I remarked that Seven of Nine was attractive. So the sentiment is out
there ::shrug:: though I don't think that rude remarks constitute
discrimination.
On marriage, I don't agree that it is a religious institution. I have
been in a marriage where neither party was active in any church.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:15:47 -0400
Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are there any gays on this list?
At the risk of being "marked" <shudder>, I'll go ahead and "out"
myself. I am not gay. I'm bisexual and polyamorous (and unitarian
universalist if religion interests you). All of which seem to sort of
go together when you consider that all of those labels are expressions
of non-exclusivity. I don't like exclusivity or discrimination any
more than I like censorship (which I believe is fundamentally evil,
regardless of its form). I don't believe exclusivity is necessarily
evil, it may or may not be given context, I just really dislike it. :)
But letting people know that I'm a bisexual male in particular often
means getting adverse reactions from both the straight and gay
communities. On hearing that I'm polyamorous a lot of folks assume
that I'm a swinger (which I'm not - I don't have enough sex drive to
be) both of which tend to be reviled by some random sub-set of the
community (I can't put a label on that sub-set except to say they're
"monogamous" because it seems to vary).
Being this way is a good part of why my wife and I are no longer
together. She lives in Dallas with the kids, I just started a new job
in Ft Lauderdale.
As to gay marriage -- I think I mentioned in a previous email that I
don't believe marriage has any place in our judicial system. Marriage
is a religious institution and therefore, there should be no laws
regarding tax or anything else which contain any mention of marriage,
in any way, shape or form. Not all religions have the same view of
marriage either (gay, straight, polyfidelitous or otherwise). So for
the law to uphold _any_ idea of marriage constitutes endorsement of
one religion or one breed of religion over all the others, which then
goes back to discrimination, which like censorship I believe is a
fundamental evil.
Having said all that, I would marry again, but I have a deliberate
objection to being married in the eyes of the law. Which causes some
problems for Tiffany because of circumstances in which only a spouse
is given privilege, such as when someone is hospitalized, etc. At this
point I honestly don't care -- the law has slapped me around too much
for simply being who I am (a divorced male with children - you want to
talk about modern discrimination...) to put any more stock in the
legal institution of marriage, no matter how inconvenient being
unmarried becomes. I say this in spite of the fact that Tiff is
probably infertile and I've had a vassectomy.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
