Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[atheistgirl]

What do you make of men/women who enter prison and “choose” a homosexual lifestyle.

They’re bisexual.

I know some who’ve been to prison - 5 years I think was the longest stretch I’m aware of among this group - and they did not have homosexual or lesbian tendancies, before, during or since. One was raped, and is still dealing with the fallout from that.

I’ve been around beautiful women all my life. I’ve slept with women - as in sleeping in the same bed - showered with women, danced naked with women, and have been intimately close with women and not once, ever, was there even the remotest hint of anything sexual. A depth of maternal, sisterly, intimacy and care I could never share with a man, other than my husband, that profoundly transcends anything sexual or erotic.

I could never, ever, find a woman sexually attractive.

However were I to go to prison, and find I can make love to women and enjoy sexual intimacy with women, in the absense of a man, I was clearly bisexual all along.

But I’m not.

Which is why I’m an incredibly law abiding citizen.

I don’t believe my husband would be allowed to share a cell with me

Sarah x

 

[stewstew03]

I’ve been around beautiful women all my life. I’ve slept with women - as in sleeping in the same bed - showered with women, danced naked with women, and have been intimately close with women and not once, ever, was there even the remotest hint of anything sexual. A depth of maternal, sisterly, intimacy and care I could never share with a man, other than my husband, that profoundly transcends anything sexual or erotic.

I could never, ever, find a woman sexually attractive.

This is interesting because I understood that one of the major differences between men and women comes down to intimacy. For women, it is the first order of business, while for men it is secondary. In other words, for men intimacy comes after physical engagement (possibly), but for women they need to feel emotional intimacy with their partners before engaging in a sexual relationship. Emotional intimacy is the aphrodisiac for women – physical attractiveness is the aphrodisiac for men. Because emotional intimacy is the primary focus for women, their sexuality becomes more “fluid” and they are more willing to experiment with women (maybe it’s something innocent such as dancing naked with friends, which is something, by the way, that NO straight man I know would ever do with his friends). Anyway, I would recommend reading an author by the name of Melinda Selmys – whose profile on CAF is here and who has a blog here – she writes about these sorts of issues and has been on Catholic Answers Live as well.

 

[atheistgirl]

Emotional intimacy is the aphrodisiac for women – physical attractiveness is the aphrodisiac for men. Because emotional intimacy is the primary focus for women, their sexuality becomes more “fluid” and they are more willing to experiment with women (maybe it’s something innocent such as dancing naked with friends, which is something, by the way, that NO straight man I know would ever do with his friends).

Thanks for the link, I’ve skimmed the blog but I’ll read it properly when I have more time to concentrate on it.

Let me just say, for me, when I first laid eyes on my husband, it was raw, pure, animalistic physical desire

Of course, I played hard to get, made him work for me, and used this time to develop a deep and intense emotional relationship with him, before marriage and sex, but sheesh, was there a lot of cold showers on the way

My sexuality is not fluid. It’s pretty darned fixed and totally focused on one poor guy

I am intensely emotionally and intimately involved with all the women in my life, and my husband.

I would love to be more emotionally intimate with men, but most men I’ve ever come across are emotional illiterates

None of my female friends that I’m intimate with could ever find another woman sexually attractive either. So, despite the ‘‘opinions’’ expressed in this thread, they’re no more free to choose to be lesbians than I can choose not to be attracted to men.

Sarah x

 

[SgtSchultz]

Just a thought – to those who believe that same-sex attractions are not based on experiences and conditions during childhood, who believe that it’s based on DNA or in vitro genetic influences, is the same true for attraction to blondes? Or attraction to voluptuous breasts? Are certain men attracted to these things because of my DNA or genes? Or are they based on a myriad of factors?

Also, some men may be attracted to those things and then later develop an attraction for petite brunettes. Were they just “closeted” brunette lovers? Were they simply pretending to like voluptuous blondes for the status?

So, you are sexually attracted to men, and you are aware of this fact, but you ‘‘chose’’ not to act on those sexual inclinations?

