The Daily Mail:
The U.S. Department of Education is replacing the terms ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on student loan forms with the less gender-specific ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2.’
The changes will be introduced on the 2014-2015 federal student aid form (FAFSA) and the move is designed to better accommodate students who are brought up in gay homes where there are two mother or two fathers.
‘All students should be able to apply for federal student aid within a system that incorporates their unique family dynamics,’ Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement.
For the first time the department will collect income ‘from a dependent student’s legal parents regardless of the parents’ marital status or gender, if those parents live together,’ reports the Washington Times.
The announcement has already elicited an angry response from conservative Christian groups.
‘I carried my children for nine months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”’
‘But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more. I am Parent 1. Or maybe Parent 2. Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.’
PALMS UPWARD IN SUPPLICATION, HEAD SHAKES, EYES ROLL……
I may be mistaken on this, but I am still under the impression that each child (except Jesus) was born as the result of sexual conception between a father and a mother. And further, and I might be wrong on this, but I believe that the father has to be a male and the mother has to be a female. So if they really want to be correct in gender, they already are. Each child has always had, and will always have, one mother and one father. Now, legally another adoptive parent may enter the picture, so why don’t they label the parents as ‘natural’ and/or ‘adoptive’. But, as MataHarley has pointed out on another thread, should the government be involved in this in any way? Why is the government filling out any form that labels a person in any way? Isn’t labeling the first form of registration and the first step toward confiscation? No, I’m not talking about guns, I’m talking about children. Is the government going to assume responsibility for them? What’s going on here? If we are all concerned about ‘feelings’ here and the poor little child living in the home with two gay guys feels like he has a Parent 1 and a Parent 2 and he will only be happy and not discriminated against if all children can only refer to their parents as Parent 1 and Parent 2. Is he really discriminated against if the average child actually has a mommy and daddy? What about those children’s feelings, can they still call Mommy, Mommy or do they now have to call her Parent 1? Sheesh……
Leaving aside the gay thing for a second — the reality is that many kids are not being raised by their natural biological parents — among heterosexuals there are so many step- and half- and single mothers, single fathers, adoptions, fostering, baby daddies, surrogate pregnancies, in loco parentis, orphanages, children’s shelters, legal control over children, and more, and such a tangle that the idea that the only sort of family that exists or should be considered is the nuclear family of mom and dad having only their own kids at home is not realistic.
But it is heterosexuals who have caused all these family divisions and problems and spilt and damaged the family — it has nothing to do with gay folks. That some misguided people in government have now concluded to figure it out and failing is exactly why all of us here complain about big government – they’re idiots.
But, the bigger problem is the bureaucratic form itself – the entire DOE should be eliminated — and every one of their forms — no matter what they ask.
And then, if education is at the local level then local people can deal far better with the realities of whatever family structures they have in their midst — even a gay couple.
The problem is the federalizing of the issue — which requires all of us to agree — and the solution is localizing everything — so we can deal with who we know.
It’s a STUDENT LOAN FORM, not a cultural war ID application. The STUDENT needs money to finance his or her education, and right or wrong, there is a federal student aid program designed to get money to needy students. If the student is a dependent of a couple, then the couple’s income is considered in deciding the student’s need for aid, and the gender of each supporting adult is irrelevant.
The change on the FAFSA form reflects the fact that the majority of children born today are not born into a traditional mother-father, 2-parent family. Keeping the form as it was would be biasing it to favor a minority constituency, exactly like the affirmative action programs you so despise.
This issue has nothing to do with telling little children that they can’t call their mother “Mommy.” It has nothing to do with who the biological parents of the student are either. It has everything to do with who the college applicant gets financial support from. What the student calls them doesn’t matter.
Wait a minute. I thought the thinking was that partners could come and go as the pleased without government interference. What right does the government have to ask who is contributing financially? Isn’t that interfering with the couple’s rights to be married, be responsible, and all that? Geez, you want everyone to have the same rights, no government interference and now you’re saying it’s okay for the government to ask who’s contributing. It’s not their damn business is it? Now it seems as if you’re wanting it both ways, no government interference and then the government give them money based on who they claim the parent 1 and parent 2 is. Is there any intent that the persons listed as parent 1 and parent 2 actually have a relationship to the student, or can they just list anyone from the phone book? If a student says they need money, who’s business is it who their parents are, give them the money. After all, the ‘real’ parents may be millionaires anyhow, but shove the kids off on some welfare family so the government will have to ante up.
