Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Anderson Cooper's boyfriend photographed sucking face with someone who most definitely is not Anderson Cooper   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 101
    More: Dumbass, New York, Anderson Cooper 360, Matthew Broderick, daytime television, talk shows, open secret, Marilyn Manson, Sarah Jessica Parker  
•       •       •

8963 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Aug 2012 at 9:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-13 07:48:04 AM  
Looks like he might have tripped coming out of the closet.

But, I'm sure it's a committed relationship.
 
2012-08-13 08:35:39 AM  
For the $100,000,000 Anderson is worth before any inheritance from his Mom I think I couldn't kept it in my pantts until we were marries. Then again I'm not a guy.
 
2012-08-13 08:48:13 AM  

Gwendolyn: For the $100,000,000 Anderson is worth before any inheritance from his Mom I think I couldn't kept it in my pantts until we were marries. Then again I'm not a guy.


Speaking as a guy, I think even if I wasn't keeping it in my pants until I was married, I'd choose a better venue for my side dish THAN A PUBLIC FARKING PARK! Why didn't he just go on the Today show?

/son, I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-13 09:05:47 AM  
Like I give a shiat
 
2012-08-13 09:11:28 AM  
Got to say it - the guy has taste.

/that's the problem with coming out as a media celebrity - the new unwanted attention
 
2012-08-13 09:17:23 AM  
Screw that. What about the first link for other stories -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2187596/Katy-Perry-suffe r s-major-wardrobe-mishap-going-water-slide.html

The wife favors the boyfriend, I think the mystery man is much hotter.

/But then, amongst males, I've always been attracted to douchebags.
 
2012-08-13 09:19:42 AM  

gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.


I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.
 
2012-08-13 09:31:21 AM  

Crewmannumber6: Like I give a shiat


It's not news, it's Fark?
 
2012-08-13 09:32:42 AM  

orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-13 09:35:26 AM  

gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'd kiss it. And I wouldn't stop until we both needed to shower and find our clothes.

Sucks for AC, though. I been there.
 
2012-08-13 09:43:39 AM  

orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.


Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.
 
2012-08-13 09:52:01 AM  
I'm not gay but this new man meat is sooooooo much hotter than Anderson.

Tighter abs and ass, beautiful face, dreamy eyes... Yum, yum.
 
2012-08-13 09:57:59 AM  
Even if they've got an open relationship I highly doubt that includes getting photographed making out in a public park, that's kind of bad form. And if it's cheating well, marrying a Vanderbilt would have landed him in the gold diggers hall of fame, and you've got to be an idiot to mess that up.

In either case, dude's an idiot.
 
2012-08-13 10:02:31 AM  
This is so sad. I know Anderson was counting down the days until he could release his spunk, deep in his boyfriend's fecal packed anus, and as the liquid shiat dripped down his balls onto the sheets lean down and whisper in his ear "I love you, husband". So sad. Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.
 
2012-08-13 10:04:28 AM  
Dudes kissing is just gross.



/immature and ignorant I know, but damn me if I aint right.
//two (HOT) girls making is ok HAWT and I don't give a fark about the double standard
///eye bleach for the ignorant\immature fellas like me:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-13 10:04:56 AM  

KatjaMouse: orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x224]


The thing with trolls that I've found is that, no matter how stupid they seem to be, there are likely people who share their views, so it is best to take it seriously. Give them their pathetic win in their masturbatory game, because you might help inform someone who really doesn't know.

/And, to answer his question, in Seattle and Ann Arbor and Knoxville in the early 90s, that is exactly what the gay scene felt like to me. No one was interested in anything past the current night and long-term relationships were mocked. Again, though, attracted to douchebags.
 
2012-08-13 10:10:41 AM  
And I should care because...???

/still think the way Anderson came out was classy
//"I'm a journalist that happens to be gay. Now, back to the news."
 
2012-08-13 10:14:05 AM  

lordaction: This is so sad. I know Anderson was counting down the days until he could release his spunk, deep in his boyfriend's fecal packed anus, and as the liquid shiat dripped down his balls onto the sheets lean down and whisper in his ear "I love you, husband". So sad. Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.


You know, women have butts too.
 
2012-08-13 10:15:14 AM  

Lsherm: Gwendolyn: For the $100,000,000 Anderson is worth before any inheritance from his Mom I think I couldn't kept it in my pantts until we were marries. Then again I'm not a guy.

Speaking as a guy, I think even if I wasn't keeping it in my pants until I was married, I'd choose a better venue for my side dish THAN A PUBLIC FARKING PARK! Why didn't he just go on the Today show?

/son, I am disappoint.


Because Matt Lauer is totally heterosexual, without a drop of gay in him.

