Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[OzmO]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Al Doggity]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.           

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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."   

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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 . . .   

[Al Doggity]

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

[OzmO]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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.

[OzmO]

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.     

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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?  

[Al Doggity]

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.

[OzmO]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

Maybe she's mis classifying herself.

 

   She doesn't know how to classify herself? 

[OzmO]

  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.

[Al Doggity]

  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.

[Dos Equis]

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).    

[OzmO]

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?   

[Al Doggity]

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.

[24KT]

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.