to such a union into
words. I´m going out to dinner in Nice right
now, and can´t participate in real time, but 
I´ll try to check in later. )

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  snip
The box turtle statement above is really making the
case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
you will have to allow something else you might not like.

Read more...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
   
   That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
   that those that support gay marriage and not other
   kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
  
  Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
  opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
  kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.
  
  If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
  marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
  substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
  marriage, you might have a point (although there
  would still be good arguments against it), but
  there isn't.
 
 
 
 I don't know what you mean by substantial but I suspect you mean 
 significant numbers.  Certainly, there are WAY more gays than any of the 
 other members of groups mentioned.
 
 But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon numbers; that is, simply 
 because of the power of voting or influence given by substantial numbers 
 should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.
 
 About a month or two ago I posted an article from a Canadian newspaper 
 specifically about the slippery slope argument (sorry, I can't remember when 
 nor do I have the reference or link) regarding gay marriage in Canada where 
 it's been legal for several years and, yes, there are several movements 
 afloat to legalize both polygamy and incest.


Again, the point remains that these are separate battles. The slippery slope 
argument does not have merit, it's just another version of the box turtle 
argument.

Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a 
devil's advocate argument.

For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be 
fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, 
polygamy might even be more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage 
accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity 
among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that 
supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of 
procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong.

Incest: Here, you can't use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage 
people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic 
deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to this 
same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by 
non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The 
argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient 
enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage.

For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned 
instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which are 
tedious and rarely fruitful.

Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and 
animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, 
marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical decisions, 
etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this argument in 
response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry whom one loves. 
But of course it is implicit that we mean humans.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  snip
The box turtle statement above is really making the
case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
you will have to allow something else you might not like.

Read more...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
   
   That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
   that those that support gay marriage and not other
   kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
  
  Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
  opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
  kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.
  
  If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
  marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
  substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
  marriage, you might have a point (although there
  would still be good arguments against it), but
  there isn't.
 
 
 
 I don't know what you mean by substantial but I suspect you mean 
 significant numbers.  Certainly, there are WAY more gays than any of the 
 other members of groups mentioned.
 
 But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon numbers; that is, simply 
 because of the power of voting or influence given by substantial numbers 
 should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.
 
 About a month or two ago I posted an article from a Canadian newspaper 
 specifically about the slippery slope argument (sorry, I can't remember when 
 nor do I have the reference or link) regarding gay marriage in Canada where 
 it's been legal for several years and, yes, there are several movements 
 afloat to legalize both polygamy and incest.



My Gawd! Because of the slippery slope, the next thing you know it will be 
legal for rocks to marry bananas! 

Get real, fella. There are already six states that have legalized gay marriage. 
The other 'marriages' you've mentioned have no actual viable support and no 
reality of happening. Even the big main Mormon church is against legalizing 
polygamy. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
wrote:

 I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
 bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
 
 Aren't you?

This is the box turtle argument.

Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally 
recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, 
incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate 
propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be 
specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a box 
turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in their 
constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it 
could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex couples 
but — if one is really so worried about people marrying box turtles and 
the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those who are (2) blood 
related; and (3) animals.

The box turtle statement above is really making the case against gay 
marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong 
with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage 
then you will have to allow something else you might not like.

Read more...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
   
   
   
   That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that 
   support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
  
  
  It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man  marrying 
  a box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur argument, and 
  pretend the high ground that you support all marriages equally when you 
  don't. If someone wants to argue in favor of polygamy, that is a separate 
  battle. 
  
  I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought of it 
  drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of men having 
  anal sex in your consciousness.
 
 
 Actually, heterosexual anal sex is about as repusive as homosexual anal sex 
 is to me.
 
 What I don't like is hypocrisy.  And that's what I liked about what Helms did 
 in the Senate.
 
 
  Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel compelled to share your 
  prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You 
  have missed the point completely if you think that such images have 
  anything to do with gay marriage. 
 
 
 
 
 Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage (at least 
 MALE gay marriage) and there's no way of getting around it.  There is no 
 penis/vagina penetration in gay marriage but there is penis/anus penetration 
 in many if not most male gay couplings.
 
 Look, some people find it abhorrent to look at hard core heterosexual porn; 
 my posting a link to hard core male gay porn has evoked a reaction that is, 
 shall we say, way out of proportion had I posted a link to the former.
 
 Why is that?
 

