Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2009, 10:09:10 AM
-
Note that one them is now apparently a former lesbian.
Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'
Judge rules couple's 'agreement' to split custody violates parental rights
Posted: July 11, 2009
12:45 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A district court judge ruled against a lesbian woman seeking to attain legal standing as the mother of her former lover's child and, in the process, struck a blow for parental rights.
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
Frank D. Mylar, an attorney
teamed with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage and the family, represented Dickson and her 2-year-old boy.
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said Mylar in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Mylar told WND the court's ruling on the contract causes the case to transcend from simply a dispute between a former lesbian and her ex-partner to a victory for constitutional parental rights.
"This case involved a private agreement that Edvalson would be elevated to the level of a parent," Mylar said. "But there are adoption, marriage, divorce and paternity laws that govern who has parental status. For someone just to say, 'I'm going to decide you're a parent, and that gives you constitutional rights over my child,' offends public policy."
Judge Dever used the same language in the decision, writing
, "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
In dismissing the lawsuit, the court ruled state public policy designed to protect the best interests of children trumps any such "agreements" that people make, especially when there are no allegations of abuse or neglect.
"A parent's fundamental right and responsibility to raise and care for her child cannot be bargained away or lost through contract," Mylar said in a statement. "A parent has a constitutional right, supported by Utah public policy, to determine what is best for her child as time and circumstances dictate."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103631
-
I thought homosexuality was permanent, you know, "Once gay, always gay".
Once again, we see another lesbian relationship go south, only to have at least one "prodigal" daughter come home (as it were).
As for the parental rights thing, these things tend to flare up a lot with women, the most famous of which is the Miller v. Jenkins case.
But, the pattern seems to be that when the lesbian thing goes awry, it's the biological mom that leave the homosexual lifestyle, as is the case here (with the mom and her HUSBAND).
-
Note that one them is now apparently a former lesbian.
Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'
Judge rules couple's 'agreement' to split custody violates parental rights
Posted: July 11, 2009
12:45 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A district court judge ruled against a lesbian woman seeking to attain legal standing as the mother of her former lover's child and, in the process, struck a blow for parental rights.
great..chenys daughter cant be a mum! ;D
-
The editors at WND must think their readers are morons.
Why else would they make a patenly false statement in the title
The ruling didn't say lesbians can't be parents.
The ruling was about parental rights and not sexual identity
-
great..chenys daughter cant be a mum! ;D
you really have a thing for bush/cheney dont you protein...you cant seem to make a comment without justifying others ignorant actions with bush/cheneys or their family...MSNBC and olbeirman have done a good job with you ::)
-
you really have a thing for bush/cheney dont you protein...you cant seem to make a comment without justifying others ignorant actions with bush/cheneys or their family...MSNBC and olbeirman have done a good job with you ::)
hey i figure you bush wackers endured uber idiocy under bush...for 8 yrs willfully still suckling at his cock
so obama should be no great biggie...
a man that has endured a gunshot wound would find a little pin prick no biggie right?
orrr did the standard now all of a sudden change since he is black?
either way...this is a democracy...the majority won! ;D
-
hey i figure you bush wackers endured uber idiocy under bush...for 8 yrs willfully still suckling at his cock
so obama should be no great biggie...
a man that has endured a gunshot wound would find a little pin prick no biggie right?
orrr did the standard now all of a sudden change since he is black?
either way...this is a democracy...the majority won! ;D
hahah first off hoss ive complained many a time about bush...
second you dont see the irony in you complaining and bitching about bush/cheney like a little sullen child and then willfully bending over and taking it up the ass from obama and smiling about it?
-
second you dont see the irony in you complaining and bitching about bush/cheney like a little sullen child and then willfully bending over and taking it up the ass from obama and smiling about it?
osama technically could fling feces from his desk at the white house and he STILL would not be responsible for spending tillions on a war that got thousands of Americans dead..the economy to shit
and osama still alive :-*
-
osama technically could fling feces from his desk at the white house and he STILL would not be responsible for spending tillions on a war that got thousands of Americans dead..the economy to shit
and osama still alive :-*
WOW again your ignorance shows through, ive said many many many times Iraq was a mistake...
right right right that whole housing situation had nothing to do with the economy right? who was pres when that got passed? hmmm you see dipshit problems are multi faceted and idiots such as yourself and 240 like to try and make them all about one person
-
WOW again your ignorance shows through, ive said many many many times Iraq was a mistake...
