Hi all

[Katiegrrl0]

Nothing wrong with national flags and symbols and national feelings in general. They are essential aspects of human society and diversity.

They are not necessarily essential. They may add meaning to some peoples lives. They certainly are aspects of our lives but they need not exist at all. They are a human construct to say this is mine and you are on my side of the line. The world was not made with flags attached. They were put there by humanity. These separate ideologies, prosperity, and cultures.
The idea of the ownership of land is artificial as no one sold the land to the first humans. They claimed it as they went along and broke it into sections and subsections for their own needs. Then claimed them as their right. The first owners did not buy anything. They put a fence up and said this is mine keep out.

Your statement implies that you do not believe in individual ownership. If that is true, how would you suggest all human commerce and other interaction be conducted?

I am not for private land ownership. But this is the way it is. As is the habit in the systems that we have buildings were built out of need. Invention has come from need. There is no reason that these things would not still exist. The difference is that the ownership of said concern would be all.
I live in a community and within the community whatever is done benefits all. My work efforts do not solely meet my needs but the needs of others. We purchase for the community as we need and use whatever we have for our own needs. I have a home and the things I enjoy in my home. I do not personally own a car. The community owns the cars. They also own the home. My income goes into the community and covers the needs of those that may need more than they make. None of us in in a case of hardship.
To change the world into such a system would take many years of planning and mind changing and I am not up for that.
A business would be owned by the employees. The land would be leased to said industry by the community at large. The owner and designer of the products would earn a lager share then those in other positions but not to the degree of disparity that exists in the business world these days.

 

[gallantwarrior]

My partner is convinced - in no uncertain terms - that I cannot clean the house up to her standards (sadly, she is right). Although I've proven myself capable of doing laundry, she has banished me from that task too. Ironing, on the other hand, is my proven field of expertise. As for mowing the lawn, we pay a gardner.

The joys of being gloriously single! There are no arguments about who does what, or blame if something isn't done. I get to fold my towels the way I like! My business partner is useful because he hates book work, so I get to keep the books, do all the online business while he shovels snow off the roofs. One provides muscle, the other brains, it works for a business. I would hate to be married to this guy, though. He's an old-fashioned misogynist when it comes to how he treats women.

Well than you certainly would not want to be married to him. It seems to work out well for you the way life is. I hope for your sake that it stays that way.

Yeah, it's a good thing that marriage is out of the question.
I try not to be too preachy, but sometimes it just happens:
My life is the way it is because I make it that way. I do my best to live by the Golden Rule, the one that says to treat others as you would have them treat you. It is truly amazing how that works out, too. My subordinate co-workers vie with one another to work with me. Why? Because I treat them fairly and with respect. I get assigned to tasks that others complain about because they are sometimes tedious, or otherwise unpleasant, or may just require that the job get done. Why? Because any of these assignments is part of my job and I don't complain, I just do what needs to be done. While I remain unaffiliated with any one religious group, claiming to be agnostic, I do not seek to remove their symbols, erasing all things not "mine". Men and women, men and men, women and women are NOT created equal. Each person has an individual value and their worth depends on the value required. (Your example of applying for a mechanic's job and a man being preferred would probably be more due to your lack of skill and interest in such a job.) Truthfully, women have it a lot better when it comes to gender-equality. Girls can be tomboys and dress in boys clothes, do male tasks and it's often considered cute. Let a boy dress in girls clothes or do "girly" things and they are condemned as unmanly, or even [gasp!] gay.

I suppose my point is, if you are unhappy with your life [not necessarily you personally] then change it. We all have that option. If you are unhappy with someone else's life, it is not yours to change.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

The joys of being gloriously single! There are no arguments about who does what, or blame if something isn't done. I get to fold my towels the way I like! My business partner is useful because he hates book work, so I get to keep the books, do all the online business while he shovels snow off the roofs. One provides muscle, the other brains, it works for a business. I would hate to be married to this guy, though. He's an old-fashioned misogynist when it comes to how he treats women.

Well than you certainly would not want to be married to him. It seems to work out well for you the way life is. I hope for your sake that it stays that way.