Posting a pornography link on FFLife is inappropriate whether it is gay or not. 
The only reason you did it was to inflame the passions of bigots, like 
yourself. If folks enjoy pornography, that is their business and has nothing to 
do with the argument against gay marriage. So I suggest that you delete all 
your links to gay sex and focus your outrage on the depravity of this:

http://tinyurl.com/lxb6mm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxciMdQ8iq8feature=fvw

  
  Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of 
  everyday life that couples in a committed relationship share, rather than 
  the drama of pornography, would be just too much to ask of a wingnut. 
  Wingnuts need outrage. It feeds their limbic, reptilian brain responsible 
  for perpetuating hatred, bigotry and the oppression of people in the world 
  for religion, gender, color and sexual identity. Keep your outrage, fan the 
  flames of it. Such an argument is weak in the face of honorable treatment 
  of people.
 
 
 
 Actually, your obsession with an innocent posting of a link -- THAT'S ALL I 
 DID! -- is proving my point.
 
 Calling me names -- such as wingnut -- lessens your argument.
 

Well, Shemp, if Jesse Helms is your hero, I guess I'm not too off base 
suggesting you are a wingnut. Now that he's dead, it doesn't look like his 
bigotry against gays will prevail in Congress.

http://tinyurl.com/nhh6ap
http://www.q-notes.com/2745/lesbian-senator-votes-against-jesse-helms-resolution/

 The post was of a photograph of someone -- Lance Black -- who was part and 
 parcel of the gay 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:


[snip]

 
 Again, the point remains that these are separate battles.



I disagree.  I think they are the same battle.



 The slippery slope argument does not have merit, it's just another version of 
 the box turtle argument.



I disagree...and the Canadian example I believe demonstrates that the slippery 
slope argument does have merit.



 
 Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a 
 devil's advocate argument.
 
 For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be 
 fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, 
 polygamy might even be more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
 assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage 
 accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity 
 among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that 
 supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of 
 procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong.
 
 Incest: Here, you can't use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage 
 people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic 
 deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to 
 this same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by 
 non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The 
 argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient 
 enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage.
 
 For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned 
 instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which 
 are tedious and rarely fruitful.
 
 Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and 
 animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, 
 marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical 
 decisions, etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this 
 argument in response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry 
 whom one loves. But of course it is implicit that we mean humans.
 
 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
 http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

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.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, 
  bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.
  
  Aren't you?
 
 This is the box turtle argument.
 
 Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally 
 recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, 
 incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate 
 propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be 
 specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a 
 box turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in 
 their constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, 
 it could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex 
 couples but — if one is really so worried about people marrying box 
 turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those who are 
 (2) blood related; and (3) animals.
 
 The box turtle statement above is really making the case against 
 gay marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is 
 wrong with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay 
 marriage then you will have to allow something else you might not 
 like.
 
 Read more...
 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
 http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm



That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that 
support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
   
   
   It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man  
   marrying a box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur argument, 
   and pretend the high ground that you support all marriages equally when 
   you don't. If someone wants to argue in favor of polygamy, that is a 
   separate battle. 
   
   I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought of 
   it drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of men 
   having anal sex in your consciousness.
  
  
  Actually, heterosexual anal sex is about as repusive as homosexual anal sex 
  is to me.
  
  What I don't like is hypocrisy.  And that's what I liked about what Helms 
  did in the Senate.
  
  
   Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel compelled to share your 
   prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You 
   have missed the point completely if you think that such images have 
   anything to do with gay marriage. 
  
  
  
  
  Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage (at 
  least MALE gay marriage) and there's no way of getting around it.  There is 
  no penis/vagina penetration in gay marriage but there is penis/anus 
  penetration in many if not most male gay couplings.
  
  Look, some people find it abhorrent to look at hard core heterosexual porn; 
  my posting a link to hard core male gay porn has evoked a reaction that is, 
  shall we say, way out of proportion had I posted a link to the former.
  
  Why is that?
  
 
 Posting a pornography link on FFLife is inappropriate whether it is gay or 
 not. The only reason you did it was to inflame the passions of bigots, like 
 yourself. If folks enjoy pornography, that is their business and has nothing 
 to do with the argument against gay marriage. So I suggest that you delete 
 all your links to gay sex and focus your outrage on the depravity of this:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/lxb6mm
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxciMdQ8iq8feature=fvw
 
   
   Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of 
   everyday life that couples in a committed relationship share, rather than 
   the drama of pornography, would be just too much to ask of a wingnut. 
   Wingnuts need outrage. It feeds their limbic, reptilian brain responsible 
   for perpetuating hatred, bigotry and the oppression of people in the 
   world for religion, gender, color and sexual identity. Keep your outrage, 
   fan the flames of it. Such an argument is weak in the face of honorable 
   treatment of people.
  
