Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[thewanderer]

Well, the “problem” (-for some) is that a) those are not legally recognized as marriages and b) it doesn’t recognize the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage. Mind you, I OPPOSE same-sex marriage but I understand why some people don’t think a domestic partnership is enough for them.

And thats precisely the thinking that I don’t understand. Why are people giving so much power to the government that they feel as though their personal commitment to another person is somehow lacking unless the govt officially approves of it? The only reason I will get married legally is for the benefits. If there were no particular benefits then I really wouldn’t in the least care about having my relationship and commitment recognized by the state through legal marriage. I would still be married. I would still be commited to my spouse. I really don’t need the govt.'s “approval” as if my commitment were somehow incomplete without it. I honestly couldn’t care less whether the govt. recognizes me as married or not and I don’t understand why other people do.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I like the term “homoskeptical”, which means being skeptical of:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined and always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic race or sex
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and maybe even promoted

No, he wanted another term for someone who is a gay rights supporter.

I’d like to address the second point, though. Even though it could be somewhat biologically determined, I don’t believe it’s fixed. However, even if it is not a biological characteristic, something that someone has an emotional connection to should not be discriminated against, such as religion. I don’t see why sexuality must be different. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be advocating some kind of society where homosexuals are forced to remain “in the closet”.

For the record, I don’t believe sexuality in general is fixed. Including heterosexuality.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t believe the guy is deceiving himself. He knows he’s a homosexual. It’s a rather odd relationship, though. There probably isn’t much sexual gratitude involved. It really just seems like they’d be careers for children rather than a wife and husband. Friends, more than anything.

However, it’d be difficult for someone to find a woman prepared to do that. I’ve heard articles from people about stuff like this, and normally marriages end or become in danger after information like this is revealed (of course, the man on the blog admitted he was gay before they married, so it’s a bit different). I wouldn’t imagine there would be people prepared to do this. I recall in a sort of write-in advice article in a newspaper there was a women who found gay porn on her husband’s laptop, asking if this meant he was gay. She wrote herself that, if he was gay, she felt the marriage would have been a phoney.

But thats just it. They claim to have a very healthy sex life. Thats why I think this article in particular is interesting to bring up. It really challenges people to question their assumptions. I mean, you could just brush off what they’re saying and assume they are lying when they say that they have a healthy sex life, but I see no reason to do so. So the question is, how is it possible, and what does that mean about the real understanding of what SSA is?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

But thats just it. They claim to have a very healthy sex life. Thats why I think this article in particular is interesting to bring up. It really challenges people to question their assumptions. I mean, you could just brush off what they’re saying and assume they are lying when they say that they have a healthy sex life, but I see no reason to do so. So the question is, how is it possible, and what does that mean about the real understanding of what SSA is?

Oh, I missed that. No, it doesn’t really change our understanding of same-sex attraction. It means he’s having sex with someone he’s not attracted to. Or he is attracted to her and he’s wrong about being homosexual. Both are acceptable, and make sense.

Sexual orientation is who you’re attracted to. If a homosexual man has sex with a heterosexual woman, he is still homosexual.

Of course, you are subtly hinting that you believe homosexual men marrying heterosexual women is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but I don’t believe many people would like the idea. I certainly wouldn’t marry a homosexual. Of course, if I was already in a relationship and they told me I may warm up to the idea, but I’d be crushed to know they weren’t attracted to me and I’d feel a bit angry at them for entering into a relationship and keeping such a secret.

 

[thewanderer]

Oh, I missed that. No, it doesn’t really change our understanding of same-sex attraction. It means he’s having sex with someone he’s not attracted to. Or he is attracted to her and he’s wrong about being homosexual. Both are acceptable, and make sense.

Sexual orientation is who you’re attracted to. If a homosexual man has sex with a heterosexual woman, he is still homosexual.