Yeah, it's a good thing that marriage is out of the question.
I try not to be too preachy, but sometimes it just happens:
My life is the way it is because I make it that way. I do my best to live by the Golden Rule, the one that says to treat others as you would have them treat you. It is truly amazing how that works out, too. My subordinate co-workers vie with one another to work with me. Why? Because I treat them fairly and with respect. I get assigned to tasks that others complain about because they are sometimes tedious, or otherwise unpleasant, or may just require that the job get done. Why? Because any of these assignments is part of my job and I don't complain, I just do what needs to be done. While I remain unaffiliated with any one religious group, claiming to be agnostic, I do not seek to remove their symbols, erasing all things not "mine". Men and women, men and men, women and women are NOT created equal. Each person has an individual value and their worth depends on the value required. (Your example of applying for a mechanic's job and a man being preferred would probably be more due to your lack of skill and interest in such a job.) Truthfully, women have it a lot better when it comes to gender-equality. Girls can be tomboys and dress in boys clothes, do male tasks and it's often considered cute. Let a boy dress in girls clothes or do "girly" things and they are condemned as unmanly, or even [gasp!] gay.

I suppose my point is, if you are unhappy with your life [not necessarily you personally] then change it. We all have that option. If you are unhappy with someone else's life, it is not yours to change.

Being nice to people and treating them fairly is the best way to be. Openness and friendship always works. You are wise to use this in working with people. You will always get more production from a happy satisfied person.
I agree with you on the social side of women having far more options than males. I can wear a suit and tie and not be looked at more than a couple of times. A man who wears a dress can look very much like a woman. But in the case where he does not he is more apt to be looked at pointed at and frowned upon by his fellow males.
Women can hold hands in public or show affection in ways that are denied men. This is all true.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They are not necessarily essential. They may add meaning to some peoples lives. They certainly are aspects of our lives but they need not exist at all. They are a human construct to say this is mine and you are on my side of the line. The world was not made with flags attached. They were put there by humanity. These separate ideologies, prosperity, and cultures.
The idea of the ownership of land is artificial as no one sold the land to the first humans. They claimed it as they went along and broke it into sections and subsections for their own needs. Then claimed them as their right. The first owners did not buy anything. They put a fence up and said this is mine keep out.

Your statement implies that you do not believe in individual ownership. If that is true, how would you suggest all human commerce and other interaction be conducted?

I am not for private land ownership. But this is the way it is. As is the habit in the systems that we have buildings were built out of need. Invention has come from need. There is no reason that these things would not still exist. The difference is that the ownership of said concern would be all.
I live in a community and within the community whatever is done benefits all. My work efforts do not solely meet my needs but the needs of others. We purchase for the community as we need and use whatever we have for our own needs. I have a home and the things I enjoy in my home. I do not personally own a car. The community owns the cars. They also own the home. My income goes into the community and covers the needs of those that may need more than they make. None of us in in a case of hardship.
To change the world into such a system would take many years of planning and mind changing and I am not up for that.
A business would be owned by the employees. The land would be leased to said industry by the community at large. The owner and designer of the products would earn a lager share then those in other positions but not to the degree of disparity that exists in the business world these days.

Your community then owns the real property and other things that would normally be owned and controlled by a individual or other family unit. Like a family, I'm assuming that your community has some governing body, or perhaps you all meet together to make financial/economic decisions? How would your community respond if the neighboring township decided that incorporating your community would best serve the needs of the larger population? That those things owned and controlled by your community should be owned and controlled by the larger population through their chosen form of government for everyone's benefit.
As far as businesses owned by employees, nothing stops said employees from establishing their own.
I agree, you would no more be able to change things the way you would have them than I could.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I've posted for years on other boards. Heard about this one and decided to give it a try. I'm politically very liberal and try to get along.

As long as you put common sense before party ideology you and I will get along fine

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well than you certainly would not want to be married to him. It seems to work out well for you the way life is. I hope for your sake that it stays that way.

Yeah, it's a good thing that marriage is out of the question.
I try not to be too preachy, but sometimes it just happens:
My life is the way it is because I make it that way. I do my best to live by the Golden Rule, the one that says to treat others as you would have them treat you. It is truly amazing how that works out, too. My subordinate co-workers vie with one another to work with me. Why? Because I treat them fairly and with respect. I get assigned to tasks that others complain about because they are sometimes tedious, or otherwise unpleasant, or may just require that the job get done. Why? Because any of these assignments is part of my job and I don't complain, I just do what needs to be done. While I remain unaffiliated with any one religious group, claiming to be agnostic, I do not seek to remove their symbols, erasing all things not "mine". Men and women, men and men, women and women are NOT created equal. Each person has an individual value and their worth depends on the value required. (Your example of applying for a mechanic's job and a man being preferred would probably be more due to your lack of skill and interest in such a job.) Truthfully, women have it a lot better when it comes to gender-equality. Girls can be tomboys and dress in boys clothes, do male tasks and it's often considered cute. Let a boy dress in girls clothes or do "girly" things and they are condemned as unmanly, or even [gasp!] gay.