  
  
  Actually, your obsession with an innocent posting of a link -- THAT'S 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

  If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
  marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
  substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
  marriage, you might have a point (although there
  would still be good arguments against it), but
  there isn't.
 
 Knowing from my friends that there is a small 
 movement in favor of polyamorous marriage, 
 please present the good arguments against it.

Did you hallucinate that I mentioned polyamorous
marriage?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  snip
The box turtle statement above is really making the
case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
you will have to allow something else you might not like.

Read more...
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
   
   That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
   that those that support gay marriage and not other
   kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
  
  Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
  opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
  kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.
  
  If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
  marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
  substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
  marriage, you might have a point (although there
  would still be good arguments against it), but
  there isn't.
 
 I don't know what you mean by substantial but I
 suspect you mean significant numbers.  Certainly,
 there are WAY more gays than any of the other members
 of groups mentioned.
 
 But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon
 numbers; that is, simply because of the power of
 voting or influence given by substantial numbers
 should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.

And the civil rights arguments in favor of polygamy,
incestuous marriage, and box-turtle marriage are...?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:
snip
  Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel
  compelled to share your prurient interest with a
  link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You
  have missed the point completely if you think that
  such images have anything to do with gay marriage. 
 
 Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do
 with gay marriage (at least MALE gay marriage) and
 there's no way of getting around it.

So what *do* such images have to do with male gay
marriage? Please tell us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of 
 proof and make a devil's advocate argument.
 
 For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, 
 polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way 
 to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be 
 more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
 assumption that men are sexually voracious; 

An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.

Any number of studies have indicated that women
are as voracious as men in their sexual appetites
and in many cases more so. This is a statement that
is clearly made by someone who knows no polyamorous
people. If you did, you'd know that sex is the least
of the issues driving their arrangements, and that
in the situations where polyamorous groups are living
together in a sexually-open situation (and not all are),
it's the women who mainly initiate the sex.

 ...this version of marriage accommodates what people think 
 is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. 

Again sexist, and again WRONG. The majority of polyamorous
relationships involve more men in the group than women.

It's OK to be ignorant, Raunchy, but try not to be so
*blatantly* ignorant, OK?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... 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.
 

O.K. I'll retract the name calling, sorry. In spite of that I had no problem 
making valid points concerning your arguments for box turtles, slippery slopes, 
gratuitous posting of gay porn and Jesse Helms. The only anti-gay point I will 
yield today is the faux outrage the rightwing makes about the Teletubbies. On 
that we can agree.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
  wrote:
  
   I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous 
   marriage, bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal 
   measure.
   
   Aren't you?
  
  This is the box turtle argument.
  
  Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally 
  recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, 
  incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate 
  propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be 
  specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a 
  box turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in 
  their constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a 
  woman, it could also be specified that marriage rights extend to 
  same-sex couples but — if one is really so worried about people 
  marrying box turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two 
  people; those who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals.
  
  The box turtle statement above is really making the case against 
  gay marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is 
  wrong with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay 
  marriage then you will have to allow something else you might not 
  like.
  
  Read more...
  http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
  http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
 
 
 
 That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those 
 that support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are 
 hypocrites.


It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man  
marrying a box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur 
argument, and pretend the high ground that you support all marriages 
equally when you don't. If someone wants to argue in favor of polygamy, 
that is a separate battle. 

I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought 
of it drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of 
men having anal sex in your consciousness.
   
   
   Actually, heterosexual anal sex is about as repusive as homosexual anal 
   sex is to me.
   
   What I don't like is hypocrisy.  And that's what I liked about what Helms 
   did in the Senate.
   
   
Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel compelled to share 
your prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as repulsed as 
you? You have missed the point completely if you think that such images 
have anything to do with gay marriage. 
   
   
   
   
   Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage (at 
   least MALE gay marriage) and there's no way of getting around it.  There 
   is no penis/vagina penetration in gay marriage but there is penis/anus 
   penetration in many if not most male gay couplings.
   
   Look, some people find it abhorrent to look at hard core heterosexual 
   porn; my posting a link to hard core male gay porn has evoked a reaction 
   that is, shall we say, way out of proportion had I posted a link to the 
   former.
   