Interesting.

I believe you are confusing same-sex attraction with participation in homosexual sexual relations. One doesn’t necessarily choose to whom he’s attracted, but one does choose whether to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex. Coptic is saying that he chooses not to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex. He never alluded to being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

I’m white. I didn’t have a choice about that. I’m heterosexual. I didn’t have a choice about that either. You can fill in the rest yourself.

Are you trying to setup a proof to say that people with SSA don’t have a choice in whether they engage in sexual liaisons with members of the same sex? That’s absurd.

So you’re saying you actively made a choice about your heterosexuality? Because you just said you chose not to be gay:

I assume when you say “chose not to be gay” you mean “chose not to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.” What he was saying was that he “chose not to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.”

The two of you are confusing same-sex attraction with the choice to engage in homosexual behaviour (same-sex sexual acts).

Maybe it could be stigma in her social group in regard to being gay or perhaps she was a Catholic and decided to follow the church’s teachings on this.

Except the Church doesn’t teach that at all. On the contrary, it calls to chastity those with strong desires to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

This is an extremely clumsy point you are trying to make notwithstanding that comparing homosexuality with paedophilia is not showing you in a good light.

I don’t think he’s trying to paint a moral equivalence. He’s trying to show that, while one may not choose to whom one is attracted, one does choose whether to act on those attractions.

The people pushing for same-sex marriage base their arguments on the fact that people have no choice to whom they’re attracted. What goes unsaid is that one freely chooses to act on said attractions. No one with same-sex attraction has ever had a gun put to their head for refusing to engage in sexual relations with a member of the same sex. It also goes unsaid that you aren’t entitled to be married to someone just because you find them sexually attractive. Marriage isn’t about the state validating your choice of sexual partner. If you believe that it is, we’ll be arguing from totally different premises and won’t get anywhere. We’d first need to reconcile that.

 

[Bradski]

No, the point is made. We cannot give rights based on behavior. It is different than gender, and race. Behavior can change.

Didn’t we just show that sexual preferences can’t be changed? Wasn’t that your whole point about paedophiles? Are you now saying that paedophilia is a choice?

I always find this criterion of “consenting adults” to be a curious one. You don’t really believe that’s all that’s required for sex to not be “abhorrent”, do you, Bradski? Surely you believe there must be some other things that must be met for sex to be “moral”?

Abhorrent and moral are not the same thing. As far as I’m concerned, for someone to perform an immoral act, it would have to have a harmful effect on someone else. However, there are plenty of things that people might get up to that doesn’t have a harmful effect on others that I would find disgusting or repellent (as abhorrent would mean to me).

Like your claim that you are a moral relativist (which, it turns out, you are not, at least as it applies to Free Speech for all), I am highly skeptical that you truly believe that it’s just “2 consenting adults” that’s required.

Having said that, you may bring up examples such as S & M when at least one consenting adult is going to get physically hurt. Is that OK?

Well, can of worms time, I guess. We need some clarification of what I mean by ‘harmful effect’. And that isn’t cut and dry. What it means to me is probably different to you. You may think that being whipped or tied up is harmful in the short term but is something which could have long term harmful effects.

Is it immoral even if the party has agreed to it, knowing full well the consequences? Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself, or have harm caused to you, if there is no negative effect on anyone else?

I’ll get back to you…

As I will on the free speech problem as I’m still working on it (a PM if it’s not relevant to the thread or maybe another thread entirely). Which highlights one reason I’m here. People keep asking difficult questions and I have to work out what I think about them and give valid reasons for my position. Kinda clears the head.

 

[atheistgirl]

One doesn’t necessarily choose to whom he’s attracted, but one does choose whether to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex. Coptic is saying that he chooses not to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex. He never alluded to being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

Well, he can’t choose not to act on same sex sexual attraction, if he’s not attracted to the same sex, can he

I can’t choose not to act on same sex sexual attraction to my closest girlfriend, because I’m not sexually attracted to her.