WOw and haahaa..i give this a "need new material"
right right right that whole housing situation had nothing to do with the economy right? who was pres when that got passed?
sooo the economy went to shit in the last 130ish days cause of the "housing situation" NOt because of the past 7 yrs 4 months where bush has been fucking up??
lol riiiight
-
WOw and haahaa..i give this a "need new material"
sooo the economy went to shit in the last 130ish days cause of the "housing situation" NOt because of the past 7 yrs 4 months where bush has been fucking up??
lol riiiight
did you go to college protein, i ask not to be an ass but seriously your lack of comprehension skills and analytical skills is sub par bro...I didnt say it was soley b/c of the housing situation I said that it WASNT SOLEY B/C OF THE WAR which is what you imply...
-
did you go to college protein, i ask not to be an ass but seriously your lack of comprehension skills and analytical skills is sub par bro...I didnt say it was soley b/c of the housing situation I said that it WASNT SOLEY B/C OF THE WAR which is what you imply...
i went to university of maryland at 15
i grad high school with an O levels from cambridge and A levels partially done
i have taught networking classes for the FBI and SAIC and the Military
happy?
-
I thought homosexuality was permanent, you know, "Once gay, always gay".
Once again, we see another lesbian relationship go south, only to have at least one "prodigal" daughter come home (as it were).
As for the parental rights thing, these things tend to flare up a lot with women, the most famous of which is the Miller v. Jenkins case.
But, the pattern seems to be that when the lesbian thing goes awry, it's the biological mom that leave the homosexual lifestyle, as is the case here (with the mom and her HUSBAND).
Yep. This kind of stuff does nothing but create confusion. Feel sorry for the kids involved.
-
Yep. This kind of stuff does nothing but create confusion. Feel sorry for the kids involved.
Well, you have guys like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, who seem to have a rather casual relationship with the concept of heterosexuality, so why wouldn't the same thing occur for gays?
At its heart, this case is not really that different from any other custody case. Yes, the kid in this case is in a pitiable position (if he was even aware of what was happening), but the same goes for most kids from broken homes.
I don't think any blows for parental rights were struck here. If the two female parties had gone through with a legal adoption, then the left-behind lesbian would have retained parental rights. That contract never had a chance of standing up in a court of law. I don't think too many people, gay or straight, would be foolish enough to believe that type of contract had any validity.
-
Yep. This kind of stuff does nothing but create confusion. Feel sorry for the kids involved.
acrimonious divorces are hard on the kids regardless of the sexuality of the parent.
in fact, since 99.99% of divorces are of heterosexual couples they are doing far more harm to children than gay couples (or formerly gay or bi or whatever people like Ted Haggard are)
-
Well, you have guys like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, who seem to have a rather casual relationship with the concept of heterosexuality, so why wouldn't the same thing occur for gays?
At its heart, this case is not really that different from any other custody case. Yes, the kid in this case is in a pitiable position (if he was even aware of what was happening), but the same goes for most kids from broken homes.
I don't think any blows for parental rights were struck here. If the two female parties had gone through with a legal adoption, then the left-behind lesbian would have retained parental rights. That contract never had a chance of standing up in a court of law. I don't think too many people, gay or straight, would be foolish enough to believe that type of contract had any validity.
Haggard and Craig are/were closet homosexuals. But given that neither was involved in a custody dispute, their situations aren't relevant to this story.
As McWay pointed out, this story cuts directly against the "once gay, always gay" argument.
The confusing and unfortunate part for the kids is you have a woman who likely started off heterosexual, chose to become a lesbian, and is now heterosexual again. Terrible situation for the kids. Custody fights are bad enough without having to deal with this type of confusion.
-
Haggard and Craig are/were closet homosexuals. But given that neither was involved in a custody dispute, their situations aren't relevant to this story.
As McWay pointed out, this story cuts directly against the "once gay, always gay" argument.
The confusing and unfortunate part for the kids is you have a woman who likely started off heterosexual, chose to become a lesbian, and is now heterosexual again. Terrible situation for the kids. Custody fights are bad enough without having to deal with this type of confusion.
yeah I'm sure Ted Haggards kids are not suffering at all from their father public humiliation and self professed confusion over his sexuality. I'm sure their adolescent and teenaged peers are quite understanding. I'm sure the 2 year old boy in the subject story is having a much worse time with his peers. ::)
-
i went to university of maryland at 15
i grad high school with an O levels from cambridge and A levels partially done
i have taught networking classes for the FBI and SAIC and the Military
happy?
hahahah nooooo, if this is true you need to go back brother you seem to be unable to comprehend what im saying and all you seem to hear is blah blah blah i love bush blah blah which is not what im saying in the least.