I agree with your last three sentences completely, Jim, and most of everything else you posted.
The one thing that I disagree with is you suggesting that the family divisions and damaged split families are entirely the fault of heterosexuals. I would agree that it is mostly due to heterosexuals, especially as the sheer numbers of hetero raised children far outstrip those of homosexual couples, but to say that it is entirely the fault of heteros is false.
“What right does the government have to ask who is contributing financially?”
The answer is : EVERY right, regardless of gender, IF the government is being asked to contribute money to help finance the student’s education.
I know plenty of folks who were denied financial assistance BECAUSE their parents refused to fill out the financial disclosure forms. May have been a privacy issue, may have been reluctance to reveal poverty OR unreported income – a purgery issue. And “YES,” there is little to prevent fraud if a family goes to extraordinary lengths to mis-report income or wealth, which is also true for Medicaid and a host of other socialistic safety nets. But having decided that the benefits of those “safety nets” outweighs the losses from fraud, the government DOES have a right and a responsibility to at least TRY to run those programs efficiently and to pay only those with need, for as long as the programs are supported.
@johngalt: So true John, if a homosexual man marries a straight woman and later decides he doesn’t want her, that he wants another man, it is hardly the fault of the hetero.
@George Wells: George you’re being very inconsistent. First you don’t want the government involved in marriages, etc, now you want them to be able to ask questions about the financial statuse of …..who? If the government shouldn’t be in the family life, how can they determine who should pay for a child’s education? Which parents are you talking about? The ones that had the child or the ones that moved in after the others moved out? So now that it might involve fraud if the government isn’t involved, they should step in. You lead me to conclude that if the government is trying to regulate marriages, you don’t want them involved, but if that lack of being involved could result in fraud, then you do want them involved. Strange. So, you’re saying Parent 1 should be an ‘actual’ parent, which would be a male? and Parent 2 should be an ‘actual’ parent and should be a female? Then leave the forms as they are.
Are we being silly or what? Inconsistent?
The way things are set up now is inconsistent with the reality that heterosexual, two-parent families are in the MINORITY. Doesn’t matter what the reason is… who you want to BLAME.
The laws regarding homosexuality are inconsistent across the land, and half of them are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Your dependence on the Bible to justify your moral disapproval of homosexuality is inconsistent with your willingness to ignore other issues the Bible condemns but are accepted practice in modern society.
Your desire to leave marriage rights to the states is inconsistent with your desire to deprive homosexuals of federal benefits of marriage.
There are ENDLESS inconsistencies everywhere.
We are a democratic society, but our government is a republic and many of our programs are socialistic.
We believe in the sanctity of life but execute criminals
We invade Iraq but turn the other cheek to North Korea and Iran.
We reelect one bad president after another instead of voting them out. Well, that was dumb, but at least it was consistent.
“So, you’re saying Parent 1 should be an ‘actual’ parent, which would be a male? and Parent 2 should be an ‘actual’ parent and should be a female? Then leave the forms as they are.”
No. You’re being silly again. As written, the forms did not correctly identify the parties who have a legal role in the issue. The more generic labeling of those parties reflects reality.
George, when and where did I mention the Bible? I don’t think I’ve brought the Bible or religion into the discussion at all.
No it’s not. The constitution does not cover marriages, therefore it legally belongs to the states to regulate. I don’t have any desire to deprive homosexuals of any benefit, either federal, state or local. I don’t think the word homosexual should even be mentioned in any laws. Their legal rights should be identical as those for heterosexuals, I’ve never said otherwise.
That is not inconsistent, only people that have deprived someone else of life, has theirs taken away. That is consistent and is as it should be.
So you’re saying that the 97% that are normal should have to change the way they do things to accommodate the other 3%? Why don’t they print states drivers licenses in multiple languages to accommodate each 3% or greater? And what’s this about ‘legal role’ ? isn’t that the mother and father? If one of the homosexuals is a ‘girl’, just list his name as the mother.
As far as being silly, this whole discussion is pretty much that. When you start advocating changing 97% of society to accommodate 3%, then all 3% or greater groups have a right to put in their demands also? Right?