Of course, you are subtly hinting that you believe homosexual men marrying heterosexual women is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but I don’t believe many people would like the idea. I certainly wouldn’t marry a homosexual. Of course, if I was already in a relationship and they told me I may warm up to the idea, but I’d be crushed to know they weren’t attracted to me and I’d feel a bit angry at them for entering into a relationship and keeping such a secret.

lol, no, I am not trying to encourage homosexuals to marry heterosexuals. I said as much in my first post. I think that when it works out as it has in this case it is a good thing, but I honestly think that there are few people who would be able to enter into a relationship like this. They would need to be truly honest not just with each other about their orientations, but also with themselves and only from that point could they have a chance of forming such a relationship, and, as you say, there are not that many people who would be willing to enter a relationship with someone who is not attracted to them physically.

I honestly just find this article to be extremely thought provoking about this whole issue. Not just about what constitutes someons sexual orientation, but about what true love is, what a truly loving relationship involves, and about the relationship between sexual orientation and sexual love and fulfillment with someone you truly love. Because this article ‘crosses the divide’ if you will, and shows a picture of a truly loving, healthy, sexually fulfilling relationship between two people even though one of them lacks physical attraction for the other, it helps to give more insight into the delicate relation between the factors of a truly succesful and loving relationship. I just thought it would be interesting to talk about it, and, particularly, to hear opinions of those who themselves have SSA. No hidden agenda here.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Oh, I missed that. No, it doesn’t really change our understanding of same-sex attraction. It means he’s having sex with someone he’s not attracted to. Or he is attracted to her and he’s wrong about being homosexual. Both are acceptable, and make sense.

Sexual orientation is who you’re attracted to. If a homosexual man has sex with a heterosexual woman, he is still homosexual.

Of course, you are subtly hinting that you believe homosexual men marrying heterosexual women is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but I don’t believe many people would like the idea. I certainly wouldn’t marry a homosexual. Of course, if I was already in a relationship and they told me I may warm up to the idea, but I’d be crushed to know they weren’t attracted to me and I’d feel a bit angry at them for entering into a relationship and keeping such a secret.

Or he loves her and is attracted to her, but not sexually.

 

[thewanderer]

Or he loves her and is attracted to her, but not sexually.

Yes, I think thats what can be challenging about our understanding of sexual orientation. If Josh is correct, it is simply the physical attraction one feels at the sight of another person of the sex you are attracted to. It is not the whole array of feelings involved in a loving relationship, but just that particular visual/physical attraction, which is very important and helpful in a relationship, but not absolutely necessary.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Or he loves her and is attracted to her, but not sexually.

Well, yeah. Which is why I said they would be more like friends.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, yeah. Which is why I said they would be more like friends.

So, friends with benefits? Or what?

Kind of confusing, huh?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So, friends with benefits? Or what?

Kind of confusing, huh?

Yeah, it’s awfully confusing. They’re not really your traditional wife and husband, though. They certainly lack something most relationships would have. I don’t know. Or care.

 

[markeverett49]

And thats precisely the thinking that I don’t understand. Why are people giving so much power to the government that they feel as though their personal commitment to another person is somehow lacking unless the govt officially approves of it? .

I think the desire is for societal approval and this is an avenue toward that end.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Gays could, and would, still have families.

So do non-married heterosexuals. Case example are ethnic Black-Americans were roughly 70% of Black-American women giving birth in hospitals are not married.

People of the same sex can not produce a child with each other.

Besides, we offer up marriage to people who don’t want to have a family, and it’s not as though allowing gay marriage will mean families no longer exist. People will still have children. Life will still continue to go on.

That is all beside the point. Why the state has treated married heterosexuals asymmetrically (unequally) from promiscuous heterosexuals or unchaste heterosexuals is because the family has been considered the basic unit of society.

Children are created in Black-America - outside of marriages - all the time and Black-America is rampant with homicides and many other social pathologies. It is in stark contrast to what it looked like pre-Civil Rights era, in which Black-Americans were born primarily to married parents, reared in married two-parent homes, and had a far lower incarceration rate than whites.

But looking at some of the images of black children (or white children for that matter) going to school, during forced desegregation in the South is telling. They dress liked they were going to church on a Sunday. Or as most WWII generation Black-Americans tell it… Black-America was way more socially conservative back then. (Most of them in fact question how much good came out of the Civil Rights Movement - given their small business were traded in on large scale for generations on welfare under the former AFDC where men were forbidden by the state from being in the household)

I’m not against a homosexual or lesbian couple, by the way, raising a child or children.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of married heterosexuals end up producing children. That stable - or presumably stable (not all families are) - familial institution is what the states traditionally wanted to promote and help protect, for as they believed, the better of the country.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, yeah. Which is why I said they would be more like friends.