I suppose my point is, if you are unhappy with your life [not necessarily you personally] then change it. We all have that option. If you are unhappy with someone else's life, it is not yours to change.

Being nice to people and treating them fairly is the best way to be. Openness and friendship always works. You are wise to use this in working with people. You will always get more production from a happy satisfied person.
I agree with you on the social side of women having far more options than males. I can wear a suit and tie and not be looked at more than a couple of times. A man who wears a dress can look very much like a woman. But in the case where he does not he is more apt to be looked at pointed at and frowned upon by his fellow males.
Women can hold hands in public or show affection in ways that are denied men. This is all true.

I think guys have a more difficult time with homosexuality overall than women do. At least with gay guys. For instance: most straight guys will go gaga over two women "making out" with each other. Show them the same action with two guys...well, you can usually hear the shivers going up their backs, and those are shivers of joy! The schism is significant. Another aspect of gay-straight that amuses me involves gay men. If they are so proud and happy being gay, why do they date men dresses as women? Or, if they prefer women's fashions, why do they always go for the most uncomfortable, unmanageable types: i.e. high heels, tight skirts, gobs of make up and hair styles that take hours and bucks to maintain? If I were gay, I'd certainly opt for a more stereotypical "butch" look, with sensible shoes, easy-maintenance hairstyles and comfortable clothes.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Your statement implies that you do not believe in individual ownership. If that is true, how would you suggest all human commerce and other interaction be conducted?

I am not for private land ownership. But this is the way it is. As is the habit in the systems that we have buildings were built out of need. Invention has come from need. There is no reason that these things would not still exist. The difference is that the ownership of said concern would be all.
I live in a community and within the community whatever is done benefits all. My work efforts do not solely meet my needs but the needs of others. We purchase for the community as we need and use whatever we have for our own needs. I have a home and the things I enjoy in my home. I do not personally own a car. The community owns the cars. They also own the home. My income goes into the community and covers the needs of those that may need more than they make. None of us in in a case of hardship.
To change the world into such a system would take many years of planning and mind changing and I am not up for that.
A business would be owned by the employees. The land would be leased to said industry by the community at large. The owner and designer of the products would earn a lager share then those in other positions but not to the degree of disparity that exists in the business world these days.

Your community then owns the real property and other things that would normally be owned and controlled by a individual or other family unit. Like a family, I'm assuming that your community has some governing body, or perhaps you all meet together to make financial/economic decisions? How would your community respond if the neighboring township decided that incorporating your community would best serve the needs of the larger population? That those things owned and controlled by your community should be owned and controlled by the larger population through their chosen form of government for everyone's benefit.
As far as businesses owned by employees, nothing stops said employees from establishing their own.
I agree, you would no more be able to change things the way you would have them than I could.

Very good questions indeed. It's a joy dialoguing with you. The property is owned by the community as there is a central farm where produce is grown. This is used for all of us and extra is distributed to surrounding areas. There is a governing body as far as economic matters yes. Any large purchases are agreed upon by the board. New purchase of land or a large size purchase is looked upon by everyone. We are near existing towns and we have no problems with any of those residents. They come by and help work the farm and are paid. We have a school that was started to care for the children's educational needs in community and some of the residents of the towns send their kids to that school.
The community doctor provides care at lower costs to the residents that help work the farm of build buildings or do whatever.
We have a wonderful working relationship with those around us. Some of the community members attend the church in one of the towns. We have done what we need to do to coexist in the framework. We have no desire to change the world just our part of it.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

I've posted for years on other boards. Heard about this one and decided to give it a try. I'm politically very liberal and try to get along.