-
Haggard and Craig are/were closet homosexuals. But given that neither was involved in a custody dispute, their situations aren't relevant to this story.
As McWay pointed out, this story cuts directly against the "once gay, always gay" argument.
The confusing and unfortunate part for the kids is you have a woman who likely started off heterosexual, chose to become a lesbian, and is now heterosexual again. Terrible situation for the kids. Custody fights are bad enough without having to deal with this type of confusion.
How so? Because she's involved in a heterosexual relationship now? Two years from now, she may change her mind once again. She's already done it at least once.
Custody fights are tough. When parents cheat, it's tough on the kids. When new partners come into the picture, it's tough on the kids. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes. You seem to be tacitly suggesting there's some type of remedy to this type of confusion.
-
How so? Because she's involved in a heterosexual relationship now? Two years from now, she may change her mind once again. She's already done it at least once.
Custody fights are tough. When parents cheat, it's tough on the kids. When new partners come into the picture, it's tough on the kids. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes. You seem to be tacitly suggesting there's some type of remedy to this type of confusion.
It's a terrible situation for the kids because it's very confusing for them to have a parent who keeps choosing to change her sexual identity.
I didn't tacitly suggest any type of remedy.
-
It's a terrible situation for the kids because it's very confusing for them to have a parent who keeps choosing to change her sexual identity.
I didn't tacitly suggest any type of remedy.
The kid in question is 2 years old I doubt he has any confusion about his parents sexual identity
Haggards kids appears to be adolescents and teenagers
Who do you think is having a harder time, especially given the environment they were raised in which undoubtly taught them that being gay is evil, how it's a choice, etc....
-
I do not care about Ted Haggard and he has nothing to do with this story.
-
I do not care about Ted Haggard and he has nothing to do with this story.
Why do you care so much about the 2/y.o and not at all about Haggard's kids? Do you know the two lesbians in the story?
-
I do not care about Ted Haggard and he has nothing to do with this story.
it's relevent to the discussion because of your comment/concerns about the confusion you think the 2 year old child is suffering as if he somehow understands the sexuality of his parents.
If anything, you should be MUCH more concerned about Haggards kids than this kid in the story
-
Doesn't really seem like sexuality was an issue in the judgement.
-
Doesn't really seem like sexuality was an issue in the judgement.
exactly but you'd never know that if you only read the headline which is probably about as far as most of the numbnuts who read World Net Daily ever got
-
Why do you care so much about the 2/y.o and not at all about Haggard's kids? Do you know the two lesbians in the story?
Yes, they're my neighbors. ::)
I didn't say I didn't care about Haggard's kids. I'm sure they suffered a great deal of embarrassment. I feel sorry for them. But again, has nothing to do with this story.
And just to clarify, there is only one lesbian in this story. One of them is heterosexual. This week.
-
Yes, they're my neighbors. ::)
::)
I didn't say I didn't care about Haggard's kids. I'm sure they suffered a great deal of embarrassment. I feel sorry for them. But again, has nothing to do with this story.
You didn't say you didn't care about Haggard's kids, but you did say you didn't care about Haggard in response to a question about his kids.
The first post in which you claimed Haggard and Craig's cases weren't relevant to this case, the reason you gave was that there were no custody disputes involved.
Are you saying that any confusion the kid might suffer is due to a custody dispute? If the lesbian couple had broken up and the mother had moved on to a male partner, without incident, would you still not be worried about the kid's confusion?
Aside from a matter of custody, this case and the Haggard case would probably affect the children involved in a similar manner. If anything, Haggard's kids would wind up more fucked up. The lesbians most likely provided an environment that developed an appreciation for atypical familial structures. Haggard certainly didn't.
-
::)
You didn't say you didn't care about Haggard's kids, but you did say you didn't care about Haggard in response to a question about his kids.
The first post in which you claimed Haggard and Craig's cases weren't relevant to this case, the reason you gave was that there were no custody disputes involved.
Are you saying that any confusion the kid might suffer is due to a custody dispute? If the lesbian couple had broken up and the mother had moved on to a male partner, without incident, would you still not be worried about the kid's confusion?
Aside from a matter of custody, this case and the Haggard case would probably affect the children involved in a similar manner. If anything, Haggard's kids would wind up more fucked up. The lesbians most likely provided an environment that developed an appreciation for atypical familial structures. Haggard certainly didn't.
I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids. You did. That's your made-up issue. I have no idea what's going in that man's family. I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order.
Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer. Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more. When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater.
-
I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids. You did. That's your made-up issue. I have no idea what's going in that man's family. I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order.
Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer. Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more. When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater.
I brought up the Haggard case after you and McWay claimed that this case was an argument against "Once gay, always gay." Just as Haggard and Craig aren't arguments for the case that all married men are secretly gay, this one case is not an argument for or against any larger theories on gay people. Two years from now, she could go gay again.
After I brought it up, you claimed that you didn't see any relevance in it to this case. I don't see how you could miss it.
You have no idea what's going on in Haggard's house, but you think you've got a handle on the confusion and suffering of people involved in this case? ::) This 2 year old is even aware of what's going on. Most children this young can't even process the concept of a deceased parent, I doubt his mother's sexuality is causing him much pain or confusion. That's your made-up issue.
-
I thought homosexuality was permanent, you know, "Once gay, always gay".
That shows how little you understand homosexuality.
-
I brought up the Haggard case after you and McWay claimed that this case was an argument against "Once gay, always gay." Just as Haggard and Craig aren't arguments for the case that all married men are secretly gay, this one case is not an argument for or against any larger theories on gay people. Two years from now, she could go gay again.
After I brought it up, you claimed that you didn't see any relevance in it to this case. I don't see how you could miss it.
You have no idea what's going on in Haggard's house, but you think you've got a handle on the confusion and suffering of people involved in this case? ::) This 2 year old is even aware of what's going on. Most children this young can't even process the concept of a deceased parent, I doubt his mother's sexuality is causing him much pain or confusion. That's your made-up issue.
I don't have a "handle" on what's going to happen with this poor kid anymore than you do. I'm talking about risks, which can increase based on the parents' choices.
Regarding the age of the kid, kids are very smart and perceptive. There is a very short window of time during which a kid's personality, character, etc. is formed. They cannot completely comprehend certain things, but at age 2 their world gets increasingly larger by the day. In fact, by about age 5 to probably no later than about 8, their personality is pretty set. Everything the kid experiences during that time period influences the kind of person he or she will become.
-
That shows how little you understand homosexuality.
How so? He's just repeating what homosexual advocates say.
-
I didn't bring up Haggard or his kids. You did. That's your made-up issue. I have no idea what's going in that man's family. I hope they are healing and that he is getting his life in order.
Regarding these kids, anytime there is a divorce the kids suffer. Anytime there is a custody dispute the kids suffer even more. When there is a divorce and custody dispute with one of the parents confused about their sexuality, the suffering is just that much greater.
you brought up the ridiculous notion that somehow a 2 year old boy is going to suffer terrible confusion from his parents sexuality.
Haggards kids are a relevent example
-
In fact, by about age 5 to probably no later than about 8, their personality is pretty set. Everything the kid experiences during that time period influences the kind of person he or she will become.
Didn't we have this discussion before?
That study wasn't about actual personality... it was about personality traits, i.e. is a kid agressive or shy, investigative, how he deals with stress. The personality isn't "set", the dominant personality traits are just apparent. That study concluded suggested that those traits were congenital. Just anecdotally, you must realize that. Yes, everything they experience fro 5 to 8 influences the type of person they will become. So does everything that happens from 8 onward. Kids develop their personalities well into their 20s.
Most kids can't even process the world around them at age 2, or retain memories from that period of their life.
-
How so? He's just repeating what homosexual advocates say.
Based on the mother's actions, she's likely bi-sexual.
-
Didn't we have this discussion before?
That study wasn't about actual personality... it was about personality traits, i.e. is a kid agressive or shy, investigative, how he deals with stress. The personality isn't "set", the dominant personality traits are just apparent. That study concluded suggested that those traits were congenital. Just anecdotally, you must realize that. Yes, everything they experience fro 5 to 8 influences the type of person they will become. So does everything that happens from 8 onward. Kids develop their personalities well into their 20s.
Most kids can't even process the world around them at age 2, or retain memories from that period of their life.
It's possible we have had this discussion, but I don't remember it. I'm not really talking about a study, although I'm sure I've read something about this. I'm talking more about not just my experience as a parent, but following kids I've known and mentored for years. A person's personality and character does not change much after about age 8. That's been my experience. That's what I believe. Those early years of a child's life are just crucial.
I'm not saying kids don't continue to grow, develop, etc. after about age 8. Of course they do. But the essence of who a person will be, their character, and personality are pretty much set by that age.
-
Based on the mother's actions, she's likely bi-sexual.
But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"?