/the things you learn in the Chic-Fil-A drive thru lane.
 
2012-08-13 10:19:11 AM  
Dafuq? Why doesn't he remain in Cooper's pooper?!
 
2012-08-13 10:19:51 AM  

orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.


Thread over.

/you owe me a keyboard
 
2012-08-13 10:21:33 AM  
Ha.
Anderson In-the-Pooper's mom was Gloria Vanderbilt.
He'll bounce right back.
 
2012-08-13 10:25:04 AM  

Lumpmoose: You know, women have butts too.


Yes, and become 40-year-olds with colitis and really cranky demeanors.
 
2012-08-13 10:25:05 AM  

orclover: Now, im not an expert on...

relationships at all?
 
2012-08-13 10:31:51 AM  
Kind of tough to get away with cheating on a celebrity investigative reported.
 
2012-08-13 10:41:30 AM  

bluorangefyre: And I should care because...???
/still think the way Anderson came out was classy
//"I'm a journalist that happens to be gay. Now, back to the news."


I.....actually didn't know he did that. He must have done it right, because I never heard about it.
 
2012-08-13 10:42:15 AM  
Why is it people who don't like gay dudes talk way more about buttsex than any gay man I know? I mean, detailed, obsessed over the sleaziest possible aspects of the mechanics of it rants about it.

/There is absolutely nothing one dude can do to another dude that he can't do to a girl besides a reacharound. You know all that crazy stuff you hear the gays do? The straights do it too. All the time. How many straight porns have "Anal" in the title?
 
2012-08-13 10:43:03 AM  

rynthetyn: And if it's cheating well, marrying a Vanderbilt would have landed him in the gold diggers hall of fame, and you've got to be an idiot to mess that up.


Is there a gay version of this movie? Because this already looks to be a handy and contemporary guide on how to be a kept woman/mistress.

www.theluxechronicles.com
 
2012-08-13 10:44:19 AM  

Dogfacedgod: Dudes kissing is just gross.



/immature and ignorant I know, but damn me if I aint right.
//two (HOT) girls making is ok HAWT and I don't give a fark about the double standard
///eye bleach for the ignorant\immature fellas like me:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 287x525]


You know what? That's fair. I totally won't judge you for that. I wish more people would be honest about it.

"I don't like gay dudes because two dudes kissing is gross." Fine. That's a perfectly defensible argument.

"I don't like gay dudes because they're immoral." Bullshiat.

"I don't like gay dudes because they're more prone to bad things." Bullshiat.

"I don't like gay dudes because they do gross things that I've studied in depth." You're the homo now, dog.

But "I don't like gay dudes because two dudes kissing is gross?" That's totally your right. It's like not liking flan. You won't be judged for it.
 
2012-08-13 10:47:31 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Ha.
Anderson In-the-Pooper's mom was Gloria Vanderbilt.
He'll bounce right back.


MagSeven: Dafuq? Why doesn't he remain in Cooper's pooper?!



Hey now. You don't see me casting aspersions regarding your love life, or complete lack thereof.
 
2012-08-13 10:56:45 AM  

lordaction: This is so sad. I know Anderson was counting down the days until he could release his spunk, deep in his boyfriend's fecal packed anus, and as the liquid shiat dripped down his balls onto the sheets lean down and whisper in his ear "I love you, husband". So sad. Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.


You know, hetero, missionary-style sex could be described in a way that would make it seem quite gross too. That doesn't mean the person is a heterophobe.
 
2012-08-13 10:57:40 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: HotIgneous Intruder: Ha.
Anderson In-the-Pooper's mom was Gloria Vanderbilt.
He'll bounce right back.

MagSeven: Dafuq? Why doesn't he remain in Cooper's pooper?!


Hey now. You don't see me casting aspersions regarding your love life, or complete lack thereof.


My love life doesn't include -- and will never include -- ramming foreign objects into my anus.
That's a one-way orifice, if you get the flow of my meaning.
 
2012-08-13 10:59:11 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: My love life doesn't include -- and will never include -- ramming foreign objects into my anus.
That's a one-way orifice, if you get the flow of my meaning.


Personal choice, dude. Plenty of heteros, even hetero dudes, enjoy ramming foreign objects up their butts.
 
2012-08-13 10:59:46 AM  
/Never had anal sex and the women I've had sex with have never needed it to feel satisfied.
 
2012-08-13 11:04:16 AM  
I long for the day when humans are only labeled, categorized, and judged on their S.A.T. and/or I.Q. test scores and nothing else.
 
2012-08-13 11:04:44 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: /Never had anal sex and the women I've had sex with have never needed it to feel satisfied.


