Homosexual marriage

[JoBelle]

As I was the one who initially tossed in the "consenting adults" comment, I feel obligated to state my views in regard to "other" adults who couple.

You see...

If John and Bob meet and decide to become a couple, their decision will affect them, as it will the people in their lives. Family and friends, etc. Each of these folks will have emotional and social demands to deal with that they didn't have before. They can choose to condemn the couple for not living up to their expectations, or they can support them with love. THIS is much like any reltionship. If John married the assistant-crack-***** from down the street, he might have an easier time explaining that choice that explaining his love for Bob, but that's another story. 🙄

You see, most people make homosexuality out to be about nothing more than sex. It's not just about sex. It's about all the same dynamics that ANY two people can have. Sex is a byproduct of an initial attraction. Same sex couple don't inadvertantly have sex and say, "WOW! I'm GAY now!" 😛

Now, If John decides his sister is really delightful and falls madly in love....ummmm....well???

Sex, being a natural byproduct of an adult "couple," can be a very dangerous thing to closely related persons of the opposite gender. It can result in a variety of "genetic oopses" should a child be the result. Now, I'm sure the "what if it were two brothers?" argument can be posed. I've no "logical" argument there. I find it "icky," as I couldn't see two people coming from the same womb as a "couple" but as it can't produce a child with physical ailments....well, I can't stand against it on the same premise.

I too am fed up with many of the social changes of late. I find leniency in the law to be intolerable. I think corruption in government and business is something people should be trying to correct. (It should be enough to make you hang your head in shame.) I think that the uncountable numbers of CHILDREN living in shelters or poverty is a inexcusable! These are things that will be the corruption of a strong nation (no matter which you call home!) What two adults do to with their partner....who John kisses goodnight....if both people in the wedding wear a white gown....or what it takes for ANYONE to get the big "O".....well, those don't figure into "what really matters" to me.

When the babies are fed, the houses are built and the the bankruptcy totals don't equal more than the combined income of every resident of Colorado..lol........then I'll worry about who's loving and sexing 😉 the "right way."🙄

Joby

 

[TicklingDuo]

I'm not an avid reader of the Bible, but does this holy book have inconsistentcies and contradictions? TicklingDuo mentioned those 4 quotes (the 4th I've lived by all my life), but I don't recall any passages mentioning the sins of homosexuality (1st or so century Romans and Greeks had plenty of homosexual relationships I was told). Perhaps some intolerant Christians rewrit the Bible like the Taliban rewrit the Koran. But I could be wrong again...

Actually, chimp, there ARE passages that condemn homosexual relations (and any other sexual activity outside of marriage). The reason that I didn't state those is because they were not related to the point I was trying to make which is simply that we have no right to judge one another. Also, I tend to look at the OT more in light of Jesus' own words in the NT. Often you see things that have been blown out of proportion that HE rejects/renounces.

Ann (who feels the Bible should be understood before being quoted)

 

[venray]

WOW!

One week away and I find some really good threads on all kinds of topics that I missed.. Well....I will add my 2 cents worth to this one....

First.. we speak about the "definition" of marriage as a union between a man and a woman....Seems to me we "define" a family as a mother,father and children, but it doesnt mean that a single mom or Dad with kids can be considered less of a family.

Who cares what the "normal" definition of a marriage is? Who cares what the "normal" definition of ANYTHING is...If 2 people want to live together and raise kids (or not) and love and commit to each other for the rest of their lives...then what is WRONG with that?

Just because some believe that it is not "natural" or "normal"? What kind of world are we living in when we condemn people for loving one another? ....

Marriage is a piece of paper that grants a lot of rights that single people dont have ...if we cant make same sex marriage legal for whatever reasons...at the very least we should recognize people cohabitating as a family unit and give them the same benefits as others...

alright 4 cents worth....

Ven

 

[Bagelfather]

Homosexual Marriages

The only argument against gay relationhships (and in turn gay marriages) is that it is a sin according to the bible. This is listed in the first and second edition (Old and New Testiment), in different ways of course.

That being said I should point out that on a personal level I have no problem with gay relationships or marriages.