As long as you put common sense before party ideology you and I will get along fine

Partisan politics will send me off screaming into the night. I do not vote over one issue. I look at the entire package of a candidate.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Yeah, it's a good thing that marriage is out of the question.
I try not to be too preachy, but sometimes it just happens:
My life is the way it is because I make it that way. I do my best to live by the Golden Rule, the one that says to treat others as you would have them treat you. It is truly amazing how that works out, too. My subordinate co-workers vie with one another to work with me. Why? Because I treat them fairly and with respect. I get assigned to tasks that others complain about because they are sometimes tedious, or otherwise unpleasant, or may just require that the job get done. Why? Because any of these assignments is part of my job and I don't complain, I just do what needs to be done. While I remain unaffiliated with any one religious group, claiming to be agnostic, I do not seek to remove their symbols, erasing all things not "mine". Men and women, men and men, women and women are NOT created equal. Each person has an individual value and their worth depends on the value required. (Your example of applying for a mechanic's job and a man being preferred would probably be more due to your lack of skill and interest in such a job.) Truthfully, women have it a lot better when it comes to gender-equality. Girls can be tomboys and dress in boys clothes, do male tasks and it's often considered cute. Let a boy dress in girls clothes or do "girly" things and they are condemned as unmanly, or even [gasp!] gay.

I suppose my point is, if you are unhappy with your life [not necessarily you personally] then change it. We all have that option. If you are unhappy with someone else's life, it is not yours to change.

Being nice to people and treating them fairly is the best way to be. Openness and friendship always works. You are wise to use this in working with people. You will always get more production from a happy satisfied person.
I agree with you on the social side of women having far more options than males. I can wear a suit and tie and not be looked at more than a couple of times. A man who wears a dress can look very much like a woman. But in the case where he does not he is more apt to be looked at pointed at and frowned upon by his fellow males.
Women can hold hands in public or show affection in ways that are denied men. This is all true.

I think guys have a more difficult time with homosexuality overall than women do. At least with gay guys. For instance: most straight guys will go gaga over two women "making out" with each other. Show them the same action with two guys...well, you can usually hear the shivers going up their backs, and those are shivers of joy! The schism is significant. Another aspect of gay-straight that amuses me involves gay men. If they are so proud and happy being gay, why do they date men dresses as women? Or, if they prefer women's fashions, why do they always go for the most uncomfortable, unmanageable types: i.e. high heels, tight skirts, gobs of make up and hair styles that take hours and bucks to maintain? If I were gay, I'd certainly opt for a more stereotypical "butch" look, with sensible shoes, easy-maintenance hairstyles and comfortable clothes.

I am lesbian as i have said and have far fewer cases of being harassed then male counterparts. You would put me in the butch category. My wife is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me. She enjoys all the frills she can get. It just worked out that way. I do enjoy sensible shoes.
All gay couples though do not have the illusion of male and female. Most in fact are both pretty much the same. You will find to men who are much the same in tastes together as not. Women are the same you will find many butch types with butch types. You find lipsticks with lipsticks. Then you find the couple like my wife and I where we are different. I think much of what you describe is more a stereotype because those are the same sex couples that are identifiable in a public setting.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am not for private land ownership. But this is the way it is. As is the habit in the systems that we have buildings were built out of need. Invention has come from need. There is no reason that these things would not still exist. The difference is that the ownership of said concern would be all.
I live in a community and within the community whatever is done benefits all. My work efforts do not solely meet my needs but the needs of others. We purchase for the community as we need and use whatever we have for our own needs. I have a home and the things I enjoy in my home. I do not personally own a car. The community owns the cars. They also own the home. My income goes into the community and covers the needs of those that may need more than they make. None of us in in a case of hardship.
To change the world into such a system would take many years of planning and mind changing and I am not up for that.
A business would be owned by the employees. The land would be leased to said industry by the community at large. The owner and designer of the products would earn a lager share then those in other positions but not to the degree of disparity that exists in the business world these days.

Your community then owns the real property and other things that would normally be owned and controlled by a individual or other family unit. Like a family, I'm assuming that your community has some governing body, or perhaps you all meet together to make financial/economic decisions? How would your community respond if the neighboring township decided that incorporating your community would best serve the needs of the larger population? That those things owned and controlled by your community should be owned and controlled by the larger population through their chosen form of government for everyone's benefit.
As far as businesses owned by employees, nothing stops said employees from establishing their own.
I agree, you would no more be able to change things the way you would have them than I could.