And there are many a homosexuals who consider themselves "sexually active" or having a "healthy sex life" and at the same time admit to never having anal sex at all. Have you been in Anderson Cooper's bedroom while he was getting jiggy with it? How do you know he's one of those guys who has to do anal every time if at all?
 
2012-08-13 11:06:37 AM  

lordaction: Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.


Something I actually found clever circulating around Facebook: It isn't a phobia. You're not "afraid" of gay people. You're just an a$$hole.
 
2012-08-13 11:07:48 AM  

Bloody William: But "I don't like gay dudes because two dudes kissing is gross?" That's totally your right. It's like not liking flan. You won't be judged for it.


But flan is delicious!
 
2012-08-13 11:09:29 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Anderson's Pooper: HotIgneous Intruder: Ha.
Anderson In-the-Pooper's mom was Gloria Vanderbilt.
He'll bounce right back.

MagSeven: Dafuq? Why doesn't he remain in Cooper's pooper?!


Hey now. You don't see me casting aspersions regarding your love life, or complete lack thereof.

My love life doesn't include -- and will never include -- ramming foreign objects into my anus.
That's a one-way orifice, if you get the flow of my meaning.


Make sure you stay out of prison.
 
2012-08-13 11:13:09 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-13 11:16:40 AM  

DaWormyPimpsta: I long for the day when humans are only labeled, categorized, and judged on their S.A.T. and/or I.Q. test scores and nothing else.


I'd rather they be judged on their intelligence.
 
2012-08-13 11:17:37 AM  
ain't that a gas! i didn't know cooper is gay. i knew he was a proper, nice young man, but i didn't know he putted from the rough.

on Fark, you learn something new every day.
 
2012-08-13 11:20:38 AM  

funk_soul_bubby: Bloody William: But "I don't like gay dudes because two dudes kissing is gross?" That's totally your right. It's like not liking flan. You won't be judged for it.

Butt flan is delicious!


/FTFY
 
2012-08-13 11:28:16 AM  
Those pix are enough to make Cooper want to fling himself out his mother's apartment window.
 
2012-08-13 11:36:58 AM  

Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.


Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.
 
2012-08-13 11:38:07 AM  

mrmees: funk_soul_bubby: Bloody William: But "I don't like gay dudes because two dudes kissing is gross?" That's totally your right. It's like not liking flan. You won't be judged for it.

Butt flan is delicious!

/FTFY


I lol'd.

/Juvenile
 
2012-08-13 11:51:32 AM  
Hawt.
 
2012-08-13 11:56:16 AM  
I feel sorry for Anderson, that's gotta hurt. Betrayal is betrayal, no matter who does it or how.
 
2012-08-13 11:57:09 AM  

meanmutton: Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.

Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.


Except for guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital, coverage on insurance, etc, etc... but you knew that.
 
2012-08-13 11:57:47 AM  

meanmutton: Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.

Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.


Bullshiat:

In February 2007, Langbehn and Pond, along with three of their four children, were in Miami, FL to depart on a cruise. Pond collapsed before the cruise departed and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital's (JMH) Ryder Trauma Center. When Langbehn and their children arrived, a JMH social worker told Langbehn she was in an "anti-gay city and state" and required a health care proxy to see Pond. Langbehn had a power of attorney (POA) which was faxed to the hospital within an hour of Pond's arrival. However, Langbehn and their 3 young children were kept from Pond's side for eight hours. Pond slipped into a coma from a brain aneurysm and died without her partner of 18 years or her children by her side.

Why should I pay legal fees to partially replicate the 1000+ rights that marriage automatically endows?
 
2012-08-13 11:58:22 AM  

meanmutton: Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.

Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.



In the same way a black person and a white person could get 'married' before miscegnation was legal, sure.

My fiance's parents had to go to DC to get married, because miscegnation was still illegal in Virginia at the time.

Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

/Seriously, I'm straight and I can understand this
 
2012-08-13 12:14:59 PM  

Lumpmoose: lordaction: This is so sad. I know Anderson was counting down the days until he could release his spunk, deep in his boyfriend's fecal packed anus, and as the liquid shiat dripped down his balls onto the sheets lean down and whisper in his ear "I love you, husband". So sad. Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.

You know, women have butts too.


the difference is women dont poop.
 
2012-08-13 12:15:01 PM  

KatjaMouse: orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x224]


Isn't that what dudes do, though? A man is not naturally monogamous (women aren't either, for different reasons). Put two men together, they're going to be fking around. They'll be committed to one another, but will it really be like a female's "Stay Away from my ATM!" fight to the death over a provider for her vaginal droppings? Put two dudes together, and you've got men who understand men. I mean, really do gay dudes play the same 'I'm going to withhold sex from you to get you to do what I want you to do" games women do?