I can only choose not to act on this attraction, if the attraction is there in the first place

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t we just show that sexual preferences can’t be changed? Wasn’t that your whole point about paedophiles? Are you now saying that paedophilia is a choice?

Abhorrent and moral are not the same thing. As far as I’m concerned, for someone to perform an immoral act, it would have to have a harmful effect on someone else. However, there are plenty of things that people might get up to that doesn’t have a harmful effect on others that I would find disgusting or repellent (as abhorrent would mean to me).

Having said that, you may bring up examples such as S & M when at least one consenting adult is going to get physically hurt. Is that OK?

Well, can of worms time, I guess. We need some clarification of what I mean by ‘harmful effect’. And that isn’t cut and dry. What it means to me is probably different to you. You may think that being whipped or tied up is harmful in the short term but is something which could have long term harmful effects.

Is it immoral even if the party has agreed to it, knowing full well the consequences? Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself, or have harm caused to you, if there is no negative effect on anyone else?

I’ll get back to you…

As I will on the free speech problem as I’m still working on it (a PM if it’s not relevant to the thread or maybe another thread entirely). Which highlights one reason I’m here. People keep asking difficult questions and I have to work out what I think about them and give valid reasons for my position. Kinda clears the head.

 

[PRmerger]

Abhorrent and moral are not the same thing. As far as I’m concerned, for someone to perform an immoral act, it would have to have a harmful effect on someone else. However, there are plenty of things that people might get up to that doesn’t have a harmful effect on others that I would find disgusting or repellent (as abhorrent would mean to me).

Fair enough.

What is your criterion, then, for sex to be considered moral?

 

[stewstew03]

Didn’t we just show that sexual preferences can’t be changed? Wasn’t that your whole point about paedophiles? Are you now saying that paedophilia is a choice?

A “preference” might be immutable, but our response is within our control.

 

[PRmerger]

As I will on the free speech** problem **as I’m still working on it (a PM if it’s not relevant to the thread or maybe another thread entirely). Which highlights one reason I’m here. People keep asking difficult questions and I have to work out what I think about them and give valid reasons for my position. Kinda clears the head.

Free speech “problem”?

What’s the problem with free speech?

Awaiting your PM or your new thread…

 

[stewstew03]

Thanks for the link, I’ve skimmed the blog but I’ll read it properly when I have more time to concentrate on it.

Let me just say, for me, when I first laid eyes on my husband, it was raw, pure, animalistic physical desire

Of course, I played hard to get, made him work for me, and used this time to develop a deep and intense emotional relationship with him, before marriage and sex, but sheesh, was there a lot of cold showers on the way

My sexuality is not fluid. It’s pretty darned fixed and totally focused on one poor guy

I am intensely emotionally and intimately involved with all the women in my life, and my husband.

I would love to be more emotionally intimate with men, but most men I’ve ever come across are emotional illiterates

None of my female friends that I’m intimate with could ever find another woman sexually attractive either. So, despite the ‘‘opinions’’ expressed in this thread, they’re no more free to choose to be lesbians than I can choose not to be attracted to men.

Sarah x

Yeah, I remember the first time I saw your husband… wait - just kidding!

Anyway, here is what the APA says about the fluidity of sexuality:

“Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

Source: APA - Gay and Lesbian Fact Sheet

 

[atheistgirl]

Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

Right.

They become aware they are …

They’re not choosing to be …

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Yeah, I remember the first time I saw your husband… wait - just kidding!

:nunchuk:

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

…maybe it’s something innocent such as dancing naked with friends, which is something, by the way, that NO straight man I know would ever do with his friends…

That had me laughing out loud. I think you’ve nailed the differences between the sexes there. I couldn’t even do it fully clothed and drunk!

Just a thought – to those who believe that same-sex attractions are not based on experiences and conditions during childhood, who believe that it’s based on DNA or in vitro genetic influences, is the same true for attraction to blondes? Or attraction to voluptuous breasts? Are certain men attracted to these things because of my DNA or genes?

In passing, I think it might be genetic.