Very good questions indeed. It's a joy dialoguing with you. The property is owned by the community as there is a central farm where produce is grown. This is used for all of us and extra is distributed to surrounding areas. There is a governing body as far as economic matters yes. Any large purchases are agreed upon by the board. New purchase of land or a large size purchase is looked upon by everyone. We are near existing towns and we have no problems with any of those residents. They come by and help work the farm and are paid. We have a school that was started to care for the children's educational needs in community and some of the residents of the towns send their kids to that school.
The community doctor provides care at lower costs to the residents that help work the farm of build buildings or do whatever.
We have a wonderful working relationship with those around us. Some of the community members attend the church in one of the towns. We have done what we need to do to coexist in the framework. We have no desire to change the world just our part of it.

Your structure works very well for a typical small agrarian community. It would not be tenable for a larger, urban community because many of the same resources are unavailable in larger communities.
I am much invested in agrarian development and the concept of local production using local resources. I'm not sure where you are geographically, US or Canada? Depending on which state you reside in, there are many government restrictions and regulations governing what can and cannot be produced, distributed, or processed when it comes to agricultural products. There is enough local interest in locally produced foodstuffs, but there are so many complicated regulations that both seller and buyer often refrain from commerce because they would rather not face fines, confiscation of property, or even imprisonment. (PS: I have to drag myself out to finish feeding and milking before teaching my class this afternoon. It's been good, I'll try to catch up later.)

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Your community then owns the real property and other things that would normally be owned and controlled by a individual or other family unit. Like a family, I'm assuming that your community has some governing body, or perhaps you all meet together to make financial/economic decisions? How would your community respond if the neighboring township decided that incorporating your community would best serve the needs of the larger population? That those things owned and controlled by your community should be owned and controlled by the larger population through their chosen form of government for everyone's benefit.
As far as businesses owned by employees, nothing stops said employees from establishing their own.
I agree, you would no more be able to change things the way you would have them than I could.

Very good questions indeed. It's a joy dialoguing with you. The property is owned by the community as there is a central farm where produce is grown. This is used for all of us and extra is distributed to surrounding areas. There is a governing body as far as economic matters yes. Any large purchases are agreed upon by the board. New purchase of land or a large size purchase is looked upon by everyone. We are near existing towns and we have no problems with any of those residents. They come by and help work the farm and are paid. We have a school that was started to care for the children's educational needs in community and some of the residents of the towns send their kids to that school.
The community doctor provides care at lower costs to the residents that help work the farm of build buildings or do whatever.
We have a wonderful working relationship with those around us. Some of the community members attend the church in one of the towns. We have done what we need to do to coexist in the framework. We have no desire to change the world just our part of it.

Your structure works very well for a typical small agrarian community. It would not be tenable for a larger, urban community because many of the same resources are unavailable in larger communities.
I am much invested in agrarian development and the concept of local production using local resources. I'm not sure where you are geographically, US or Canada? Depending on which state you reside in, there are many government restrictions and regulations governing what can and cannot be produced, distributed, or processed when it comes to agricultural products. There is enough local interest in locally produced foodstuffs, but there are so many complicated regulations that both seller and buyer often refrain from commerce because they would rather not face fines, confiscation of property, or even imprisonment. (PS: I have to drag myself out to finish feeding and milking before teaching my class this afternoon. It's been good, I'll try to catch up later.)

You are so right. There are any number of licenses that needed to be acquired to do what we do. We have those and operate within the laws. Food handling is a considerable task as well. Especially the food that is sold directly to the public.
Feeding, milking, and teaching you seem to have your hands full. Have a great day and this has been enjoyable.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Being nice to people and treating them fairly is the best way to be. Openness and friendship always works. You are wise to use this in working with people. You will always get more production from a happy satisfied person.
I agree with you on the social side of women having far more options than males. I can wear a suit and tie and not be looked at more than a couple of times. A man who wears a dress can look very much like a woman. But in the case where he does not he is more apt to be looked at pointed at and frowned upon by his fellow males.
Women can hold hands in public or show affection in ways that are denied men. This is all true.