It is very difficult to just "discard" the bible in this argument. Yes if you went from a completely logistic point of view few people would have any problems with it.

Unfortunately the issue is in values that people have. As people go through life some of these views change, but most are very set in their ways. You are not going to convince most people who are of the Judeo/Christian origin and are religious to think otherwise. As disturbing as it may seem I have to support their right to have that view. As long as their views do not harm another individual (violent attacks, taunting, hazing, etc) they have a right to their beliefs. That is what our Constitution guarantees. Consequently they should understand that those of an opposing viewpoint have a right to that viewpoint, even if they think it is the wrong one.

On a bit of a tangent my roommate's brother likes to put ketchup in milkshakes (yes this is true). Now I find that gross, most everyone thinks it is equally disgusting and wouldn't want to see him do that in front of us. However he has the right to eat his milkshake the way he wants to. It is the same with the gay lifestyle. It is a tough line to walk but that is the way our country and life in general is set up. Every now and then someone's going to put ketchup in their milkshake and you're just going to have to deal with it, or move to another table.

I know many gay couples who are very happy together and act as a married couple. Marriage is a commitment of love to the end of your days with someone. To have it recognized just gives you benefits in the material world.

A lot of people say that gays are promiscuous. Okay.. how many sluts (men and women) did you know in high school, at work, on the lacross team, or at the local club? I know just as many heterosexuals who are just as promiscuous as anyone else. That argument doesn't hold much water with me.

Personally I think it is wrong that gays are not allowed to bond at the level that the rest of us are. I think it is strange that among people here there are those who think the gay lifestyle is wrong. Many of you ticklephiles think the idea of bondage for tickling is great. Well I got news for you, most places in the country have blue laws stating that is illegal, or implied as illegal stating what type of things can be done in the bedroom. I'm sure there are those who are gay who think "tickling...eewww freaky." But once again, you will always find that person putting ketchup where it doesn't belong, or so you say.

I noticed they passed an "anti gay marriage" act in congress about not recognizing gay marriages. I'm not sure on the details but I have some news many of you didn't think of. All it takes is ONE state to fully legalize gay marriages and all the rest have to recognize them from that state. The question then becomes an issue of states right vs. federal.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

So the question is, how much can congress run the show of making the marriages unrecognizeable in other states?

Section 9
Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

However, this means that those married before congress passed the law MUST be recognized.

 

[giggledude]

Warning: I've just reread this and it seems unusually stuffy, even for me, but I'll post it anyway. You stand warned!

There is at least one case in the works of a couple trying to dissolve their Vermont civil union. As neither resides in Vermont, Vermont can't dissolve it without a change of state law. Connecticut said it couldn't dissolve a relationship it didn't recognize, and now the whole thing has entered the realm of the courts.

The sort of mindset that seems to work best with the nay stance is set out in the novel *The Bell*, in which various members of a lay community attached to an abbey give weekly sermons. One of the two main members of the community preaches in favour of innocence and simplicity, that the way to live best is to follow rules without embellishment - "Truth is not glorious, it is merely enjoined; sodomy is not disgusting, it is simply forbidden." One must do A,B,C, and avoid X,Y,Z - but what happens often is that people decide that X is more or less okay now, and that the reasons for prohibiting Y no longer apply, but that Z - no, they won't even entertain ideas that Z could ever be permissible... etc. There strikes me in many of the nay posts the attitude of disgust. Then too there are many that can be summed up attitudinally as, "these are the facts - you lose," which fits with the simple attitude. But when the writers go on to examine and understand A/B/C, they ought to be able to come up with some compassionate suggestion for what a Z person should do. It reminds me of the Abstinence Until Marriage campaign. It neatly allows almost all its representatives to sweep homosexuality under the rug. Not only don't they address what young gay people ought to do, the question doesn't even get raised. I have heard of there being one branch of AUM that does specifically deal with the specific situation of same-sexers, but in general AUM strikes me as one of the most brilliant if inadvertent successes of heterosexual presumption.