Per your last, the only thing that is being changed is that the 97% are losing a bit of the “I-get-to-be-the-boss-of-you” right which they previously had. But the 3% isn’t stealing marriage from them, it is being given to us. By the courts, by legislative fiat and by public referendum twelve states and the District of Columbia have given homosexuals the right to MARRY, and those courts, legislatures and public were the 100%, including both the 97% heterosexuals and the 3% homosexuals. You can argue the meaning of the word “marriage” until you are blue in the face, but it won’t alter the practical significance of what is happening.
As far as “demands” go, real demands are made when a gun or some other imminent threat accompanies the request. Shouting demonstrators may use the word “demand,” but unless force is threatened, it is just a loud request. Litigators do not present demands to the court, they “petition,” or “ask” the court to consider their request. By repeatedly mischaracterizing the requests made by gays, you sensationalize the issue by implying gays threaten violence, but they do not. At 3%, they would obviously not prevail.
“George, when and where did I mention the Bible?”
The moral opposition to gay marriage comes from the Bible. I was perhaps misunderstanding your and retire05’s objections as arguments on moral grounds. You did not object to her “sodomite” rants, so I thought the conclusion was valid.
“Their legal rights should be identical as those for heterosexuals.”
I agree, but then, as covered previously, a gay man does NOT have a right to marry a woman. I know what the “Law: says. But there is a higher moral ethic involved that I have also explained, and I believe that the institution of marriage should not be abused in that “legal” way. We won’t solve this one, but the states are.
higher moral ethic? Now you’re putting the Bible into the discussion. I’d just as soon leave it out.
I didn’t object to Retire05’s “sodomite” rants because she is entirely correct. I think you’d have to agree that most homosexuals (mostly male ones) are sodomite’s. Why would a homosexual object to being called a ‘sodomite’? If that’s the sex they prefer then be proud of it. I’m not ashamed of having sex with a female, in fact, it is the only sex I would have.
is confusing. In what state does a homosexual man not have the right to marry a woman? After all, that is the only human that a homo man can marry, anything else is not a marriage.
Oh, that’s funny. Seems to me that everytime something bad happens, you left wingers are quick to say “Why did he do it? What was the reason he (name the story)” Yet, when you can use a statistic that benefits you, like the number of children being raised in single parent households, you have no curiosity toward cause and effect.
And you wonder why I think you’re a hypocrite?
Remind me again what part of the Constitution deals with sexual preferences and homosexuality.
I have never used the Bible as a basis for my objections to your agenda. And I don’t believe Redteam has, either. Yet, you seem to want to fall back on a book that you are in direct opposition to.
Actually, we are NOT a “democratic” society, we are a society that is a representative republic. In your stupidity, you don’t seem to understand that a society cannot be both. And yes, many of our programs are socialist, not socialistic. Thank you Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.
Is forfeiture of one’s humanity beyond your grasp?
North Korea didn’t allow for radical Islamic training camps and the POTUS we have now doesn’t have the cajones to take care of Iran. That failure on Obama’s part to deal with Iran will come back to bite us.
Sorry, but the responsibility for re-electing that crap that now resides in the Oval Office rests on you, Georgie. I didn’t vote for him and knew he would be a disaster. A dead armadillo would have been a better president.
No, it should say “Mother” and “Father.” Until you can find a way to knock up your male same-sex partner, nature reigns supreme.
Wrong; the 97% is saying that there are certain social norms that they feel is important to maintaining a continuing society. Sodomists like you (oh, wait, I forgot; you prefer oral sex) are simply stamping your feet and saying you don’t give a damn what the majority says. You want your way, like spoiled children, and you want it now.
And what happened when the people of California spoke? You stomped your feet and demanded that the issue be determined by judges because you didn’t like the outcome of the voice of the voters.
Are you claiming that gays have never threatened violence against those that disagree with them? Really? Do you really want to go there? How about the psychiatrists that were threatened, and had their families threatened, by the Gay Liberation Movement if homosexuality was not removed from the DSM-II? How about the recent threats against the life of a UT researcher whose research showed that children in gay couple households did not do as well as children in opposite gender households? I guess threatening to kill someone, their spouse and their children is not “violent” in your book.
Well, since “gay” was the term that male prostitutes originally used for their male customers, if you perfer gay, I will be happy to call you a “john.”
You are so full of crap. A gay man has the right to marry a woman, even if she is also gay. Why do you lie?
Go away, George. You became boring a long time ago. You are a dishonest liar that is here for only one reason; to drive your agenda that you want to shove down the throats of the 97%
@Redteam and retire05:
LOL. You both insist that you have never used the Bible, but you both call me a “sodomite.”