   Why is that?
   
  
  Posting a pornography link on FFLife is inappropriate whether it is gay or 
  not. The only reason you did it was to inflame the passions of bigots, like 
  yourself. If folks enjoy pornography, that is their business and has 
  nothing to do with the argument against gay marriage. So I suggest that you 
  delete all your links to gay sex and focus your outrage on the depravity of 
  this:
  
  http://tinyurl.com/lxb6mm
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxciMdQ8iq8feature=fvw
  

Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of 
everyday 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... 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...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
   snip
 The box turtle statement above is really making the
 case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
 is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
 but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
 you will have to allow something else you might not like.
 
 Read more...
 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
 http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm

That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
that those that support gay marriage and not other
kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
   
   Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
   opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
   kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.
   
   If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
   marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
   substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
   marriage, you might have a point (although there
   would still be good arguments against it), but
   there isn't.
  
  I don't know what you mean by substantial but I
  suspect you mean significant numbers.  Certainly,
  there are WAY more gays than any of the other members
  of groups mentioned.
  
  But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon
  numbers; that is, simply because of the power of
  voting or influence given by substantial numbers
  should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.
 
 And the civil rights arguments in favor of polygamy,
 incestuous marriage, and box-turtle marriage are...?


Much the same as the arguments for gay marriage: loving relationships, 
equality, alternative marriage, etc.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy* was
talking about polyamory!

Nor did he notice, apparently, that she was quoting
somebody else.

He also didn't notice that the person she was
quoting was making a *devil's advocate* argument,
even though that's explicitly stated in the first
paragraph he quotes.

He has no idea whatsoever what it is that's being
argued in Raunchy's post, but on the basis of his
total confusion he accuses Raunchy of being sexist
and, in a later post, a bigot.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of 
  proof and make a devil's advocate argument.
  
  For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, 
  polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way 
  to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be 
  more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
  assumption that men are sexually voracious; 
 
 An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.
 
 Any number of studies have indicated that women
 are as voracious as men in their sexual appetites
 and in many cases more so. This is a statement that
 is clearly made by someone who knows no polyamorous
 people. If you did, you'd know that sex is the least
 of the issues driving their arrangements, and that
 in the situations where polyamorous groups are living
 together in a sexually-open situation (and not all are),
 it's the women who mainly initiate the sex.
 
  ...this version of marriage accommodates what people think 
  is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. 
 
 Again sexist, and again WRONG. The majority of polyamorous
 relationships involve more men in the group than women.
 
 It's OK to be ignorant, Raunchy, but try not to be so
 *blatantly* ignorant, OK?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 snip
   Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel
   compelled to share your prurient interest with a
   link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You
   have missed the point completely if you think that
   such images have anything to do with gay marriage. 
  
  Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do
  with gay marriage (at least MALE gay marriage) and
  there's no way of getting around it.
 
 So what *do* such images have to do with male gay
 marriage? Please tell us.


It all depends upon whether you're repulsed by them, Judy.

Again, I liken it to what Helms did on the floor of the Senate.  Helms 
approached senators who were not, prior to him approaching them, opposed to the 
funding the NEA was giving those galleries and museums that were sponsoring the 
Mapplethorpe exhibits.  But the funding dried up REAL quick once those senators 
got a gander at some of the Mapplethorpe photos.  They came on board REAL quick.

I see no reason why those who are indifferent or support gay marriage should 
not be exposed to photos of practises of gay relationships if it is so 
acceptable...and if it changes minds, well then, what does that say about their 
convictions?  Not very strong to start off with, I'd say.

Which brings us back to why people took offense at my providing a link to the 
photos.  Why such a visceral reaction?  Why were people so uncomfortable?  

Stanley now says that if I had provided a disclaimer or warning about what 
there was that that would have been okay...and I tend to agree with him that 
that is something I should have done.  If I had done that, Judy, would that 
have been okay in your book?

I'm for people being exposed to what they support. Take abortion, for instance: 
Alan Dershowitz is and has been for more than 30 years a tireless advocate for 
a woman's so-called right to choose.  But he is equally adamant that pro-life 
demonstrators have the right to show huge posters of aborted fetuses to 
prospective patients as they enter abortion facilities.  Free speech and all 
that.

Do I support gay marriage?  Like I say, only if those that support it support 
all other alternative type marriages.  But why not see photos of gay sex if you 
support that (and, yes, you ARE supporting gay male anal sex by supporting gay 
marriage) without getting all hostile towards Shemp for posting a link to it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- 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. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 But Raunchy is spouting feminist bullshit about
 polyamory without knowing ANY of the actual facts
 about it.