Except not. Thats the whole point. If you read the descriptions they give about their relationship it doesn’t sound anything like the relationship between people who are “just friends”. They sound as though they are deeply, and truly in love and that their sexual experiences are much, much more than simple physical stimulation and pleasure. There is a much deeper intimacy which they have been able to acheive despite the fact that Josh is not visually/physically attracted to his wife. Thats why I said it is a very challenging story. If we are to believe Josh and Lolly they are able to enjoy all of the essential points of a passionately romantic relationship even though Josh is not physically attracted to his wife. Do you simply believe he is mistaken/lying about something?

 

[thewanderer]

I think the desire is for societal approval and this is an avenue toward that end.

If that is the aim (which I think you are correct about) then they are misusing govenment.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So do non-married heterosexuals. Case example are ethnic Black-Americans were roughly 70% of Black-American women giving birth in hospitals are not married.

People of the same sex can not produce a child with each other.

So? You’re argument was that marriage only exists for families, and yet you admitted gays can still have families. So, evidently your issue with same-sex marriage is not that homosexuals don’t have families, because you admit that they can.

That is all beside the point. Why the state has treated married heterosexuals asymmetrically (unequally) from promiscuous heterosexuals or unchaste heterosexuals is because the family has been considered the basic unit of society.

But the state hasn’t done this at all. Promiscuous homosexuals can still get married and still live promiscuously in an open-relationship. Unchaste heterosexuals aren’t treated differently, either. They can also get married. Evidently, the state doesn’t seem to do much to make sure only couples who plan to have children can marry.

Children are created in Black-America - outside of marriages - all the time and Black-America is rampant with homicides and many other social pathologies. It is in stark contrast to what it looked like pre-Civil Rights era, in which Black-Americans were born primarily to married parents, reared in married two-parent homes, and had a far lower incarceration rate than whites.

But looking at some of the images of black children (or white children for that matter) going to school, during forced desegregation in the South is telling. They dress liked they were going to church on a Sunday. Or as most WWII generation Black-Americans tell it… Black-America was way more socially conservative back then. (Most of them in fact question how much good came out of the Civil Rights Movement - given their small business were traded in on large scale for generations on welfare under the former AFDC where men were forbidden by the state from being in the household)

What relevance is this? Apart from trying to slip in some rather questionable and controversial comments about the black community, I don’t see what relevance this has to same-sex marriage.

I’m not against a homosexual or lesbian couple, by the way, raising a child or children.

Then why not allow them to marry?

What I am saying is that the vast majority of married heterosexuals end up producing children. That stable - or presumably stable (not all families are) - familial institution is what the states traditionally wanted to promote and help protect, for as they believed, the better of the country.

Right, is this where your comments about the black community come in? I’m sure you do support most of the civil rights movement, and don’t support segregation, but I’ll ignore that for now. I mean, the movement was broad and even included giving blacks the voting right, so I’m sure you don’t disagree with all that was achieved by the movement. I hope not, anyway.

Okay, fine. What I don’t understand is that if you’re fine with giving homosexuals the right to adopt couples, then you’re probably fine with giving them Civil Unions that are pretty much marriages in everything but name. So, what difference does it make? Why not just give them marriage?

 

[BroomWagon]

Oh. Is it another anti-gay code word, like “Family Values”? Homosexualist just sounds like a way to dehumanise those supporting gay rights. Makes it sound like some violent fanatical religious group rather than people who simply support gay rights. You’re welcome to use it, but I feel it undermines any arguments you may use slightly.

But Family Values is a word that has been around for a long time. I am not sure, the first I believe I heard about it had to do with that Murphy Brown show in 1992. So this word has long been used before the current goings ons.

 

[BroomWagon]

So? You’re argument was that marriage only exists for families, and yet you admitted gays can still have families. So, evidently your issue with same-sex marriage is not that homosexuals don’t have families, because you admit that they can.

But the state hasn’t done this at all. Promiscuous homosexuals can still get married and still live promiscuously in an open-relationship. Unchaste heterosexuals aren’t treated differently, either. They can also get married. Evidently, the state doesn’t seem to do much to make sure only couples who plan to have children can marry.