Where did the term “sodomite” come from if not from the Bible?
What are you smoking? Ancient GREEK????
Try Genesis chapters 18-20. Then do a few searched for the etymology of the term “sodomite” and tell me where you find “ancient greek.”
LOL, so you think the author of Genesis was just making up words that had no root in ancient languages?
Your quoted source derives the original word from ancient Hebrew, not ancient Greek. The modern animosity toward “sodomites” comes from the Biblical approbrium expressed in Genesis, not from widespread knowledge of EITHER ancient Greek OR ancient Hebrew. If you read ancient Greek OR ancient Hebrew, you’re special. But more likely you got your dander up over the Biblical myth, like so many other sheep.
So let me see if I understand you correctly: you are saying that the author of Genesis used a word that was not already common vernacular in the ancient Greek/Hebrew languages? Why don’t you show when the word was first coined in ancient Greek/Hebrew compared to when Genesis was written if you’re so damn smart.
Don’t insult my intelligence.
Well, there we have it. In your opinion, anyone who believes in the Bible is nothing more than a “sheep.” So much for that whole “tolerance” thing you promote.
It has nothing to do with when or where the word was “coined.” It has everything to do with the fact that modern cultural taboos and concepts of morality are informed by statements in the Bible that are inferred to have God as their source. The language used to express Judeo-Christian morality dates to prehistoric times, but the message comes to us in the Bible. How old the words are makes no difference.
“In your opinion, anyone who believes in the Bible is nothing more than a “sheep.”
Not at all. BELIEVING in the Bible is fine. “You must come to Jesus with child-like BELIEF.” “ Belief,” however, is not the same as “knowledge. If you take every word of the Bible as literal truth, and if you think that every direction given in the Bible must be literally followed – thousands of years after being written – and if you get all worked up when others around you interpret the Bible differently from you, well then, you really are a stupid sheep. Stone your children lately? Either you didn’t read the Bible, or you didn’t understand what you read, or you got some bad advice from someone who DID read it. If you are insulted by that, tit-for-tat.
“So much for that whole “tolerance” thing you promote.”
Please refer me to a post where I promoted tolerance. For someone as opposed to oral sex as yourself, I find it amusing how often you attempt to put things in my mouth.
Oh, now it has nothing to do with the origination of the word, when all along you have been claiming it was a Biblical term. What a joke you are, john.
Well, it is quite clear you perfer sex organs over words.
What you do is twist and turn what I said to try to change what I said. Try that on someone else. I ain’t buying into your spin.
“I ain’t buying”
I wouldn’t expect you to. That you don’t make a rational rebuttal to my arguments is reward enough. That you instead choose to parry insults reveals the balance in your intellectual account. No risk of identity theft – there’s nothing to steal.
Coming from you , that is borderline funny. Not once have you disputed any facts I have presented, with other facts. You simply give me opinions, which are just as nasty as your mouth.
I’m glad that you noticed I return your style in kind.
When you actually pose a legitimate question, as you did in “Homosexuality versus the Gay Man” #149, I give you a thoughtful and polite answer. (#150)
But when you just get cross and insulting, you reap what you sow.
@George Wells:@George Wells:
George # 15
Let me clear that up for you George, I have used the Bible in my lifetime, but not at any time in this discussion. You basically asked if a person that performs sodomy is a ‘sodomite’ and I said yes. Surely you agree with that.
@George Wells: #21
that was addressed to Retire05, but I felt like I need to say that I am definitely not opposed to oral sex between a man and a woman, just for the record. I don’t use the term Gay or Sodomite for homosexuals. I was asked if I considered a person that did sodomy to be a sodomite, and I said yes. But that’s not a term I use, neither is Gay, because I don’t really feel as if either is actually the correct term. I think homosexual is the term that is most correct and I try to always use it. I think very few homosexuals are ‘gay’ about their situation, so I just don’t use the term.
@Redteam #28 & 29:
“You basically asked if a person that performs sodomy is a ‘sodomite’ and I said yes. Surely you agree with that.”
Here is a carefully worded, thoughtfully considered answer to your question, because I think it deserves one.
In the study of anthropology (which would be the relevant study), there is a technically correct word for black folks. The term would be agreed upon by what amounts to a board of nomenclature. That term would be the very most correct term possible for academic use, and its use in vetted professional publications would be required. Off-hand, I couldn’t tell you what that term is.