What Raunchy quoted never mentioned polyamory.
Nobody is talking about polyamory but Barry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 
 wrote:
snip
  The box turtle statement above is really making the
  case against gay marriage by not making the case: It
  is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage,
  but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then
  you will have to allow something else you might not like.
  
  Read more...
  http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452
  http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
 
 That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say
 that those that support gay marriage and not other
 kinds of marriage are hypocrites.

Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to
opposite-sex marriage than it is to these other
kinds of marriage, which it obviously is.

If there were a movement in favor of incestuous
marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as 
substantial as there is in favor of same-sex 
marriage, you might have a point (although there
would still be good arguments against it), but
there isn't.
   
   I don't know what you mean by substantial but I
   suspect you mean significant numbers.  Certainly,
   there are WAY more gays than any of the other members
   of groups mentioned.
   
   But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon
   numbers; that is, simply because of the power of
   voting or influence given by substantial numbers
   should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.
  
  And the civil rights arguments in favor of polygamy,
  incestuous marriage, and box-turtle marriage are...?
 
 Much the same as the arguments for gay marriage: loving relationships, 
 equality, alternative marriage, etc.

So *make the arguments* already.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of 
  proof and make a devil's advocate argument.
  
  For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, 
  polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way 
  to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be 
  more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
  assumption that men are sexually voracious; 
 
 An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.



OF COURSE IT'S SEXIST  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE 
SEXES!  HOW COULD IT NOT BE SEXIST?

IS IT NOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS BEHAVIOURAL, MENTAL, 
AND OTHERWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES?



 
 Any number of studies have indicated that women
 are as voracious as men in their sexual appetites
 and in many cases more so. This is a statement that
 is clearly made by someone who knows no polyamorous
 people. If you did, you'd know that sex is the least
 of the issues driving their arrangements, and that
 in the situations where polyamorous groups are living
 together in a sexually-open situation (and not all are),
 it's the women who mainly initiate the sex.
 
  ...this version of marriage accommodates what people think 
  is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. 
 
 Again sexist, and again WRONG. The majority of polyamorous
 relationships involve more men in the group than women.
 
 It's OK to be ignorant, Raunchy, but try not to be so
 *blatantly* ignorant, OK?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... 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.
  
 
 O.K. I'll retract the name calling, sorry. In spite of that I had no problem 
 making valid points concerning your arguments for box turtles, slippery 
 slopes, gratuitous posting of gay porn and Jesse Helms. The only anti-gay 
 point I will yield today is the faux outrage the rightwing makes about the 
 Teletubbies. On that we can agree.


Uh, no.

The purple one is obviously gay and has been put into the shows to
brainwash the little children into accepting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgendered lifestyle as normal and acceptable.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- 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.



I'll agree that to push buttons was part of the motivation.

But why is that such a bad thing?  If it stirs up debate and challenges 
people's assumptions -- which, yes, may include discord -- I don't see that as 
a particularly bad thing, stupid or 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...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  But Raunchy is spouting feminist bullshit about
  polyamory without knowing ANY of the actual facts
  about it.
 
 What Raunchy quoted never mentioned polyamory.
 Nobody is talking about polyamory but Barry.



Wasn't she married to Cleveland Amory?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  snip
Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel
compelled to share your prurient interest with a
link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You
have missed the point completely if you think that
such images have anything to do with gay marriage. 
   
   Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do
   with gay marriage (at least MALE gay marriage) and
   there's no way of getting around it.
  
  So what *do* such images have to do with male gay
  marriage? Please tell us.
 
 It all depends upon whether you're repulsed by them, Judy.

Why? How? What's the connection?

snip
 Which brings us back to why people took offense at my
 providing a link to the photos.  Why such a visceral
 reaction?  Why were people so uncomfortable?

I didn't see anybody expressing discomfort, Shemp. The
only problem was the possible risk of having FFL put
in Yahoo's adult category, which would have been the
case no matter what kind of porn you linked to.

 Stanley now says that if I had provided a disclaimer
 or warning about what there was that that would have
 been okay...and I tend to agree with him that that is
 something I should have done.  If I had done that,
 Judy, would that have been okay in your book?

I've already said I thought the prohibition against
links was unnecessary, and I was the one who first
suggested a NSFW warning as a courtesy. So why are
you even asking me?

snip
 Do I support gay marriage?  Like I say, only if those
 that support it support all other alternative type
 marriages.