I think guys have a more difficult time with homosexuality overall than women do. At least with gay guys. For instance: most straight guys will go gaga over two women "making out" with each other. Show them the same action with two guys...well, you can usually hear the shivers going up their backs, and those are shivers of joy! The schism is significant. Another aspect of gay-straight that amuses me involves gay men. If they are so proud and happy being gay, why do they date men dresses as women? Or, if they prefer women's fashions, why do they always go for the most uncomfortable, unmanageable types: i.e. high heels, tight skirts, gobs of make up and hair styles that take hours and bucks to maintain? If I were gay, I'd certainly opt for a more stereotypical "butch" look, with sensible shoes, easy-maintenance hairstyles and comfortable clothes.

I am lesbian as i have said and have far fewer cases of being harassed then male counterparts. You would put me in the butch category. My wife is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me. She enjoys all the frills she can get. It just worked out that way. I do enjoy sensible shoes.
All gay couples though do not have the illusion of male and female. Most in fact are both pretty much the same. You will find to men who are much the same in tastes together as not. Women are the same you will find many butch types with butch types. You find lipsticks with lipsticks. Then you find the couple like my wife and I where we are different. I think much of what you describe is more a stereotype because those are the same sex couples that are identifiable in a public setting.

"Lipsticks"? That's funny, does it go for both guys and gals, or just the gals?
I'm about as straight as grade A lumber. While I don't always agree with all things "gay", I don't have a lot of difficulty with people who love each other sharing lives.
And that doesn't necessarily include "couples" who share sexuality. I had a pair of bachelor brothers who lived together for years. When one died last year, it was devastating for the remaining brother. They provided each other with companionship, support, and all the other aspects of any partnered relationship. Oh, they were both straight, too.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

I think guys have a more difficult time with homosexuality overall than women do. At least with gay guys. For instance: most straight guys will go gaga over two women "making out" with each other. Show them the same action with two guys...well, you can usually hear the shivers going up their backs, and those are shivers of joy! The schism is significant. Another aspect of gay-straight that amuses me involves gay men. If they are so proud and happy being gay, why do they date men dresses as women? Or, if they prefer women's fashions, why do they always go for the most uncomfortable, unmanageable types: i.e. high heels, tight skirts, gobs of make up and hair styles that take hours and bucks to maintain? If I were gay, I'd certainly opt for a more stereotypical "butch" look, with sensible shoes, easy-maintenance hairstyles and comfortable clothes.

I am lesbian as i have said and have far fewer cases of being harassed then male counterparts. You would put me in the butch category. My wife is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me. She enjoys all the frills she can get. It just worked out that way. I do enjoy sensible shoes.
All gay couples though do not have the illusion of male and female. Most in fact are both pretty much the same. You will find to men who are much the same in tastes together as not. Women are the same you will find many butch types with butch types. You find lipsticks with lipsticks. Then you find the couple like my wife and I where we are different. I think much of what you describe is more a stereotype because those are the same sex couples that are identifiable in a public setting.

"Lipsticks"? That's funny, does it go for both guys and gals, or just the gals?
I'm about as straight as grade A lumber. While I don't always agree with all things "gay", I don't have a lot of difficulty with people who love each other sharing lives.
And that doesn't necessarily include "couples" who share sexuality. I had a pair of bachelor brothers who lived together for years. When one died last year, it was devastating for the remaining brother. They provided each other with companionship, support, and all the other aspects of any partnered relationship. Oh, they were both straight, too.

Lipsticks are the opposite of butches. We have our terms and as a lesbian you learn them quickly. There is a link to a lesbian slang dictionary. Some people find it humorous. Men have their own terms. Lipstick is not one of them. You will hear the term flaming for a male who is really into all things feminine and doesn't fit in well with things the way they are. Another term is Barbie for the same personality type.
There are many partners as you say two brothers who share life and companionship but are not gay. I can see how the death of one would be difficult on the other.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am lesbian as i have said and have far fewer cases of being harassed then male counterparts. You would put me in the butch category. My wife is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me. She enjoys all the frills she can get. It just worked out that way. I do enjoy sensible shoes.
All gay couples though do not have the illusion of male and female. Most in fact are both pretty much the same. You will find to men who are much the same in tastes together as not. Women are the same you will find many butch types with butch types. You find lipsticks with lipsticks. Then you find the couple like my wife and I where we are different. I think much of what you describe is more a stereotype because those are the same sex couples that are identifiable in a public setting.

