Search results

Keeping my fingers crossed for him ever since I first heard of him. If I were American, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat without a moment of tummygrumbles... can't say that I've ever seen any US politician before about whom I could've said that (not even Obama).

I still hear the term ethical non-monogamy a lot, where it isn't a pleonasm (cheating on your partner while lying about it is obviously a form of non-monogamy, but most folks would agree it's not ethical). Can't recall hearing "ethical poly" that often... I'd see that as simply the opposite of...

Meh, I'd prefer a less gender-binary version. If we're going by my biological sex, I'm sitting on the border of B1 to C1. I think that at least the inclusion of the asexual spectrum is a good step forward over the Kinsey scale.

Well... aside from what CielDuMatin said in the second post of that thread you linked: ...there are also people for whom sexual and/or romantic relationships are somehow drastically different from friendships (...with benefits). It's a stance I, personally, can't really relate to, but I've...

Friendships with sex sprinkled on top of it usually just gets called friends with benefits, both inside and outside of aro/ace circles. Close relationships that have all the commitment of partnerships (e.g. living together and all that jazz) but neither romantic nor sexual usually get called...

*nods* Yep, I get your point. I think that partner compatibility between ace and sexual people in a "mixed" relationship really isn't a matter to put high hopes on, in general - sure, it can work out in a bunch of cases (as it did for over six years with R. and me), so it's not a flat zero...

Which is why I didn't challenge that part of your statement. ;) Of course you are correct about that. Just as with people of any other orientation, there are abusive pricks among asexuals, too, and a "holier than thou because I'm ace" view is bullshit, plain and simple. However, I did need to...

Correction: It's the lack of an innate desire for partnered sex (which some folks call "not feeling sexual attraction"), not a lack of libido as a whole. A lot of asexuals do have a libido (polls on AVEN suggest that aces who are completely without libido might be between 25 and 35% - thus...

And she's saying all this as if it were a bad thing. Completely bizarre. I call bullshit on the article. It's perfectly possible to have legal ramifications set for family unit contracts without the state calling them marriage, without the state defining marriage, and without the state...

Same. Both relationships I've been in were defined as open/poly from day one, and I wouldn't have entered them otherwise.

So if I - who is pretty dang pale even for a Northwestern European - were to greet a bunch of dark skinned people with "hey you n*****s, how's it going?", and just insist that I totally mean it without any racist connotations, like, ZERO, and go on to elaborate that words can't be owned by...

No, you're factually wrong. Your marriage, just like every marriage, DOES have religious connotations, simply by being called by the word "marriage", which is the name of a rite in many religions, including a RomCath sacrament. You are in absolutely no position to decide that it doesn't. It's...

Nailed it.

No, you cannot. Your use of the term marriage still has religious connotations, because you have not made the religious rites disappear from the world by choosing against personally taking part in them. You can choose to ignore them, but they still are there. That's nonsense. It makes as much...

That would be highly problematic, because it would mean people not involved with religious communities could never have a "full, complete, real" marriage, as they're forever excluded from a part of marriage until they join a religion. Fun (?) fact: Over here, that's already a reason for a lot...

What does that have to do with anything? You were talking about private persons using the word "marriage" in a way that is neither legal nor religious. the relevant legal decision there isn't Lawrence vs. Texas, but the Bill of Rights. The question about whether "sodomy" is a crime or not is an...

Repeatedly twisting my words, repeated condescension in a "more rational than thou" tone, complete stubborn ignorance of verifiable facts, and clearly having some kind of ideologically toned picture of me that they refuse to reality check. I can't tell for sure what the reasons for this...

Well, yes. But in sense (c), gay marriage has been legal in the US ever since the signing of the Bill of Rights. I think we can safely consider that such old news that it doesn't even warrant discussion anymore. No matter if you privately call whatever you have "marriage", "partnership", "civil...

I think it's down to a lot of people - especially if they're atheists/non-religious/anti-religious - completely misunderstanding what secularity means, and thus not supporting it even if they claim to do so. Call me too optimistic, but I do think that can be fixed by education in many cases...

That's the problem. If even a single religion says no, then that's the end of the discussion. They have every right to overrule the state on it at a moment's notice. Yes, of course. There's absolutely no justification for the state using different words (and thus, different laws) for them...