Why is your support dependent on what other people
support?

 But why not see photos of gay sex if you support
 that (and, yes, you ARE supporting gay male anal sex
 by supporting gay marriage) without getting all
 hostile towards Shemp for posting a link to it.

You forgot, Shemp. I was *defending* your posting of
the link.

And I still don't see the connection between gay porn
and gay marriage. Nobody should be forced to view porn
of any kind for any reason.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ 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.
   
  
  O.K. I'll retract the name calling, sorry. In spite of that I had no 
  problem making valid points concerning your arguments for box turtles, 
  slippery slopes, gratuitous posting of gay porn and Jesse Helms. The only 
  anti-gay point I will yield today is the faux outrage the rightwing makes 
  about the Teletubbies. On that we can agree.
 
 
 Uh, no.
 
 The purple one is obviously gay and has been put into the shows to
 brainwash the little children into accepting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
 transgendered lifestyle as normal and acceptable.


Shemp, I support your moral outrage against the Teletubbies simply because it 
makes your anti-gay arguments look so much more ridiculous than they already 
are. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 
 
 I'll agree that to push buttons was part of the motivation.
 
 Me, me, me.I pushed the button first. You just reacted to my pushed 
 button as you sensed the pressure of my button on your 13th chakra.

Science 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[meowthirteen]

---
*Turquoise:
How was your dinner?
I bet it was lovely.
I wonder if you ate outside,if the weather was gorgeous
and what you had brought to you...
I wonder if you had really nice wine with it.
I hope you had good conversation and are having bella serah.

*Speaking more to the post now,there is a forum on Craigslist called polymory 
and it explains more what it is .Visiting there on occasions will give a idea 
of what people in that lifestyle do/ think...
-Personal side note-it's not what I thought,and there's a train of thought that 
was brought up there that some are wired this way.
I'm going to keep this short,it could get deep .Psychology hypothesis,
past life injury,fear,inadequate brain synapsis...list goes on infinately,as 
for why a participation in this type of relationship.
I found it interesting the feelings the people shared involved.
I like to understand as many as I can, so as to help me not judge .
I think all are in the Process and I am working on letting everyone be at their 
own spot in the Process.I don't even have to understand.
I just need to not cause suffering .I don't have all the answers, and I 
certainly have not heard them all either.I have so much more to hear, and 
understand,and not understand-and let go ,fly...

*sprinkle * 
*sprinkle*
Some mirth upon you -
it got on your cheek!
Ope!There goes a smile creeping up!
Let the warmth of the day soak into you;
it is not too hot



















 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...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[meowthirteen]

-



If anyone needs proof that women have 
drive
need
for sex
there's a forum on yahoo 
for women who have partners with ED
Erectile Difunction
The fact that it is in existance and used is proof enough that sex is full of 
life meaning and complete-ing-ness to females.
The cries of aloneness and empty and abandonment -
it just makes ya want to get out a jar of salve and coo to them as you try to 
help with their wounds

Suffering
why?
It doesn't have to be

















-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of 
  proof and make a devil's advocate argument.
  
  For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, 
  polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way 
  to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be 
  more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
  assumption that men are sexually voracious; 
 
 An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.
 
 Any number of studies have indicated that women
 are as voracious as men in their sexual appetites
 and in many cases more so. This is a statement that
 is clearly made by someone who knows no polyamorous
 people. If you did, you'd know that sex is the least
 of the issues driving their arrangements, and that
 in the situations where polyamorous groups are living
 together in a sexually-open situation (and not all are),
 it's the women who mainly initiate the sex.
 
  ...this version of marriage accommodates what people think 
  is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. 
 
 Again sexist, and again WRONG. The majority of polyamorous
 relationships involve more men in the group than women.
 
 It's OK to be ignorant, Raunchy, but try not to be so
 *blatantly* ignorant, OK?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:


[snip]

 
 And I still don't see the connection between gay porn
 and gay marriage. Nobody should be forced to view porn
 of any kind for any reason.


If that is the issue, then I agree with you.

And to the extent that people were rendered uncomfortable because I didn't put 
a warning or disclaimer towards that end, then I'm sorry; it is something I 
should have done.

Of course, the way the photos were presented, the blocked out ones were 
presented first and it would have been obvious to anyone viewing it what was to 
come...so that in itself was a sort of disclaimer.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
 [snip]
 
  
  And I still don't see the connection between gay porn
  and gay marriage. Nobody should be forced to view porn
  of any kind for any reason.
 