I believe you are confusing same-sex attraction with participation in homosexual sexual relations. One doesn’t necessarily choose to whom he’s attracted, but one does choose whether to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

True. This happens in jails for example. Men who engage in male/male sex in that situation are simply relieving sexual tension in a particular way. They don’t ‘become’ gay. In fact, most men who have had sex in jail would emphatically deny that they were homosexual. Especially, as I’ve heard anecdotally, if they performed the ‘male’ role in the act.

Coptic is saying that he chooses not to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex. He never alluded to being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

That’s not the picture he paints. Here’s some quotes:

I choose not to be homosexual.

That doesn’t imply he chose not to indulge in sexual relations with a man. He is saying that he chose no to be homosexual. Not being gay was a choice.

when it comes to the notion of choosing to see this attraction as sexual…well then that is not something I choose and I am comforted that in humanity there is attraction to humanity.

He chose not to see the attraction as sexual. Not that he wasn’t going to act on it, but he chose not to be attracted. How on earth is that possible? How can you choose to be sexually attracted or not?

You are heterosexual. This may be behavior…You have a choice about your behavior.

A statement that being heterosexual is ‘behaviour’ and that therefore it is a choice.

Are you trying to setup a proof to say that people with SSA don’t have a choice in whether they engage in sexual liaisons with members of the same sex? That’s absurd.

I’m not and it would be. People can choose to have sex with anyone and anything they choose. But there is no choice as to whom you are sexually attracted to.

Except the Church doesn’t teach that at all. On the contrary, it calls to chastity those with strong desires to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

If she wanted a family (something the church encourages), there would only be one option to her. Marry a man.

I don’t think he’s trying to paint a moral equivalence. He’s trying to show that, while one may not choose to whom one is attracted, one does choose whether to act on those attractions.

He was implying that if gay people can’t help it, then paedophiles can’t either. With the very obvious yet unstated conclusion, should we simply agree, that if we can’t blame homosexuals for what they do, then we can’t blame paedophiles either. Tell me that is not the clumsiest argument in this thread so far and that it doesn’t reflect well on the person making it.

The people pushing for same-sex marriage base their arguments on the fact that people have no choice to whom they’re attracted. What goes unsaid is that one freely chooses to act on said attractions.

I’ve no problem with that. But you see gay sex as wrong and a lot of people don’t. So acting freely on it is not a problem. It’s that problem that is never going to be solved.

It also goes unsaid that you aren’t entitled to be married to someone just because you find them sexually attractive.

Apart from the obvious limitations, and personally I wouldn’t recommend it, but why can’t you marry someone because you are sexually attracted to them?

 

[Bradski]

What is your criterion, then, for sex to be considered moral?

I’ve used the words ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ because you’ve used them in the questions you’ve asked. But they wouldn’t be words I’d use in relation to sex. The question above doesn’t really make sense to me. If I was asked it in isolation I’d probably ask what you actually meant by it.

But…if I’ve classed some type of sex as immoral – that which causes harm to a third party (and possibly one of the partners?), then ‘moral sex’ (which really sounds odd to me), would be sex where no harm was done. That’s pretty obvious, so I don’t know why you asked. I’m hoping there isn’t a ‘gotcha’ heading my way.

A “preference” might be immutable, but our response is within our control.

Indeed. And on a Catholic forum, that is a valid comment. But in the great ‘out there’, if someone thinks that having a sexual preference and acting on it is no different if it’s the same sex or the opposite sex, then that comment carries no weight.

“Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

I think that that’s entirely reasonable and doesn’t detract from some of the arguments made. Most people are brought up to believe that they ‘should’ be attracted to the opposite sex. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. But at some point, some people realise that they don’t feel as they are ‘supposed’ to feel. I’m sure we all know someone who has been there.

 

[atheistgirl]

But…if I’ve classed some type of sex as immoral – that which causes harm to a third party (and possibly one of the partners?), then ‘moral sex’ (which really sounds odd to me), would be sex where no harm was done. That’s pretty obvious, so I don’t know why you asked. I’m hoping there isn’t a ‘gotcha’ heading my way.