Nah.

I mean, I'm just saying. If dude is sucking face in a park, the only thing the Silver Fox is probably worried about is AIDS and discreetness. But that's it. Dude (who is like mega super rich in his own right) fked up the discreetness part.
 
2012-08-13 12:18:28 PM  

luidprand: KatjaMouse: orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x224]

The thing with trolls that I've found is that, no matter how stupid they seem to be, there are likely people who share their views, so it is best to take it seriously. Give them their pathetic win in their masturbatory game, because you might help inform someone who really doesn't know.

/And, to answer his question, in Seattle and Ann Arbor and Knoxville in the early 90s, that is exactly what the gay scene felt like to me. No one was interested in anything past the current night and long-term relationships were mocked. Again, though, attracted to douchebags.


Wait a minute, you just called orclover a troll.......... but then you agreed with him through personal experience. Dude. Not cool. Don't call orclover a troll if what he's saying is the unpleasant side of things.
 
2012-08-13 12:20:49 PM  
y'know, it is possible that they are just open. lots of gay males have open relationships, usually with varying degrees of rules based on trust and respect. it is perfectly reasonable to think that friendly kissing in the park is ok. maybe he is even bringing the guy back home to meet up with anderson later. it happens.
 
2012-08-13 12:25:32 PM  

mc_madness: I'm not gay but this new man meat is sooooooo much hotter than Anderson.

Tighter abs and ass, beautiful face, dreamy eyes... Yum, yum.


You might want to get your "I'm not gay" mechanism checked.
 
2012-08-13 12:27:13 PM  

cletusnbrandine: y'know, it is possible that they are just open. lots of gay males have open relationships, usually with varying degrees of rules based on trust and respect. it is perfectly reasonable to think that friendly kissing in the park is ok. maybe he is even bringing the guy back home to meet up with anderson later. it happens.


I reckon. To be a gay man is to live the life straight men wish they had with women. Women fake bisexualism in order to hold onto or acquire a heterosexual relationship. Dudes just want to fk. If straight men could have the kind of sexual relationships and sexual understandings with women, that gay dudes have with other gay dudes.........................

Women have a more difficult time separating sex from love and commitment. Men are able to separate sex from love and commitment. Put two men together... voila.

Gay dudes can still be hurt, because men like love, too; but no gay man going to be forced to throw out his spank bank material because the lover in his life is insecure about his need to masturbate or whatever.
 
2012-08-13 12:30:40 PM  
Ok what am I supposed to be mad about? Two guys kissing or that one is being an unfaithful slut?

/You're only as faithful as your options
 
2012-08-13 12:32:48 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: luidprand: KatjaMouse: orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x224]

The thing with trolls that I've found is that, no matter how stupid they seem to be, there are likely people who share their views, so it is best to take it seriously. Give them their pathetic win in their masturbatory game, because you might help inform someone who really doesn't know.

/And, to answer his question, in Seattle and Ann Arbor and Knoxville in the early 90s, that is exactly what the gay scene felt like to me. No one was interested in anything past the current night and long-term relationships were mocked. Again, though, attracted to douchebags.

Wait a minute, you just called orclover a troll.......... but then you agreed with him through personal experience. Dude. Not cool. Don't call orclover a troll if what he's saying is the unpleasant side of things.


Was wondering if anybody caught that. Cracking me up.

Couple gay guys at this party I was at Saturday. Wearing hotpants and soviet era hats and nothing else but tattoos+oil. Nicest guys, chatted with them for hours, they considered themselves married. Under promiscuous in the dictionary is a picture of them in hotpants and a army helmet carrying a bucket of vaseline with huge grins on their faces.

After 40 years I have come to believe that gay men are just men....who have found a cure for that centuries old problem known as pussy addiction that the rest of us suffer from.
 
2012-08-13 12:40:57 PM  
That was a man kiss.

/mookah!
 
2012-08-13 12:48:58 PM  

BafflerMeal: meanmutton: Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.

Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.

Except for guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital, coverage on insurance, etc, etc... but you knew that.


A durable power of attorney will get you guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital.

No one gets married in order to get insurance coverage.
 
2012-08-13 12:51:57 PM  

mc_madness: I'm not gay but this new man meat is sooooooo much hotter than Anderson.

Tighter abs and ass, beautiful face, dreamy eyes... Yum, yum.


Both of those dudes are hot, yes, and their hand clutching in the grass is slightly romantic. The only thing wrong with the photos is that only one of the dudes has his eyes closed. The other dude has his eyes open. That's never a good sign. AC's fiance may be in loving tasting the dick attached to the dick, but the other dude may just be a golddigger hoping to hop on two rich dicks for cash.