 
 If that is the issue, then I agree with you.

What issue?? We were talking about the connection
between gay porn and gay marriage.



 
 And to the extent that people were rendered uncomfortable because I didn't 
 put a warning or disclaimer towards that end, then I'm sorry; it is something 
 I should have done.
 
 Of course, the way the photos were presented, the blocked out ones were 
 presented first and it would have been obvious to anyone viewing it what was 
 to come...so that in itself was a sort of disclaimer.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 And now Barry's hallucinating that *Raunchy* was
 talking about polyamory!

Raunchydog was projecting a bent, feminist
sexism onto the word polygamy, which 
*describes* a form of polyamorous marriage.
Only one form, as it turns out, and you did
it, too, getting all defensive because you
had said that there were good reasons for
not allowing polygamy, and then tried to wig-
gle your way out of it by quibbling words. 
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and 
suggest that you were probably thinking of 
the word polygamy as most people; that is,
as practiced by Mormons; that is, a form of 
sexist patriarchy. 

It is not the only form of polygamy or poly-
amorous marriage, which my post was intended 
to bring out. Instead it brought out in 
Raunchydog only her standard hatred of men 
and tendency to speak about them in cliches.
WRONG cliches, scientifically, but she doesn't
care about that.

The problem is probably really mine. I had
been lured into a false sense of being able to
deal with sexually-rational human beings by
being back in France again. I should have known 
better to bring up real discussions of sex and 
sexuality with sexual barbarians.  :-)

For the record, that is what I consider most
members of this forum, although that is not 
entirely their fault. On the whole, the mem-
bers of this forum have grown up in and had
their sensibilities shaped by two of the most
sexually-ignorant and sexually-repressed
cultures on the planet -- 1) America, and 2)
the TM movement. How *could* they have a 
balanced view of sex and sexuality?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
   Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of 
   proof and make a devil's advocate argument.
   
   For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, 
   polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way 
   to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be 
   more natural than two-personal marriages given the 
   assumption that men are sexually voracious; 
  
  An assumption that is as sexist as it is wrong.
 
 OF COURSE IT'S SEXIST  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
 THE DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE SEXES!  HOW COULD 
 IT NOT BE SEXIST?
 
 IS IT NOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO POINT OUT THE 
 OBVIOUS BEHAVIOURAL, MENTAL, AND OTHERWISE 
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES?

The differences Raunchy pointed out
ARE NOT TRUE, Shemp. That's the point. 
They are cultural and social myths *about*
men and women that do not hold up when
examined scientifically.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, meowthirteen meowthirt...@... wrote:

 ---
 *Turquoise:
 How was your dinner?
 I bet it was lovely.
 I wonder if you ate outside,if the weather was gorgeous
 and what you had brought to you...
 I wonder if you had really nice wine with it.
 I hope you had good conversation and are having bella serah.

It was great. Thanks for asking. I got to sit
in a lovely Provencal restaurant in Nice under
the stars and eat great food and drink good wine
with people who would have been bemused to the
point of uncontrollable laughter by all of the
prudery and sexual uptightness being discussed
on this forum as if it were important. :-)

 *Speaking more to the post now,there is a forum on Craigslist 
 called polymory and it explains more what it is .Visiting 
 there on occasions will give a idea of what people in that 
 lifestyle do/ think...

Yep. I think that polyamory is an interesting 
fascination (as opposed to the discussions here
about sex and sexuality, which could be taking
place between Puritans and Shiite Muslims as 
far as I can tell). It's not particularly my
thing as it is a number of my friends' thing,
but I've learned much from their openness and
their willingness to treat sex and sexuality
as things that don't *require* rules, much less
the need to obey them.

 -Personal side note-it's not what I thought,and there's a 
 train of thought that was brought up there that some are 
 wired this way.
 I'm going to keep this short,it could get deep .Psychology 
 hypothesis,
 past life injury,fear,inadequate brain synapsis...list 
 goes on infinately,as for why a participation in this 
 type of relationship.

I'm assuming you're still talking about polyamory.
So I find it curious that you only mention *negative*
hypotheses for why people might adopt it. I see a 
number of positive ones.

 I found it interesting the feelings the people shared involved.
 I like to understand as many as I can, so as to help me not judge .
 I think all are in the Process and I am working on letting 
 everyone be at their own spot in the Process.I don't even have 
 to understand.
 I just need to not cause suffering .I don't have all the answers, 
 and I certainly have not heard them all either.I have so much 
 more to hear, and understand,and not understand-and let go ,fly...
 