Have you harmed someone even if they don’t know they’ve been harmed?

I could have an affair and know for a fact my husband would never find out. Let’s say the guy is single so no wife (or husband ) on his side to worry about.

Have I harmed my husband, even though he will never ever find out?

Have I behaved immorally?

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

I could have an affair and know for a fact my husband would never find out. Let’s say the guy is single so no wife (or husband ) on his side to worry about.

Have I harmed my husband, even though he will never ever find out?

Have I behaved immorally?

The question was about sex and my original response was that it it’s OK between consenting adults. The type of question that you just asked has come up before and I had to clarify my position.

My response was that I consider the definition of consenting adults to be people who are free to make that consent. If you are in a committed relationship with someone, then you are, to me, not able to freely consent to have sex with someone else.

Outside of a sexual scenario between two consenting adults, can you behave immorally if no harm is done? Well, I guess in the case of lying to your partner if you were seeing someone else (even if there was no sex involved), then the relationship between you and your husband has been harmed – even if he is unaware of it.

 

[atheistgirl]

The question was about sex and my original response was that it it’s OK between consenting adults. The type of question that you just asked has come up before and I had to clarify my position.

My response was that I consider the definition of consenting adults to be people who are free to make that consent. If you are in a committed relationship with someone, then you are, to me, not able to freely consent to have sex with someone else.

Outside of a sexual scenario between two consenting adults, can you behave immorally if no harm is done? Well, I guess in the case of lying to your partner if you were seeing someone else (even if there was no sex involved), then the relationship between you and your husband has been harmed – even if he is unaware of it.

Pretty much how I see it too.

Can you think of a single negative social consequence from a secular point of view if homosexual marriage is placed legally on the same footing as heterosexual marriage?

I can’t.

I’ve read Kolasinski’s article from 8 years ago that gets rolled out all the time, but it’s hard to take it seriously.

Sarah x

 

[RobbyS]

MY SIDE? Wait, what? How can anyone “sit on it.” The things is a product of a researcher deciding to pursue it, getting funding, and spending rather a large amount of his professional life conducting, analyzing and publishing it. Just because someone does a study doesn’t mean someone else is going to come along and say, “Hey, I think I’ll replicate that!”

There are all kinds of experiments and researches that have never been replicated.

There all kinds of researches that have been replicated and refined and that have clearly shown the genetic link to homosexuality, but those we don’t believe, or cite or read.

This one thing a guy did, which has results at variance with a number of other studies, now suddenly gets waved everyone’s face while proclaiming SCIENCE SAYS GAY PARENTS BAD!!!

Sorry, it just doesn’t work like that. You want to start a whole thread just on that study, I’ll go through it and point out the problems. But no one has proven anything at all in any direction. That’s the “scientific fact.”

No, it says a lot about how repressed and closeted gay people were until very recently. When gays started coming out in the last twenty years, they divorced their staright partners and often took their children with them. And if there is instability, like there’s not with heteros, it is certainly attributable to the fact that our culture forced these people into the shadows and compelled them into unnatural ways of living.

"Unnatural ways of living?” There has been a lot of stuff published on the “naturalness” of homosexuality, but it has about as much validity as “Nazi science” or “ “Soviet Science.” What you speak of as “genetics” is less connected with the study of the genome than with the sort of population studies on which Darwin based is theory of natural selection. Is homosexuality a trait? Not that we can prove. It is not like trying to determine if alcoholism is genetically “determined.” Because by definition, homosexuality has no lines of descent.

 

[PRmerger]

My response was that I consider the definition of consenting adults to be people who are free to make that consent. If you are in a committed relationship with someone, then you are, to me, not able to freely consent to have sex with someone else.

But why aren’t you “free”, Bradski?

If you want to have sex with someone else, besides your beloved,* who has any authority over you to stop you from doing this, *if your paradigm is truly “consenting adults”?