"Lipsticks"? That's funny, does it go for both guys and gals, or just the gals?
I'm about as straight as grade A lumber. While I don't always agree with all things "gay", I don't have a lot of difficulty with people who love each other sharing lives.
And that doesn't necessarily include "couples" who share sexuality. I had a pair of bachelor brothers who lived together for years. When one died last year, it was devastating for the remaining brother. They provided each other with companionship, support, and all the other aspects of any partnered relationship. Oh, they were both straight, too.

Lipsticks are the opposite of butches. We have our terms and as a lesbian you learn them quickly. There is a link to a lesbian slang dictionary. Some people find it humorous. Men have their own terms. Lipstick is not one of them. You will hear the term flaming for a male who is really into all things feminine and doesn't fit in well with things the way they are. Another term is Barbie for the same personality type.
There are many partners as you say two brothers who share life and companionship but are not gay. I can see how the death of one would be difficult on the other.

Got the PM, missed the link. Thanks.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

"Lipsticks"? That's funny, does it go for both guys and gals, or just the gals?
I'm about as straight as grade A lumber. While I don't always agree with all things "gay", I don't have a lot of difficulty with people who love each other sharing lives.
And that doesn't necessarily include "couples" who share sexuality. I had a pair of bachelor brothers who lived together for years. When one died last year, it was devastating for the remaining brother. They provided each other with companionship, support, and all the other aspects of any partnered relationship. Oh, they were both straight, too.

Lipsticks are the opposite of butches. We have our terms and as a lesbian you learn them quickly. There is a link to a lesbian slang dictionary. Some people find it humorous. Men have their own terms. Lipstick is not one of them. You will hear the term flaming for a male who is really into all things feminine and doesn't fit in well with things the way they are. Another term is Barbie for the same personality type.
There are many partners as you say two brothers who share life and companionship but are not gay. I can see how the death of one would be difficult on the other.

Got the PM, missed the link. Thanks.

I will resend the link.

 

[Artevelde]

Everything certainly is a human construct. You use Law and morality as an example. Law is to keep those that will disrupt in line and give them consequences. Morals are a tool of judgment and are meaningless in my mind as a guideline for anything. They change from person to person and are even more in flux than laws.
Yes people are communal but was it the nature of language that eventually did divide? What caused humans to design nations and borders? What causes others to judge someone by the shade of skin, accent, or religion. How many gods do you think there might be? Each religion would have there own that agrees with them. So why is there this religious feeding frenzy. It is because humanity has chosen what and how they will believe. Religious action is a human construct as well.

Law fulfills many functions.
I am a bit taken aback by your wholesale rejection of morals. Moral guidelines like that you shouldn't steal, kill, rape, cheat, etc, seem to me to be a bit more stable and less meaningless than you suggest. Ultimately morals form the basis for law and society as a whole and - unline Margaret Thatcher whom I like on many other scores - I do believe there is such a thing as society.
I think it is meaningless to look for a "cause" why people divide along ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, political lines. It just happens and is perfectly natural.

 

[Artevelde]

To each their own, but I must say that the joy and fulfillment and hapiness that comes from the relationship with my partner far outweighs any inconveniences and compromises one has to make when sharing a house.

 

[Artevelde]

No those differences do not divide us at all. They make us unique. I am an atheist as I stated earlier. My wife is Jewish. I have Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist friends. So the religions have not divided us at all. They unite us as people not as beliefs of cultural constructs. We can sit at a table and bring the worlds religions together over bread and not be divided but united in that we are all people.

I'm sorry, but that is taking the easy way out. Of course the fact that you have different beliefs divides you (division is not a bad thing and is not the same thing as enmity or disrespect - unity is highly overrated). A Christian and a Muslim, to take that example, can get along fine, respect each other, be friends, etc. but obviously they differ and thus divide fundamentally about their deepest beliefs about religion and all its related aspects.

 

[gallantwarrior]

To each their own, but I must say that the joy and fulfillment and hapiness that comes from the relationship with my partner far outweighs any inconveniences and compromises one has to make when sharing a house.

I understand what you are saying. I have celebrated many happy, loving relationships throughout my life. I just appreciate the quiet and privacy of living alone. I know other people, some couples even, who enjoy a more solitary lifestyle. Funny, many people seem to think that being alone equals being lonely.

 

[freedombecki]

I've posted for years on other boards. Heard about this one and decided to give it a try. I'm politically very liberal and try to get along.

Welcome to USMB, Katiegrrl0. Hope you have a great time here at the boards.