 *sprinkle * 
 *sprinkle*
 Some mirth upon you -
 it got on your cheek!
 Ope!There goes a smile creeping up!
 Let the warmth of the day soak into you;
 it is not too hot

Indeed. An openness to discussions of non-mainstream
sex and sexuality is IMO a great thing, and I praise
you for having that 'tude about it all. As you say,
no one has the answers. But on this forum you have a
number of people who *claim* to have the answers, one
way or another. I don't think that they do, and as I've
suggested this morning, the fact that *whatever* their
perspective on non-mainstream sexuality they consider
it a big enough deal to argue about *as if* they had
the answers the biggest tell. 

They're still hung up about sex. Some on one side,
some on the other.

I prefer my French friends and coworkers, who place
sex and sexuality in their true perspective, from my
point of view. That is, about on the same level as
what to order for dinner and which type of wine to
order. It's really not all that serious, people...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:
snip
 I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
 I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
 heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
 just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
 shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
 your position.

In other words, you're against gay marriage.

What in heaven's name does being or not being 
shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay
marriage??

Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get
married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for
that matter, even think about what gay people do
in bed.

Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean
you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about
what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather
*do* it than look at it.)

If all you can think about when the topic of gay
marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
a *big* problem.

And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for
watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting
lesbians should be allowed to get married but not
gay men?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 snip
  I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
  I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
  heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
  just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
  shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
  your position.
 
 In other words, you're against gay marriage.
snip
 If all you can think about when the topic of gay
 marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
 a *big* problem.

P.S.: News flash for you, Shemp. They're going to do
it whether they're married or not.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 snip
  I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
  I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
  heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
  just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
  shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
  your position.
 
 In other words, you're against gay marriage.
 
 What in heaven's name does being or not being 
 shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay
 marriage??
 
 Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get
 married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for
 that matter, even think about what gay people do
 in bed.
 
 Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean
 you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about
 what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather
 *do* it than look at it.)
 
 If all you can think about when the topic of gay
 marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
 a *big* problem.
 
 And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for
 watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting
 lesbians should be allowed to get married but not
 gay men?



I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't get married.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have double standards.  For gay marriage? 
Then be for polygamy, gay polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  snip
   I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
   I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
   heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
   just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
   shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
   your position.
  
  In other words, you're against gay marriage.
  
  What in heaven's name does being or not being 
  shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay
  marriage??
  
  Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get
  married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for
  that matter, even think about what gay people do
  in bed.
  
  Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean
  you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about
  what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather
  *do* it than look at it.)
  
  If all you can think about when the topic of gay
  marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
  a *big* problem.
  
  And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for
  watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting
  lesbians should be allowed to get married but not
  gay men?
 
 
 
 I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't get married.
 
 What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have double standards.  For gay 
 marriage? Then be for polygamy, gay polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.



hmmm... you put gay marriage into the same category as bestiality and incest?

Is that because you see all as equally repulsive, or are you merely pointing out
that they've been illegal?


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  snip
   I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
   I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
   heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
   just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
   shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
   your position.
  
  In other words, you're against gay marriage.
  
  What in heaven's name does being or not being 
  shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay
  marriage??
  
  Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get
  married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for
  that matter, even think about what gay people do
  in bed.
  
  Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean
  you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about
  what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather
  *do* it than look at it.)
  
  If all you can think about when the topic of gay
  marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
  a *big* problem.
  
  And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for
  watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting
  lesbians should be allowed to get married but not
  gay men?
 
 I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't get married.
 
 What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have double 
 standards.  For gay marriage? Then be for polygamy,
 gay polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

In other words, you're against gay marriage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why I did what I did

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
   snip
I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what
I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to
heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn
just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it
shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink
your position.
   
   In other words, you're against gay marriage.
   
   What in heaven's name does being or not being 
   shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay
   marriage??
   
   Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get
   married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for
   that matter, even think about what gay people do
   in bed.
   
   Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean
   you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about
   what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather
   *do* it than look at it.)
   
   If all you can think about when the topic of gay
   marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got
   a *big* problem.
   
   And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for
   watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting
   lesbians should be allowed to get married but not
   gay men?
  
  I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't get married.
  
  What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have double 
  standards.  For gay marriage? Then be for polygamy,
  gay polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.
 
 In other words, you're against gay marriage.


I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, bestiality 
marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure.

Aren't you?