Of course the temptation to point at someone else's sin and play it up as unspeakably awful is universal and strikes people on all sides of various spectra. It just seems to come up here more often than with numerous other moral issues because so many people are immune to being tempted by this particular sin. Ranting about President Clinton's conduct proved dangerous stone-throwing for many of his glass-house-resident opponents, but here there are many on firm ground. The book that comes to mind I flipped through once after seeing the author on television - *I Kissed Dating Goodbye*, about a Christian understanding of the shortcomings of a dating lifestyle vs a courting lifestyle. The one thing I remember about the book is the author recalling how disgusted he was when he was cruised by two homosexuals on the street, but he later appreciated the incident when it brought home to him that God was just as hurt and displeased by his own lustful regard of women.

I would ask what people think to be the specific positive and negative consequences homosexual marriage would have on society. Many of the yea sayers have outlined the negative effects of not having such an option, but I've seen this debate on other boards and there have been interesting points raised on both sides about how people and society would change. Here I'll recommend the book *Three Guineas*, which gave me a real feel for the depth and linkage of societal changes.

There hasn't been much mentioned on the choice/change angle, and I wonder what people think about Marilyn vos Savant's theory that there are "genuine" (and thus ineradicable) same-sexers and "apparent" ones who may even present as being born that way, but truly just appear so because of some psychological factor or other, sometimes a disorder. I haven't found anything that better explains why some people have been able to "convert" out of the "lifestyle" with such complete success and some, despite sincere and genuine attempts, meet with nothing but anguished failure.

Our thread foundress has raised the issue of sexual fluidity, to which I'll add the questions, How relevant is it to same-sex marriage; Should the bisexual condition be given separate consideration from the homosexual condition; and How do differences between male and female sexuality and same-sexuality affect the SSM question and one's final position?

Oh, dear, enough already. Sorry to be so long-winded.

 

[siamese dream]

That was very well thought-out and well-worded, giggledude. You raise even more interesting points on this topic, and I'm not certain if I can even think of anything to respond to all of them, but here are a few thoughts.

About choice/change... I think you're right, that there are some people in this world who consider themselves homosexual, but may not truly be, or feel they are so because of something that happened to them earlier in life, or because of some problem. And then there are gay people who truly are homosexual and could never change what they are, no matter how much grief and guilt it may cause them to feel. This is why I feel it is dangerous to enforce hatred and disgust towards homosexuality... I have read in different articles on this that there is an extremely high suicide rate among young gay teenagers, and one of the big factors in this is when the young person "comes out" as gay, and their family/friends reject them for it and, in some cases, their family even disowns them. I could think of nothing more emotionally painful than being cast aside by my family for being honest about who I am. As a straight person, I don't have to worry about this particular situation myself, but I can have empathy for those who do.
Another thought on the choice/change, I think the idea of feeling a certain way sexually because of some outside influence isn't only restricted to homosexuality... there could also be straight people who feel certain things are true about their own sexuality, but may have been turned towards these sexual attitudes because of something that happened to them earlier in life, or because of a problem. Sexuality is a very complicated issue to discuss... and just as there are many examples of a healthy sexuality, there are many more of an unhealthy sexuality that only causes the person pain. Sex can be a very beautiful thing, and it can also be very destructive.

As far as bisexuality's relevance to same-sex marriage; I'm not sure what the question is here. My feelings are that love is about two people who are best friends, who accept each other for who and what they are, who want to give themselves to one another and to make each other happy. Okay, so if I am truly bisexual, then some people might think that means that I would only be satisfied if I could have sexual encounters with both men and women. But I don't feel this way. I raised the scenario earlier about myself being open to falling in love with a woman, if she was "the right one". Now, lets say that I meet this 'right woman', and decide to commit to her. I would be a 'bisexual', since all my previous experiences had been with men... but if I truly loved this woman, I would have to devote myself to her only, and I couldn't be continuing physical relationships with men. To me, that would be selfish, and would show that I only really loved her under 'certain conditions'.

However, this whole scenario is based on my belief in being faithful to your partner. To me, a committed relationship is a monogamous one...be it between a woman and a man, two men, or two women. I understand that there are many other people in this world who do not want a monogamous relationship...and there are many couples who have an 'open relationship', continuing to have sexual relationships with others outside of their marriage or their relationship. To each their own; but I wouldn't be happy with someone who was unsatisfied with me sexually, and had to go outside of our relationship for satisfaction.