-
It's possible we have had this discussion, but I don't remember it. I'm not really talking about a study, although I'm sure I've read something about this. I'm talking more about not just my experience as a parent, but following kids I've known and mentored for years. A person's personality and character does not change much after about age 8. That's been my experience. That's what I believe. Those early years of a child's life are just crucial.
I'm not saying kids don't continue to grow, develop, etc. after about age 8. Of course they do. But the essence of who a person will be, their character, and personality are pretty much set by that age.
I don't agree with this. Regardless, the 2 year old is two young to be confused or in pain as a result of his mother's flipflopping sexuality.
-
But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"?
If she is bisexual, would that phrase be meant to apply to her?
You yourself made a post questioning her commitment to heterosexuality. Who's to say she doesn't still have strong gay feelings? "Always gay" doesn't mean "always a practicing gay".
-
If she is bisexual, would that phrase be meant to apply to her?
You yourself made a post questioning her commitment to heterosexuality. Who's to say she doesn't still have strong gay feelings? "Always gay" doesn't mean "always a practicing gay".
McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief. Nothing more complicated than that.
She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle. What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
-
If she still has lesbian thoughts, then she's still a lesbian.
-
Uh. No.
-
Uh, yeah.
-
But don't you agree that homosexual activists say people are born gay and "once gay, always gay"?
There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual. It's a basic distinction.
A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.
If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women. Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage.
-
McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief. Nothing more complicated than that.
How so, ...especially if the woman in question wasn't gay to begin with, ...but was bi-sexual?
She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle. What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
Nah, ...it's like any other relationship. If it's not working with your partner, ...you'll turn to someone else.
The only difference is this woman has a wider circle of potential partners to choose from.
In her case, I doubt it's a case of "I wanna be lesbian this week", but more a case of I'm attracted to this person who happens to be a [insert sex here]
-
There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual. It's a basic distinction.
A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.
If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women. Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage.
Is a little more complicated than that. There is also "transgendered" and "gender identity," which is whatever gender you think you are on whatever day you think it.
-
How so, ...especially if the woman in question wasn't gay to begin with, ...but was bi-sexual?
Nah, ...it's like any other relationship. If it's not working with your partner, ...you'll turn to someone else.
The only difference is this woman has a wider circle of potential partners to choose from.
In her case, I doubt it's a case of "I wanna be lesbian this week", but more a case of I'm attracted to this person who happens to be a [insert sex here]
She wasn't bisexual. She was lesbian. And now she's not.
-
McWay pointed out that the fact this woman was heterosexual, lesbian, and is now heterosexual again conflicts with the "once gay, always gay" belief. Nothing more complicated than that.
She might have lesbians thoughts, etc. and she will always have the choice to return to that lifestyle. What that does is support the belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
What McWay and yourself are demonstrating is what initially said which is a lack of understanding. It doesn't conflict because they are 2 different things.
Is a little more complicated than that. There is also "transgendered" and "gender identity," which is whatever gender you think you are on whatever day you think it.
No it's not complicated at all. She's likely bisexual. End of story.
She wasn't bisexual. She was lesbian. And now she's not.
She's been incorrectly labeled by another person who shows a lack of understanding. It's not a 2 variable issue BB. There's a third.
-
There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual. It's a basic distinction.
I've known gay people who say "They'd never get involved with a bi-sexual, it's just asking for trouble."
When you ask why... the response is always something to the effect of "I could never trust them". It never made any sense to me, cause I figure if someone is going to cheat, they'll do so regardless of whether they are gay, straight, or bi. Then I realized it's just that insecurity thing that they might on occasion crave something their partner could not give them.
A homosexual activist saying once gay always gay is likely referring to homosexuality.
I think that really boils down to how one defines gay doesn't it?
If she's with a man now, she's still attracted to women. Doesn't mean she'll act on it and violate her marriage.
I think that all depends on how nicely her husband asks, ...and how persuasive he is, doesn't it? :P ;)
-
What McWay and yourself are demonstrating is what initially said which is a lack of understanding. It doesn't conflict because they are 2 different things.
No it's not complicated at all. She's likely bisexual. End of story.
She's been incorrectly labeled by another person who shows a lack of understanding. It's not a 2 variable issue BB. There's a third.
Well since you know for a fact this woman is a bisexual, and not a former lesbian, then I guess that is the end of the story.
I think you missed his point (which I agree with). If this woman is a gone from straight to lesbian, to straight (I know “end of story”), that directly conflicts with the notion that people are "born gay." This woman's conduct is much more consistent with the truth, which is that homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, transsexuals, “gender identity,” etc. are about lifestyle choices.