Also, what is it with over pumping the arms? Yeah, these dudes (including AC) have fabulously well-defined arms............ but I want to see the legs, to make sure everything is proportional, instead of 'prison-build'. Anybody got photos of any of these dudes legs?
 
2012-08-13 12:53:01 PM  

orclover: I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.


2/10

/sure you will get a bite or two
 
2012-08-13 12:56:34 PM  

Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.


A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.
 
2012-08-13 01:00:50 PM  

meanmutton: A durable power of attorney will get you guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital.


Spoken like someone who has never been in an emergency room with a partner and you can't make life altering medical decisions because they don't recognize you as related or married and you don't have the durable power of attorney paperwork with you.

No one gets married in order to get insurance coverage.

I'm living in a state where I can't marry my partner. I'm moving to a state where they do have marriage equality to take a job. To get him on my insurance requires getting married (since he has to leave his job to move out with me).

We are getting married to get insurance coverage.

/we will have a separate ceremony sometime early next year
 
2012-08-13 01:09:52 PM  
Notice how the commentary shifted from anal intercourse to marital rights?

/Did you see it?
 
2012-08-13 01:12:00 PM  

KatjaMouse: And there are many a homosexuals who consider themselves "sexually active" or having a "healthy sex life" and at the same time admit to never having anal sex at all. Have you been in Anderson Cooper's bedroom while he was getting jiggy with it? How do you know he's one of those guys who has to do anal every time if at all?


So anal sex is deviant in the homosexual world?
I had no idea. I thought it was the norm.
 
2012-08-13 01:14:39 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: luidprand: KatjaMouse: orclover: Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x224]

The thing with trolls that I've found is that, no matter how stupid they seem to be, there are likely people who share their views, so it is best to take it seriously. Give them their pathetic win in their masturbatory game, because you might help inform someone who really doesn't know.

/And, to answer his question, in Seattle and Ann Arbor and Knoxville in the early 90s, that is exactly what the gay scene felt like to me. No one was interested in anything past the current night and long-term relationships were mocked. Again, though, attracted to douchebags.

Wait a minute, you just called orclover a troll.......... but then you agreed with him through personal experience. Dude. Not cool. Don't call orclover a troll if what he's saying is the unpleasant side of things.


Actually, I'm not that clever. I was responding to the person who was implying (though not stating) orclovor was a troll about dealing with percieved trolls in general. I know plenty of allegedly straight people who have that idea about gay male relationships. They seem to be wishful thinkers.

/I like "or clover" as a name better than "orc lover"
 
2012-08-13 01:21:25 PM  
Ok, how about this deal. All states agree to allow gays to marry and get all the benefits of marriage with one exception. Gay men are not allowed to kiss in public. Can we all agree on that?
 
2012-08-13 01:26:35 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: KatjaMouse: And there are many a homosexuals who consider themselves "sexually active" or having a "healthy sex life" and at the same time admit to never having anal sex at all. Have you been in Anderson Cooper's bedroom while he was getting jiggy with it? How do you know he's one of those guys who has to do anal every time if at all?

So anal sex is deviant in the homosexual world?
I had no idea. I thought it was the norm.


No, but like there are straight people who aren't into anal there are gay men who aren't into it either. They consider certain things they do in the bedroom to be sex when perhaps you'd label it as fore-play only.
 
2012-08-13 01:32:25 PM  

cletusnbrandine: y'know, it is possible that they are just open. lots of gay males have open relationships, usually with varying degrees of rules based on trust and respect. it is perfectly reasonable to think that friendly kissing in the park is ok. maybe he is even bringing the guy back home to meet up with anderson later. it happens.


Didn't Dan Savage say on Colbert once that "Is it cheating if me and my husband are on either end of the same guy?"

Yeah, I was thinking that some of the monogamy rules might be different with gay guys.
 
2012-08-13 01:41:13 PM  

silvervial: Yeah, I was thinking that some of the monogamy rules might be different with gay guys.


No its not. Like many straight couples - many gay couples have open relationships. And many don't. Personally I'm shocked by a lot of activity that goes on in a straight singles bar. More so than any gay bar I know.

I don't see what the fascination is with so many straight men who obsess over what they perceive as gay male sex (since its obvious gay women don't exist in their worldview).
 
2012-08-13 01:43:21 PM  
Creepy, he doesn't close his eyes...

/i hate Anderson Cooper, so this story doesn't bother me one bit.
 
2012-08-13 01:55:11 PM  

silvervial: cletusnbrandine: y'know, it is possible that they are just open. lots of gay males have open relationships, usually with varying degrees of rules based on trust and respect. it is perfectly reasonable to think that friendly kissing in the park is ok. maybe he is even bringing the guy back home to meet up with anderson later. it happens.