What relevance is this? Apart from trying to slip in some rather questionable and controversial comments about the black community, I don’t see what relevance this has to same-sex marriage.

Then why not allow them to marry?

Right, is this where your comments about the black community come in? I’m sure you do support most of the civil rights movement, and don’t support segregation, but I’ll ignore that for now. I mean, the movement was broad and even included giving blacks the voting right, so I’m sure you don’t disagree with all that was achieved by the movement. I hope not, anyway.

Okay, fine. What I don’t understand is that if you’re fine with giving homosexuals the right to adopt couples, then you’re probably fine with giving them Civil Unions that are pretty much marriages in everything but name.** So, what difference does it make? Why not just give them marriage?**

Because they are only around 2-3% of the population? I don’t know if that is the answer but to change and redefine marriage for that small amount of the population for every man, woman and child is what many find problematic.

To change the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons, making marriage a genderless institution is what many have a problem with.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

But Family Values is a word that has been around for a long time. I am not sure, the first I believe I heard about it had to do with that Murphy Brown show in 1992. So this word has long been used before the current goings ons.

Yeah, but most people see it as meaning take care of your family, and be good to them. However, when anti-gay folk use it it seems to be code language for “Stop the gays! Stop the abortionists! Stop the liberals!” It’s actually quite a sneaky tactic. After all, if you claim to support “Family Values”, you’re making your anti-homosexual views seem like a positive thing. It also makes it hard for your opponent to argue against you. After all, how can they claim they oppose “Family Values”, something that sounds so wonderful?

 

[BroomWagon]

So do non-married heterosexuals. Case example are ethnic Black-Americans were roughly 70% of Black-American women giving birth in hospitals are not married.

People of the same sex can not produce a child with each other.

That is all beside the point. Why the state has treated married heterosexuals asymmetrically (unequally) from promiscuous heterosexuals or unchaste heterosexuals is because the family has been considered the basic unit of society.

Children are created in Black-America - outside of marriages - all the time and Black-America is rampant with homicides and many other social pathologies. It is in stark contrast to what it looked like pre-Civil Rights era, in which Black-Americans were born primarily to married parents, reared in married two-parent homes, and had a far lower incarceration rate than whites.

But looking at some of the images of black children (or white children for that matter) going to school, during forced desegregation in the South is telling. They dress liked they were going to church on a Sunday. Or as most WWII generation Black-Americans tell it… Black-America was way more socially conservative back then. (Most of them in fact question how much good came out of the Civil Rights Movement - given their small business were traded in on large scale for generations on welfare under the former AFDC where men were forbidden by the state from being in the household)

I’m not against a homosexual or lesbian couple, by the way, raising a child or children.

**What I am saying is that the vast majority of married heterosexuals end up producing children. **That stable - or presumably stable (not all families are) - familial institution is what the states traditionally wanted to promote and help protect, for as they believed, the better of the country.

One point of the Same Sex Marriage Argument is when they say “look at all of the infertile couples that can’t produce chi9ldren” as I’m sure you know. I know one response to this is that a man and a woman, even infertile can always be a father and mother to a child.

Another argument about “gay” adoptions would seem to be that if there are a number of children in need of parents, should they be denied going into the home of a same sex couple.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Because they are only around 2-3% of the population? I don’t know if that is the answer but to change and redefine marriage for that small amount of the population for every man, woman and child is what many find problematic.

To change the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons, making marriage a genderless institution is what many have a problem with.

Why? I don’t get why that’s an issue. Voter used to mean white male. Should we only allow white males to vote again, to keep it “traditional”?

Of course, if you’re okay with there being Civil Unions that are marriages in everything but name, then I’m fine with it.

One point of the Same Sex Marriage Argument is when they say “look at all of the infertile couples that can’t produce chi9ldren” as I’m sure you know. I know one response to this is that a man and a woman, even infertile can always be a father and mother to a child.

Okay. I’d agree. Your point being?

Another argument about “gay” adoptions would seem to be that if there are a number of children in need of parents, should they be denied going into the home of a same sex couple.

No. They need parents, right? So they should get them, right?