Shark said something earlier in the topic about 'I personally find male homosexuality to be disgusting, but I have a less extreme opinion about female homosexuality'. I think this statement is relevant to giggledude's question about the differences between male and female sexuality, and how it affects the topic. Shark's comment seems to be a popular attitude among a lot of straight men... I know many straight men who feel weird about gay men, disgusted, and yet think less of a lesbian relationship...some even find lesbians to be 'cute', or even a sexual turn-on. How much lesbian porn is out there that caters solely to the straight-male market??? Personally, I think that it makes no sense for a straight man to have no problem with lesbians, but a problem with gay men. They are two sides of the same coin, they are both homosexual relationships... But I understand that sexual acts between two women are often seen as "less offensive" than sexual acts between two men. The reasons for this could be because of the nature of certain homosexual acts between two men, or because a straight man can't really feel 'threatened' by an act between two women because it excludes males entirely, or it could simply be a matter of personal preference.

Anyway, let me make a point and quit yammering, I think that two consenting, adult lovers should be left alone to love each other in the way they see fit... if they want to marry, let them marry. Who am I, who are any of us, to say what is 'right' or 'wrong', especially in matters of love? I know what is right FOR ME, but that is all.

 

[Featherdfingers]

Thanks for turning me onto this thread, SD...

WARNING: The following post is going to attempt to thoughtfully and seriously (at least as much as I'm capable of!) discuss the nature of bisexuality, polygamy, societal sexual hypocrisy, and incestuous relationships. As a result, the following opinions and/or implications will probably offend some of the intended reading audience of these boards. If reading information on these subjects tends to make your blood boil at a rapid clip, the best possible advice I can give to you is to read NO FURTHER.

Okay, so if I am truly bisexual, then some people might think that means that I would only be satisfied if I could have sexual encounters with both men and women. But I don't feel this way.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about bisexuality--and seeing how it's viewed as a "controversial" form of sexuality, there are a ton of misconceptions--is that bisexual people somehow crave more sex with more partners in more positions more times a day with none of the commitment or responsibility. That's not bisexuality--that's nymphomania (not that there's anything wrong with that, especially on the off-chance that I get stuck on a desert island with a pile of Baywatch babes who seem to be *ahem* "afflicted." The truth of the matter is that there are probably an equal amount of "players" and "true romantics" (and plenty of people stuck in the gray area in betwixt) in every sort of sexual categoty--gay, bi, straight--and every other category I somehow might be missing.

I understand that there are many other people in this world who do not want a monogamous relationship...and there are many couples who have an 'open relationship', continuing to have sexual relationships with others outside of their marriage or their relationship. To each their own; but I wouldn't be happy with someone who was unsatisfied with me sexually, and had to go outside of our relationship for satisfaction.

Well, I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to polygamous relationships. There are a fair share of people in "open relationships" that seem to be infinitely happy with both their relationship to their "spouse," and their relationships to other people--I'd say the happiness rate in these situations is at least comparable to monogamous relationships (which, considering the divorce rate these days, isn't necessarily anything to write home about). As a matter of fact, quite a few times in these relationships the two people never "play" without each other--they will only invite third and fourth parties over if both parts of the couple are entirely comfortable. So it's not exactly "Sleeping Beauty," but then again not everyone is exactly cut from the Disney mold. The bottom line in a relationship has to be honesty. If two people feel as though they won't be fulfilled sexually from each person their entire lifetime (and they've tried EVERYTHING before making that claim)--isn't it better for them to be honest and with each other, and realistic about their situation, as opposed to torturing themselves in the name of love? I admit the nature of polygamy isn't exactly romantic (I am more or less just playing devil's advocate here)-- but it does offer opportunities for experimentation and personal growth that a monogamous relationship would immediately stifle and repress.

I know many straight men who feel weird about gay men, disgusted, and yet think less of a lesbian relationship...some even find lesbians to be 'cute', or even a sexual turn-on. Personally, I think that it makes no sense for a straight man to have no problem with lesbians, but a problem with gay men.