Didn't Dan Savage say on Colbert once that "Is it cheating if me and my husband are on either end of the same guy?"

Yeah, I was thinking that some of the monogamy rules might be different with gay guys different couples.


I'm straight, and I'm monogamous. So is my partner. However, I know plenty of people who are variations on these two continuums. It doesn't matter, as long as you are honest and open about what you're doing. That's a safety and trust issue.

That being said, I don't understand why one gets married to another if they are not intending to share each others' lives together. But again, I'm monogamous. I don't understand a lot of what goes into a polyamorous relationship.
 
2012-08-13 02:10:16 PM  

KatjaMouse: HotIgneous Intruder: KatjaMouse: And there are many a homosexuals who consider themselves "sexually active" or having a "healthy sex life" and at the same time admit to never having anal sex at all. Have you been in Anderson Cooper's bedroom while he was getting jiggy with it? How do you know he's one of those guys who has to do anal every time if at all?

So anal sex is deviant in the homosexual world?
I had no idea. I thought it was the norm.

No, but like there are straight people who aren't into anal there are gay men who aren't into it either. They consider certain things they do in the bedroom to be sex when perhaps you'd label it as fore-play only.


You're probably right, since I'm a man who likes women.
 
2012-08-13 02:15:18 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You're probably right, since I'm a man who likes women.


www.mannythemovieguy.com

Good for yoooooou.
 
2012-08-13 02:31:55 PM  

lordaction: This is so sad. I know Anderson was counting down the days until he could release his spunk, deep in his boyfriend's fecal packed anus, and as the liquid shiat dripped down his balls onto the sheets lean down and whisper in his ear "I love you, husband". So sad. Anyone who finds this disgusting is a homophobe.


Who would find this disgusting? It's romantic and dreamy.


/dude
//straight as the day is long
///actually did find it pretty disgusting
////but you're the homophobe for pointing out my homophobia
 
2012-08-13 03:20:43 PM  

meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.


i don't think you can LEGALLY do any of that. If I am mistaken please cite but I know if my boss fired me for being ghey, the lawsuit would be staggering.
 
2012-08-13 03:28:21 PM  

Richard Flaccid: Ok, how about this deal. All states agree to allow gays to marry and get all the benefits of marriage with one exception. Gay men are not allowed to kiss in public. Can we all agree on that?


No, I am not agreeing on that. I want more dude on dude kissing in public.
 
2012-08-13 03:36:02 PM  

frepnog: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

i don't think you can LEGALLY do any of that. If I am mistaken please cite but I know if my boss fired me for being ghey, the lawsuit would be staggering.


Yep, in most states it is perfectly legal to do all of that. In Florida they can't even get a non-discrimination bill out of committee and into a floor vote because the GOP legislators keep blocking it. I live within the city limits of a city with a non-discrimination ordinance but if I move back to my hometown, it would be perfectly legal for landlords to refuse to rent or sell to me, and it would be perfectly legal to fire me and there would be nothing I could do about it. It's the same way in the majority of states.
 
2012-08-13 03:47:23 PM  

meanmutton: BafflerMeal: meanmutton: Lumpmoose: orclover: gingerjet: Got to say it - the guy has taste.

I'm sure it taste like cheap cologne and beard.

Now, im not an expert on gay courtship rituals but I thought the whole point of being gay was to not be monogamous? Isn't it just one big partner swap and glory hole plunging lifestyle? Hell don't they like kick you out of the gay club for not sleazing around? Somebody educate us breeders here.

Maybe in the 70's. The whole point now is freedom. The freedom to be as slutty as you want, as monogamous as you want and/or as married as you want. Heck, you even have the freedom to be a tortured "ex-gay" closet case. Freedom shouldn't be a novel concept in the USA.

Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.

Spoiler alert: They can do that already. If the state doesn't want to recognize it, fark them. You want to get married? Find an officiant willing to do it, draw up a will and a durable power of attorney, get a shared bank account, and BOOM! you're as married as I am.

Except for guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital, coverage on insurance, etc, etc... but you knew that.

A durable power of attorney will get you guaranteed visiting rights in a hospital.

No one gets married in order to get insurance coverage.


Eventually maybe. If you get sick in Florida like these women did the state can tell you to fark off. You fight it but then it is too late and your partner is dead. Scroll down to read some more horrible instances. You just need one hospital staff member being an asshole and you have to wait around and fight it while hoping your partner doesn't die by the time the administration finds out and gets scared of the possible lawsuit.
 