-
Well since you know for a fact this woman is a bisexual, and not a former lesbian, then I guess that is the end of the story.
No I said she's likely bi-sexual
I think you missed his point (which I agree with). If this woman is a gone from straight to lesbian, to straight (I know “end of story”), that directly conflicts with the notion that people are "born gay." This woman's conduct is much more consistent with the truth, which is that homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, transsexuals, “gender identity,” etc. are about lifestyle choices.
Again, this shows your lack of understanding about this. This woman's conduct is consistent with bi-sexuality. You are stereo-typing something you don't fully understand into "lifestyle choices"
Also, the fact we don't her personally prevents from making exact conclusions. For example, maybe she is a true lesbian but her family had been pressuring through religion to have a relationship with a man. So after her failed relationship with a women she caved in a got married to a man. That wouldn't change the fact that she's a lesbian, and she may be miserable but has decided to be so for her child. In which case Once gay, always gay would apply.
-
No I said she's likely bi-sexual
Again, this shows your lack of understanding about this. This woman's conduct is consistent with bi-sexuality. You are stereo-typing something you don't fully understand into "lifestyle choices"
Also, the fact we don't her personally prevents from making exact conclusions. For example, maybe she is a true lesbian but her family had been pressuring through religion to have a relationship with a man. So after her failed relationship with a women she caved in a got married to a man. That wouldn't change the fact that she's a lesbian, and she may be miserable but has decided to be so for her child. In which case Once gay, always gay would apply.
bum has decided the way things are
the cement has dried
-
OK. Now I understand why you didn't want this discussion to derail into Craig/Haggard territory.
You're saying these two guys are straight men, who chose to have homosexual flings, and that they are now straight again? Or maybe they were never not straight? I mean they were both married and that makes them straight, right?
-
No I said she's likely bi-sexual
Again, this shows your lack of understanding about this. This woman's conduct is consistent with bi-sexuality. You are stereo-typing something you don't fully understand into "lifestyle choices"
Also, the fact we don't her personally prevents from making exact conclusions. For example, maybe she is a true lesbian but her family had been pressuring through religion to have a relationship with a man. So after her failed relationship with a women she caved in a got married to a man. That wouldn't change the fact that she's a lesbian, and she may be miserable but has decided to be so for her child. In which case Once gay, always gay would apply.
Here is what you said:
No it's not complicated at all. She's likely bisexual. End of story.
A qualified statement, followed by "end of story," is inconsistent.
I read the story again. Nowhere in the story does it say either woman was "bisexual." That's an assumption you've pulled out of thin air. In fact, you've even concocted a religious-based scenario to explain why she is "likely bisexual."
According to the story, there is a woman who was a lesbian and is now heterosexual. It's not like this has never happened. Anytime people go from straight to homosexual to straight it contradicts the "born gay" argument.
-
Here is what you said:
A qualified statement, followed by "end of story," is inconsistent.
I read the story again. Nowhere in the story does it say either woman was "bisexual." That's an assumption you've pulled out of thin air. In fact, you've even concocted a religious-based scenario to explain why she is "likely bisexual."
My post was in response to what you said:
Is a little more complicated than that. There is also "transgendered" and "gender identity," which is whatever gender you think you are on whatever day you think it.
It's not complicated. She's likely bi-sexual. End of story. She demonstrating bi-sexual behavior, nothing complicated about it. You attempted to make it complicated by adding trans gender and gender identity issues to the discussion when those are not factors in what we are talking about. So, again, it's not complicated, she's likely bi sexual, end of story.
And there's nothing inconsistent about it, except you trying to add non relevant issues into it to perhaps purposely complicate something that's pretty obvious; that based on her actions she's likely bi-sexual.
According to the story, there is a woman who was a lesbian and is now heterosexual. It's not like this has never happened. Anytime people go from straight to homosexual to straight it contradicts the "born gay" argument.
It's only contradicting to those who a lack of understanding regarding these 3 identified areas of sexuality. She's likely been miss classified by the person who wrote the article. I wouldn't be surprised if that person has the same level of understanding on this issue as you seem to have. Even if she wasn't classified incorrectly I presented a scenario earlier that would support the born gay concept.
-
My post was in response to what you said:
It's not complicated. She's likely bi-sexual. End of story. She demonstrating bi-sexual behavior, nothing complicated about it. You attempted to make it complicated by adding trans gender and gender identity issues to the discussion when those are not factors in what we are talking about. So, again, it's not complicated, she's likely bi sexual, end of story.
And there's nothing inconsistent about it, except you trying to add non relevant issues into it to perhaps purposely complicate something that's pretty obvious; that based on her actions she's likely bi-sexual.