In polite conversation with a black person, it would be respectful to refer to members of his race by the name they prefer. Doubtless it would not be the same term selected by the above-mentioned board of nomenclature.
In coarse street jargon, black folk are still referred to as (the “N” word). All other terms applied to that race would be out of date (by a little or a lot) or perhaps jocular, but, like street jargon, would not suitable for use in a rational “discussion.”
A similar range of terms is being used in reference to homosexuals. Each term has an applicable context, and its use in that particular context would be appropriate.
In anthropological or psychological dissertation, the technically correct term “homosexual” is appropriate. The term “gay” would not be.
In polite conversation with a homosexual, it would be respectful to refer to members of his or her orientation as “gay,” as this is the term is – more often than not – preferred by them.
In coarse street jargon, the terms “fag,” “faggot,” and “queer” are in common usage, as are a variety of other… colorful terms. None of those terms would be suitable for use in a rational discussion, save for the purposes of identifying inappropriate terms.
Finally, there is a religious context, and an assortment of archaic terms dating back to Biblical times and beyond find some use in that context. “Sodomite” is one such word. If one were to research the origin of words used in the Bible to express homosexuality, one would not find the term “gay,” or “homosexual” or “fag” or “queer,” etc. On the other hand, one would not find the term “sodomite” being used in a church that was respectful toward its homosexual members. That’s because while the term “homosexual” refers to the sexual activity of gay people, the term “sodomite” conveys additional moral opprobrium by virtue of its history. It is an ugly word usually used to convey the same ugly sentiment implied by the “N” word.
The term “sodomite” would be appropriate to use in a religious context or in a church that is categorically unfriendly to homosexuals. It would not be appropriate to use in a “rational” discussion.
In the legal context, the word “sodomy” has a long history of use. Its use in the legal context reflects the moral opprobrium directed toward homosexuals in Judeo-Christian culture, and has its roots in the Bible. However, I have not seen the term “sodomite” used in the Law, and I would volunteer that its use in the legal context is considered inappropriate.
The terms “sodomy” and “sodomite” are generally not used in anthropological, psychological or psychiatric literature, and the term “sodomite” is generally not used legally. Only in the religious context do both terms appear.
The words you choose to use are your own business. If you choose wisely, you will be respected for your good judgment and discretion. If not, you reveal yourself to be ignorant, disrespectful, insulting or hateful. Remember that no argument is improved by adding insult. Choose wisely.
@George Wells: George, interesting. As I said, I don’t use the terms, sodomite or gay. They seem inappropriate for me to use. For obvious reasons. As I said, I think few homosexuals think they are gay in the ‘fun’ sense. I do realize that seems to be the preferred term, but it is as objectionable to me (the word gay used in that context) as the ‘N’ word is to me. I might not object too much to the use of the ‘G’ word. I have never used the term sodomite other than as a response to your question yesterday (or at least in this thread). While it is probably technically accurate in it’s meaning, it is still not a ‘preferred’ word for me to use. Most of the usage of the word queer has been by homosexuals, I think few other persons use it. It’s kinda like blacks use the N word as a term of endearment for other blacks, but are greatly offended if others use it. One young homosexual I knew in my teen years actually was called Quesy, that was his preferred nickname and what he asked everyone to call him (that was in the ’50s. ) Fag and Faggot are not terms I use. I consider them disrespectful. I don’t personally like the word homosexual, but since it seems the most correct and unobjectionable, it is the one I normally use.
If I were a black person, I would object to that word because it is not descriptive. The race is Negroid, but blacks don’t like it because it becomes the N word in actual usage. Blacks used to prefer ‘colored’ as in the NAACP, but now don’t like that either but have not changed the name of the organization, so I guess it’s acceptable.
The only possible exception I might mention was that, while it is true that there is a small faction in the homosexual commuinity who actually DO prefer “Queer,” the vast majority do no. As a child, I was routinely called “Queer,” and I don’t believe that any of those using the slur were homosexual. It was a hostile taunt, meant to provoke a retaliation I would never win. If Daniel Tosh and the few other comedians who routinely use the word are any indication, its use today is still predominantly as a slur. I think that you’d do everybody a favor by not using that word.