2012-08-13 03:58:00 PM  

frepnog: i don't think you can LEGALLY do any of that. If I am mistaken please cite but I know if my boss fired me for being ghey, the lawsuit would be staggering.


If sexual orientation was protected under federal law in the same way gender, religion, and race are, that would be the case. It is not. Some states protect it. Many don't. In those states where it isn't protected, you can in fact be fired for being gay.
 
2012-08-13 04:42:51 PM  

meanmutton: BafflerMeal:
No one gets married in order to get insurance coverage.


I would totally marry an illegal just to give him my insurance... just to piss off a Republican :)
 
2012-08-13 05:04:52 PM  

QueenMamaBee: I would totally same sex marry an illegal just to give him her my insurance... just to piss off a Republican :)


FTFY
 
2012-08-13 05:25:03 PM  
Big deal. It's not like they have feelings.
 
2012-08-13 05:39:03 PM  
Who'd cheat on Anderson Cooper? I'm not even gay and I'd do him.
 
2012-08-13 05:50:07 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: My love life doesn't include -- and will never include -- ramming foreign objects into my anus.
That's a one-way orifice, if you get the flow of my meaning.


Once again, another straight person that seems to spend more time thinking about other people's anuses than any gay man I know.
 
2012-08-13 05:56:19 PM  

gingerjet: silvervial: Yeah, I was thinking that some of the monogamy rules might be different with gay guys.

No its not. Like many straight couples - many gay couples have open relationships. And many don't. Personally I'm shocked by a lot of activity that goes on in a straight singles bar. More so than any gay bar I know.

I don't see what the fascination is with so many straight men who obsess over what they perceive as gay male sex (since its obvious gay women don't exist in their worldview).


I've never been in a singles bar, gay or straight, but I can tell you that as a straight female, I would not be at one end of another guy with my husband at the other, as Dan Savage said he's done with his spouse.

Monogamy is a given, not an option, in our relationship, regardless of gender. I don't understand open relationships regardless of orientation.
 
2012-08-13 06:29:20 PM  

silvervial: gingerjet: silvervial: Yeah, I was thinking that some of the monogamy rules might be different with gay guys.

No its not. Like many straight couples - many gay couples have open relationships. And many don't. Personally I'm shocked by a lot of activity that goes on in a straight singles bar. More so than any gay bar I know.

I don't see what the fascination is with so many straight men who obsess over what they perceive as gay male sex (since its obvious gay women don't exist in their worldview).

I've never been in a singles bar, gay or straight, but I can tell you that as a straight female, I would not be at one end of another guy with my husband at the other, as Dan Savage said he's done with his spouse.

Monogamy is a given, not an option, in our relationship, regardless of gender. I don't understand open relationships regardless of orientation.


Right, because you'd be the one in the middle.
 
2012-08-13 07:52:31 PM  
There's always room for the right third.
 
2012-08-13 08:20:43 PM  
Gross.

That grosses me out. Dudes kissing.

That's as far as my anti-homo goes though. I am not evolved enough to not get a bit skeeved when I see it, but I am all for gay marriage, full rights and equality. Maybe one day I will be more advanced than I am right now.

Sorry gays! No offense meant!
 
2012-08-13 08:24:01 PM  
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
 
2012-08-13 08:41:24 PM  

meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.


Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.
 
2012-08-13 08:52:40 PM  

WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.


Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.
 
2012-08-13 09:04:48 PM  

rynthetyn: WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.

Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.


I stand corrected.

That being, the 9th circuit in dicta did indicate that sexual origination likely would be considered a quasi protected class, although that is just dicta and relegated to the 9th circuit. In short order the Supreme Court will rule that sexual origination is a quasi protected class.
 
2012-08-13 09:13:37 PM  

rynthetyn: WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.

Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.


So I just looked at the linked page, it states that sexual origintation has been added to title VII of the civil rights act, meaning the discrimination on the basis of sexual origintation would be a violation of federal law.

My constitutional law hat might be sitting slightly a skew, but wouldn't that mean employers are federally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual origintation?
 
2012-08-13 09:57:30 PM  

WhyKnot: rynthetyn: WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.


Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.

So I just looked at the linked page, it states that sexual origintation has been added to title VII of the civil rights act, meaning the discrimination on the basis of sexual origintation would be a violation of federal law.

My constitutional law hat might be sitting slightly a skew, but wouldn't that mean employers are federally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual origintation?


They interpreted gender identity as being covered by the title VII ban on sex discrimination. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. What that means is that trans people are part of the protected class in sex discrimination cases, but it has nothing to do with whether you can be fired for being gay. Sexual orientation does not fall under sex discrimination. If you read further, it states that despite repeated attempts, ENDA, which would actually make sexual orientation a protected class, has failed every time it's been introduced. In other words, you'll be in trouble if you fire someone based on the gender they identify as, but if you want to fire them based on their orientation you're free and clear to do so.
 