It's only contradicting to those who a lack of understanding regarding these 3 identified areas of sexuality. She's likely been miss classified by the person who wrote the article. I wouldn't be surprised if that person has the same level of understanding this issue as you seem to have.
So let me get this straight. I relied on the facts from the story. You invented facts (she's "likely bisexual," "end of story"), which included some big bad religious person/influence to support your invented facts, but I'm complicating this? That's funny. :)
Just to put my comments regarding gender identity, etc. in context, they were in response to this:
There's homosexual, there's heterosexual, and there's bi-sexual. It's a basic distinction.
It's not that simple. As I'm sure you know, there is "GLBT," which something even the new White House uses. The "T" is for "transgendered." There is also a new category that legislatures have created called "gender identity." I posted the definition on the board several times. It includes a person's actual or perceived gender identity or expression. So, not it's not as simple as "homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual."
-
I read the story again. Nowhere in the story does it say either woman was "bisexual." That's an assumption you've pulled out of thin air. In fact, you've even concocted a religious-based scenario to explain why she is "likely bisexual."
According to the story, there is a woman who was a lesbian and is now heterosexual. It's not like this has never happened. Anytime people go from straight to homosexual to straight it contradicts the "born gay" argument.
Where in the story does it say that the woman is heterosexual?
It simply says that she is now married to a man and she is a former lesbian.
From that, you could reasonably conclude that she's bisexual.
-
Where in the story does it say that the woman is heterosexual?
It simply says that she is now married to a man and she is a former lesbian.
From that, you could reasonably conclude that she's bisexual.
If you were trying to support an argument that the woman is confused about her sexuality because some religious person made her feel guilty, then yes you could say that fact the story doesn't use the word "heterosexual" could mean she is bisexual. Would that be a "reasonable" conclusion? No.
If you're using common sense, the fact she is now married to a man means the women is no longer a lesbian.
I can't believe I'm debating this. lol . . . :)
-
The Salt Lake Tribune covered this story and the woman in question had this to say:
Dickson, 33, now is married to a man, but said, in an e-mail, she has "dated both men and women" in her life.
It sounds like she is a bisexual.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12814603
-
So let me get this straight. I relied on the facts from the story. You invented facts (she's "likely bisexual," "end of story"), which included some big bad religious person/influence to support your invented facts, but I'm complicating this? That's funny. :)
Just to put my comments regarding gender identity, etc. in context, they were in response to this:
It's not that simple. As I'm sure you know, there is "GLBT," which something even the new White House uses. The "T" is for "transgendered." There is also a new category that legislatures have created called "gender identity." I posted the definition on the board several times. It includes a person's actual or perceived gender identity or expression. So, not it's not as simple as "homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual."
This whole discussion is from McWay's quip about how this story contradicts the once gay always gay idea. The problem is the story is devoid of relevant details and the writer likely mis-classified this woman. Simply because the writer identified her as a lesbian doesn't mean she's is, especially since her action indicate she likely bisexual. Many people make the mistake of mis classifying a woman as a lesbian simply because she's in a current relationship with another woman. A "True" lesbian who is attracted to women, NOT men. The fact that she married a man indicates she's bi-sexual which is more than reasonable conclusion based on the facts given.
The writer calling her a lesbian doesn't make her one. Actions define what you are.
What you relied on was personal stereotyping base on a lack of understanding. I'm not inventing facts I'm simply pointing out the ladies actions are inconsistent with what it is to be a lesbian.
You are still attempting to add something into this issue that's irrelevant with trans genders. We are not taking about the all the other stuff outside of heterosexuality.
-
The Salt Lake Tribune covered this story and the woman in question had this to say:
It sounds like she is a bisexual.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12814603
Or she is straight-turned-lesbian-turned straight. The entire story in the link you posted talks about lesbians. Doesn't say a word about bisexuals. In fact, in the more complete excerpt of the quote you posted, the woman herself talks about rights of lesbians, not bisexuals:
Dickson, 33, now is married to a man, but said, in an e-mail, she has "dated both men and women" in her life. An attorney who defends parents in abuse, neglect and custody cases, Dickson said she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt -- if the biological mom wants her partner to do so.
-
Or she is straight-turned-lesbian-turned straight. The entire story in the link you posted talks about lesbians. Doesn't say a word about bisexuals. In fact, in the more complete excerpt of the quote you posted, the woman herself talks about rights of lesbians, not bisexuals:
The excerpt says it all:
Dickson, 33, now is married to a man, but said, in an e-mail, she has "dated both men and women" in her life. An attorney who defends parents in abuse, neglect and custody cases, Dickson said she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt -- if the biological mom wants her partner to do so.
