response 41 of 71:

May 28 16:43 UTC 2002

It doesn't seem to make sense to me to politicize sexuality.  I mean, it seems
to me that the whole point is that people should be allowed to love, have sex
with, and live with whoever they prefer regardless of their respective sexes,
right?

response 43 of 71:

May 29 01:50 UTC 2002

40:
why not? if the time + place is right + ripe, i can see how members of a
category in bad need of some bootstrapping would get angry at other
members preferring isolation. the greater number of members pitching in,
the shorter amount of time the 'ethical obligation' would need to be
posited, ne?

response 45 of 71:

May 29 22:19 UTC 2002

it's also very effective for keeping said job and out of poverty.

response 47 of 71:

May 30 01:01 UTC 2002

some people also marry for working visa priviledge.

response 49 of 71:

May 30 03:28 UTC 2002

Don't they?  I've heard much harsher words about green card marriages than
I've ever heard about queer folks in cover-up marriages.  

Here's the thing.  Lying is wrong.  Lying about something important like
love is especially bad.  But getting married to keep yourself in the
closet, or to rip the government off, or whatever, isn't any _more_ wrong
than telling any other sort of lie.  It's no less wrong, but it's no more
wrong either. 

And if you're in the closet, you're already lying about love.  I don't see
how getting married to support that lie -- so long as your spouse is in on
the real story -- makes it any worse.  And really, sometimes staying in
the closet is the best thing to do, even if it is dishonest.

I agree with jazz.  It's a shame, but it's not worth coming down so hard
on. 

response 51 of 71:

May 30 14:50 UTC 2002

        I'd gotten the impression that both of you were interested in each
other, however, and married for that reason.  Isn't that correct?

response 53 of 71:

May 30 23:09 UTC 2002

I ask because the politics are really odd-- I've seen bi people who 
seem to be politically active only when they are in a relationship 
with a MOTSS.  A MOTOS relationship seems to make them politically 
fade away.

(then there was us-- I still don't know what the local GALA made of us 
for sure when we participated)

response 55 of 71:

May 31 06:55 UTC 2002

   re #49: No, staying in the closet is not the best thing to do. 
Staying in the closet perpetuates discrimination, prejudice, and
calumny.  Staying in the closet means you don't have to gonads to stand
up for yourself in just about the biggest way imaginable.

response 57 of 71:

May 31 15:39 UTC 2002

        Most married couples don't throw out their libidoes when they put on
the rings, and it doesn't seem all that significant to me what direction their
libidoes want to go.  It's about whether or not they're faithful to the
agreements they've made to their partner, whether those agreements include
extramarital sex or not.  If you've agreed not to do it, don't do it.

        Void's comment reminds me of an Ani DiFranco song, which goes like this
- "Some chick came up to me and said thanks for saying all the things I never
do, but you know the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you.  It's nice
that you listen, it'd be nice if you joined in, as long as you play that game
girl, you're never going to win."  It's true, insofar as it goes, but I don't
think everyone was born to fight for what they believe in.

response 59 of 71:

Jun 2 03:53 UTC 2002

Re: #44 
I'm only familiar with "het privilege" in reference to bi's being (very
conveniently for them) assumed het when they're going out with a MOTOS.
A homo who's got a public MOTOS relationship (whether real, fake, baggage
from prior het status, or whatever) is just in the closet - which is no
privilege, and needs no special term.

The fake marriage w/MOTSS action on the side sounds *very* much like the
age-old traditional European (& American) institution of marriage for the
upper classes.  Folks got married for reasons of money, politics, & noble
blood to someone picked for those traits (whether they liked each other or
had even met each other or not), maybe produced an heir or two, then each 
took a lover on the side while keeping up the loose pretense of marriage.
The last i paid attention, the idea of romantic marriage to one's true
love (for most real people in the real world) was a far newer & less well
accepted idea in virtually all of Christiandom.  The older practice was
well accepted in America through most of the 20th century.  (Remember FDR
or JFK?) 

With this historical context, the "fake het cover" marriage sounds *at
least* as legit as the "madly in love MOTOS romance" marriage to me.

On the whole coward/closet thing:  i don't see how being an (involuntary)
member of group X makes one any more morally obligated than non-members to
advance the interests of group X.  We're not talking about a country here,
with a bunch of obligations to its citizens & need to collect taxes, draft
soldiers, etc. to meet those obligations.  

response 61 of 71:

Jun 4 00:40 UTC 2002

        Homosexuality isn't, despite the enormously strong cliques that seem
to go along with it, a group in the sense that the Freemasons or the Students
for a Democratic Society is, though, and it's not really fair to say that
there is a gay agenda, because not everyone agrees.  How can you advance the
goals of a group that isn't of a single mind?

response 63 of 71:

Jun 4 08:17 UTC 2002

(Did I say that, or are you answering someone else?)

response 65 of 71:

Jun 24 06:01 UTC 2002

#61: I don't know, but keep in mind not all Christians agree on all issues,
either, and that doesn't stop certain voices from spouting off.  

Void, isn't it just their choice in how they live?  (devil's advocation...)