2012-08-13 10:21:15 PM  

rynthetyn: WhyKnot: rynthetyn: WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.


Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.

So I just looked at the linked page, it states that sexual origintation has been added to title VII of the civil rights act, meaning the discrimination on the basis of sexual origintation would be a violation of federal law.

My constitutional law hat might be sitting slightly a skew, but wouldn't that mean employers are federally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual origintation?

They interpreted gender identity as being covered by the title VII ban on sex discrimination. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. What that means is that trans people are part of the protected class in sex discrimination cases, but it has nothing to do with whether you can be fired for being gay. Sexual orientation does not fall under sex discrimination. If you read further, it states that despite repeated attempts, ENDA, which would actually make sexual orientation a protected class, has failed every time it's been introduced. In other words, you'll be in trouble if you fire someone based on the gender they identify as, but if you want to fire them based on their orientation you're free and clear to do so.


Thank you for the clarification.
 
2012-08-13 10:31:13 PM  

WhyKnot: rynthetyn: WhyKnot: rynthetyn: WhyKnot: meanmutton: Felgraf: Perhaps they'd like some of the things that come with it. Like the ability to visit their partner in the hospital if they're deathly ill (if they're not oficially a 'family member', they can't), the ability to not get screwed out of the will (They're not actually married int he eyes of the law! That means we, his blood relatives, can TOTALLY fark OVER his evul 'spouse' that led him down that sinful path if they didn't have a will! And sometimes, even if they did!), the ability to put the one they love on their health insurance, and other such things.

A durable power of attorney and a will will prevent a hospital from blocking access to one's spouse and will prevent family members from blocking inheritance. As far as health insurance goes -- yeah, it's a pain in the ass, certainly, but let's not pretend that the debate is about forcing employers to cover a spouse's health insurance costs. They'll be able to get out of it quite easily even if the state recognizes it as a legal marriage. After all, it's 100% legal in most US states to fire someone or deny them equal benefits due to sexual orientation.

That's really the issue -- you can legally get fired, denied housing, denied adoption, denied education, refused promotion, denied access to public accommodations in the majority of states in the US.

Seeing as how sexual origination is a quasi protected class, I doubt you are correct. If you can provide citations to be able to fire someone for their sexual origination I will gladly admit I was wrong.

Sexual orientation is not a quasi protected class. The court rulings related to sexual orientation have always applied rational basis scrutiny. People have been trying to get congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for several years, if that passed then it would be illegal for employers to fire someone based on their sexual orientation but right now there is a patchwork of laws that varies from state to state, county by county and even city by city and in much of the US it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation is not a protected status under the Fair Housing Act, which means that unless there is a specific state law banning it (which there is not in most states), it is perfectly legal to deny someone housing based on their sexual orientation.

So I just looked at the linked page, it states that sexual origintation has been added to title VII of the civil rights act, meaning the discrimination on the basis of sexual origintation would be a violation of federal law.

My constitutional law hat might be sitting slightly a skew, but wouldn't that mean employers are federally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual origintation?

They interpreted gender identity as being covered by the title VII ban on sex discrimination. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. What that means is that trans people are part of the protected class in sex discrimination cases, but it has nothing to do with whether you can be fired for being gay. Sexual orientation does not fall under sex discrimination. If you read further, it states that despite repeated attempts, ENDA, which would actually make sexual orientation a protected class, has failed every time it's been introduced. In other words, you'll be in trouble if you fire someone based on the gender they identify as, but if you want to fire them based on their orientation you're free and clear to do so.

Thank you for the clarification.


No problem. This semester I'm actually taking an entire class on gender, sexuality and the law, this sort of thing fascinates me.
 
2012-08-13 10:36:20 PM  
dont stop thinking about how icky men's bodies are and how hot sex with them would be

seriously guyz
 
2012-08-13 10:39:31 PM  

Lumpmoose: Straight people have already pretty well re-defined marriage: the pairing of two autonomous people that get to define exactly what their marriage is and what their roles within it means to them. Gay people just want in too.


For the first part, you're totally correct. Marriage as an institution is pretty much farked. If the gay's want in, they certainly can't tarnish it any worse, can they?

As for expectations of gay fidelity, if 'same sex' has lost it's taboo connotation, 'same partner' can't be far behind in losing its position of reverence. Again, the heteros haven't done exactly much to defend the sanctity and credibility of 'their turf', and gay men are particularly known for their promiscuity for good reason. It's not like San Francisco was known for Lesbian Bath Houses, you know...
 
Displayed 101 of 101 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report