That's a bi-sexual plain and simple. She still can be attracted to a woman and I wouldn't doubt that her marriage may end in the future because of that.
-
Or she is straight-turned-lesbian-turned straight. The entire story in the link you posted talks about lesbians. Doesn't say a word about bisexuals. In fact, in the more complete excerpt of the quote you posted, the woman herself talks about rights of lesbians, not bisexuals:
If a two women are a couple, they are considered a lesbian couple even if one of the partners is bi.
Additionally, the article doesn't say anything about her being straight. It does say that she has dated more than one woman and more than one man. Which means that she is bi.You must realize that the whole point of her revealing that information was probably to confirm that she has identified as bi for a while.
-
The excerpt says it all:
Dickson, 33, now is married to a man, but said, in an e-mail, she has "dated both men and women" in her life. An attorney who defends parents in abuse, neglect and custody cases, Dickson said she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt -- if the biological mom wants her partner to do so.
That's a bi-sexual plain and simple. She still can be attracted to a woman and I wouldn't doubt that her marriage may end in the future because of that.
If it's so plain and simple why didn't she identify herself as bisexual? Instead saying she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt, why didn't she say she's a strong believer in right of bisexuals to marry and adopt?
-
If it's so plain and simple why didn't she identify herself as bisexual? Instead saying she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt, why didn't she say she's a strong believer in right of bisexuals to marry and adopt?
She did identify herself as bisexual. She said she has dated both men and women . It's more than likely that she did so in response to a question regarding whether or not she considered herself straight.
-
If it's so plain and simple why didn't she identify herself as bisexual? Instead saying she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt, why didn't she say she's a strong believer in right of bisexuals to marry and adopt?
Maybe because she's talking about her former partner. Maybe because she's really is a lesbian but got pressure into marrying a man.
Maybe because she see's herself as a lesbian because she married one and committed her life to only her.
Maybe she's mis classifying herself.
Lots of possible answers. However, Actions speak louder than words and actions define who you are. She's likely Bi-sexual. And you and McWay's questioning of the once gay always gay idea doesn't support your contention.
If a two women are a couple, they are considered a lesbian couple even if one of the partners is bi.
Additionally, the article doesn't say anything about her being straight. It does say that she has dated more than one woman and more than one man. Which means that she is bi.You must realize that the whole point of her revealing that information was probably to confirm that she has identified as bi for a while.
This too.
-
Maybe she's mis classifying herself.
??? She doesn't know how to classify herself?
-
??? She doesn't know how to classify herself?
I just threw out some possibilities. There are many not so bright people out there. It wouldn't surprise me.
-
??? She doesn't know how to classify herself?
I guess it should be noted here that that part of the article is not actually in quotation marks- it was paraphrased by the author for readablity.
-
I just threw out some possibilities. There are many not so bright people out there. It wouldn't surprise me.
Wait. So she could be bisexual and not be smart enough to know it? Dude. This is cracking me up. :) Not laughing at you or anyone else. Just the whole subject is kinda silly (discussing whether a woman is a lesbian vs. bisexual).
-
Wait. So she could be bisexual and not be smart enough to know it? Dude. This is cracking me up. :) Not laughing at you or anyone else. Just the whole subject is kinda silly (discussing whether a woman is a lesbian vs. bisexual).
It's a pretty big distinction. Lesbian = Women with women only. Bisexual, sex with both men and women. Also, Al and myself alluded to the idea that she's sees herself as a lesbian when she was married to a woman. Put yourself in her shoes with you situation for a moment. You are a heterosexual. Imagine having sex with a man. That's what it is like with a lesbian. However, for a bi-sexual, it pleasurable both ways.
And when you say she could be a bisexual and not be smart enough to know it are you suggesting that bisexuals are always smart enough to know it? :D
-
Also, the distinction is crucial to Beach Bum's argument that this case disproves "once gay, always gay". From all of the evidence we have, it's pretty clear that this woman probably never completely identified herself as gay and she probably doesn't currently identify herself as straight. "Once gay, always gay" didn't apply to her and her current situation doesn't disprove it.
-
The Salt Lake Tribune covered this story and the woman in question had this to say:
It sounds like she is a bisexual.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12814603
Sounds like a very painful situation for her. Years ago, I had difficulty ending a 7 year relationship because there was 2 yr old nephew involved. It was very difficult for both me and the baby not being able to see each other anymore.