You've just pinpointed one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sexual hypocrisies in the modern American sexscape. Just think about how accepted it's become in recent years for a girl to go to college and "experiment" with one of her roommates in her dorm room (right under that poster of Sarah Mclaughlin and the high school softball photo ). It's become a cliche! It's almost as though it's some sort of "right of passage" for a woman's sexual awakening, or so the media would have us believe. Yet somehow these images/stories are frowned upon from the male quarters...if any guy has a "gay" experience in college, he'll be more likely to try to cover it up than get it published in the latest issue of "Vogue" or "Maxim." You can chalk part of it up to the emotional dichotomy between women and men. Love and compassion are still the most accepted feelings from women, while hate and anger are still the most accepted feelings from men--from an early age those are the ways a child is expected to behave, and if a boy shows to much sympathy, or a girl shows too much aggression--a parent/teacher will most likely do what is necessary to "re-condition" the child so he can properly adjust to the accepted norms of society.

How much lesbian porn is out there that caters solely to the straight-male market???

While there is an emotional dichotomy between the genders, there is also a physical dichotomy which states the following--women's bodies look good, men's bodies work well. If anyone wants to argue whether that is really the way the media works today, just take a quick poll on the male/female breakdown on the number of professional athletic teams and the number of of swimsuit calenders/magazines. Men's bodies are to be admired at work and women's bodies are to be admired at play. And what better way to market women's bodies at play than to have two women with each other? That way, the guy can pretend he's with either the blonde or brunette, the asian or the caucasian, the 34B or the 36D. You get the point...

Anyway, let me make a point and quit yammering, I think that two consenting, adult lovers should be left alone to love each other in the way they see fit... if they want to marry, let them marry. Who am I, who are any of us, to say what is 'right' or 'wrong', especially in matters of love? I know what is right FOR ME, but that is all.

Nicely put, and I agree wholeheartedly. Now, not to let the cat out of the bag again--perhaps this thread has already gone on too long--but seeing how you made the preceding statements, how do you justify the following:

on your point about brothers and sisters who want to marry. I don't really know what to say to this, except that I think most people would agree that there's a HUGE difference between two strangers who meet and fall in love, than two people who came out of the same womb. To me, it's more natural for a homosexual person to meet another homosexual person (that they are completely un-related to), fall in love, and be together, than for a brother and sister to fall in love and want to be together.

(Once again just playing devil's advocate, obviously no personal reasons at stake here). In your opinion, what is the HUGE difference between two people who come from the same womb and fall in love, and two people who come from separate wombs and fall in love? What if you were separated from a sibling at birth, somehow later met in a chance encounter and fell in love, only to later find out you were related (far-fetched example, I know, but look at the Osmonds, for Chrissake!)? Would you immediately break all romantic ties to each other, or would you recognize the relationship for what it was before this news, and continue to build the deep, loving, and undeniably romantic connection? What is more natural about homosexual romantic love than familial romantic love? Why are you bothering trying to quantify naturalness--either the love is very simply there, or it isn't. There are many cases of incest worldwide, and I can't for the life of me believe that all of them voluntarily chose to fall in love with their brother/sister/father/mother.

Damn.

At this pace, I might need to purchase a new keyboard before I eclipse the 100 post mark.

 

[siamese dream]

Featherdfingers,
In reply to the stuff about polygamy:

I was stating only my personal feelings about what a love relationship is, not guidelines for the rest of the world. I want a monogamous relationship, but if that's not what the rest of the world wants, then fine. I would not find happiness with someone who couldn't be faithful.

In reply to the stuff about incestuous relationships:

I don't know. I didn't really mean for this topic to go there. So I'll be honest and say that I don't know what to say to all that... I have a brother very close to my own age and I just can't freakin' imagine it...but whatever.

Like I said, I know what is right for me. The original point of my whole topic is that the law shouldn't dictate that it's wrong for a homosexual couple to make a legal committment. As far as all the other stuff that was brought up goes, those are whole other topics altogether. And I can't answer all of those questions, but I know my feelings on the original topic, and I've stated them and elaborated on them all by now.