Naw!

just judgin' phonies...I believe gay couples should have ALL the rights of opposite-sex.

yeah, i know....i'm just saying that i don't care if they're faking it.....actually....i kind of prefer it....

so . . . your cock doesn't care if its partner is male or female? :p

You go, boy!

it's just skin.......

I get that...it's all perspective.

(edit) I also can see that it turns guys on. It is sexy..no doubt. As a woman, I can see that it is, too. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't agree with playing games with who you are sexually to look cool, or whatever. I think it's offensive to those who are dealing with the real issues their sexuality (or any other aspect of themselves) and conflicts with what is "right" and "wrong" in society because it seems to me to be making light of something I would think those who are actually living it take very seriously.

But what do I know?

I don't really think that GGW has much to do with the acceptance of homosexuality by mainstream America. GGW has to do with slick marketing to "every man's fantasy".

Wasn't talking about the output, talking about those who are "inputting."

Please do not take my simple observation and make it an essay on a much broader subject than it was intended to be. It is merely a different aspect, angle, a tangential observation.

It all depends on the angle of the dangle - if ya know what I mean....

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth. I don't think that the participation of the females on those vids has much to do with general acceptance by society of homosexual behavior, that was my point.

Its not okay but what else can you do?

From recent votes there has not been enough support to legalize same sex marriage for now but I am saying it will be there in 20-30 years so it isn't permanent. I strongly believe that gay marriages should be legal but the opposition is too strong to do anything about it right now.

Do you really want your argument to sound like that, pierce?
Your argument is just 'wait it out'.
Justice, freedom, equality, civil rights... these things do not happen from just 'waiting it out'. Every person who fails to campaign for gay rights or any other kind of civil right is complicit in the deprivation of that right. If you actually strongly believed that gay marriage should be legal, you would go out and tell the homophobic bigots that they are wrong, and why. You would fight for equality and civil rights. You would do the right thing.

Right now, your strategy is doing nothing, and doing nothing is no better than doing the right thing.

So your waiting for people to become liberal?

Some would argue that is an extraordinarily long process.
If anything, I think that the world is becoming more nationalist, more conservative, if you take a look at recent elections around the world the right is winning more than the left.

I didn't read that Pierce was advocating any particular course of action. I thought he was remarking from a more historical perspective. :2cents:

Pierce was being realistic, maybe fatalistic, but as you mature you learn to pick your battles more carefully.

Getting all Don Quixote, especially about things that don't affect you, will do you, or the people you support, no good.
Restricting your activities to being honest about your views, is not akin to complicity.

Being gay might be morally wrong to some people, but not to me.

My morals think it's perfectly ok. If I were a prude perhaps, or staunch catholic etc, I might think it's morally wrong to be gay.

With regard to the question posed earlier, "do your morals change according to who you're with", I think that's an interesting question.

There is no doubt that our sense of propriety stops us from behaving the same way in front of our 80yr old granny than we might when we're out with friends at the pub. Does that mean our morals change or that we simply prop our morals up because we don't want to offend granny?