I would call you by whatever term you preferred. If you are not polite enough to return the favor, that says more about your up-bringing than anything about your language ethics. But we are who we are, and in but a few years we will all be dust. Have a good one!
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Negroid. Oh, and is that black “folks” like people 60 years ago used to refer to them as colored “folk”? Talk about a racist comment.
So let me see if I understand you; when speaking with a black person, I should always asked them by what name they want me to use when addressing the members of their race? Assinine.
Yet, it washomosexuals themselves that used the term “queer” such as the book written by a homosexual “Queering Education” It was also homosexuals that started the “queer” studies programs. So while queers called themselves queers, you have deemed it, like sodomist, is insulting and it hurts your widdle feelings.
In anthropological terms, the word “homosexual” is really current events. The word, homosexual, coined by Karoly Maria Benkert was first used in Benkerts letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869. Oh, wait, you knew that because I gave you that information a long time ago. Just another instance of your choosing to ignore things you don’t want to discuss.
When something has “roots” that means beginning. You are saying the beginning of the word “sodomite” originates with the Bible. That show how absurd you are that you think that the word “sodomy” and “sodomite” was not part of the ancient Greek/Hebrew lexicon prior to the writing of Genesis. You really do think people are stupid and you can blow smoke up their arses, don’t you?
Or what? More whine from you? Oh, I get it; if someone refers to you by your actions (sodomite) then they are just ignorant, disrespectful, insulting and hateful. Yet, you have no problem with sodomites referring to heterosexual people as “straights”, which is really ignorant, disrespectful, insulting and hateful since the term “straight” came from gay lexicon referring to sodomites that had “gone straight” (i.e. stopped being sodomites).
Perhaps if you keep digging that hole you seem hell bent to bury yourself in, we will no longer have to be subjected to your fabrications, lies, spin and agenda driving.
As a finale to my #29, let me direct you to retire05’s #32 and #33. Sure makes me wonder…
Thanks for the conversation!
George, the dilemma here is:
How is one to know which term a particular person desires or preferrs? I know that some blacks prefer ‘colored’, some prefer ‘black’ and some prefer others. In some case homosexuals prefer ‘gay’ some prefer ‘queer’ some prefer homosexual, how is one to know and how do you keep them from being ‘insulted’ if you don’t use the term they prefer even tho there is no way to know what the correct term is.
Start by not using terms that are understood to be insulting.
Try to select terms that are appropriate to the context of usage.
If you wish to be respectful and you need to use a label, but you don’t know which term is preferred, ask.
It’s not such a difficult dilemma.
And the answer given is appropriate to any group, not just homosexuals.
@George Wells: ok
but I can’t see myself asking a homosexual, ” hey you want me to call you queer, gay, homo, sodomite, or what? ” I can believe he would be as offended by the fact that I asked as I would be by the fact I asked. I wouldn’t be comfortable asking. But would they have objection to being referred to as ‘man’ or by their name? Does it have to be a descriptive name? ( take that as I’m trying to be a little humorous)
You noticed in my line 3: “If …you need to use a label…”
At some point in the future, one would hope that the need to label each other in the course of civil conversation might end.
“but I can’t see myself asking a homosexual, ” hey you want me to call you queer, gay, homo, sodomite, or what?”
Unless you are extraordinarily tactless AND clueless, that wouldn’t happen. You would not be discussing personal details with a stranger, and if you were speaking to a friend, you would both have enough sensitivity to treat the topic carefully. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a friendship for long.
“I can believe he would be as offended by the fact that I asked as I would be by the fact I asked.”
You might be surprised. Many times I have carefully avoided broaching the topic with reasonably close acquaintences, only to find that once the line is crossed (and crossed with reasonable tact) both sides feel relief. A new confidence has been shared, the friendship is strengthened.
“I wouldn’t be comfortable asking.”
Discomfort from what? If you are uncomfortable tackling the issue, don’t put it on the table. Kind of like a polite “don’t-ask, don’t-tell”. But if you are confident in your own sexuality, you’ve nothing to fear. Those propositions were a LONG time ago. Get over them! (LOL)
Even though we share few political positions, notice how we can converse with reasonable decorum. Decent folk are like that. Have faith.
@George Wells: All good comments George, and your point about what I had said: “I wouldn’t be comfortable asking.” only means that I wouldn’t normally see a ‘need’ to be discussing labels for someone you were having a conversation with. Once you got to know the person, you would likely reach your own conclusion, much as you stated.