PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage Issue - threatens my marriage


admin
July 7th, 2010, 23:01
Some prop 8 supporters in California claim we must protect marriage. That is a load of horse shit and those people are assholes.

Failure to give equal recognition to all marriages DIMINISHES my straight marriage, just like winning my country club's golf championship would be less of an accomplishment if I found out the club had excluded blacks and Jews from joining the club and competing. I'd resign from such a club.

I'm not ready to quit my marriage even though marriage too is a restricted club, but I won't shut up about this.

No justice, no peace.

-Ron Low
http://TLCTugger.com
847 414-1692

tony12345
July 7th, 2010, 23:14
They say America is the land of the Free, what a load of bullshit.

What freedom?, your body gets mutilated on day 1, and they tell you who you can and can't marry.

z726
July 8th, 2010, 00:58
At least we're seeing lawsuits on this issue.

1Taoist
August 3rd, 2010, 13:30
The reasoning behind this odd position relates to the idea that if gay people get married it will legitimize gay sex. Once gay sex is legitimized, then it is actually no longer "wrong" (in religious views). There is some belief that gay sex is exactly what it's name implies- happy sex -or, in other words, sex for pleasure's sake alone. Take a simple look at what I'm saying.

Most married couples know that once you get married, sex gets dull. It's kind of a joke. Now, if you're one of those marrieds that keeps it fun, great, but most don't.

If the religious groups wanted to get rid of gay sex, they should promote marriage.

But that's not what they want. They want gay SEX to remain illegitimate. Marriage sanctions sex. No marriage= no sanction of sex. Gay sex can remain outside the rules.

For some reason, human nature works hard to maintain it's acceptable behaviors as well as it's unacceptable ones. Much of sex is rooted in the principle of wrongness; whatever you're not supposed to do, you want to do. Stimulating sex has an element of breaking bad to it.

Case in point is the highly prevalent predominance among gay men to hit on/desire/pursue straight men. Why do they do this? Seems so stupid, who wants a gender that doesnt want them? Its really the most off-putting, sad sort of tendency. But why? A.) cuz they know some straight men will do it; b.) because they want what they can't have; c.) they're just screwed up. There is also an element of unexplainable as well, but the point is that life just doesn't make sense- we say we want the right things, but we always seem to pursue the wrong ones. To greater or lesser extent.

Gay sex isn't for procreation. No matter what women say about bein into sex and not havin babies blah blah blah, that's all a bunch of crap because women are built for it. Actually, a gay friend of mine suggested a theory that he's noticed that lesbians seem to have that gene turned off, despite the oft-publicized idea of lesbians having kids on their own. It's just that men having sex has none of this involved.

The reluctance on both parts- women to have sex for pleasure, men to have sex for procreation -seems to be a formula for our existence.

I think that gay people are simply transcending things and honing in on the business model, and seek their own form of legitimacy. It's just that the religious people must maintain that which is illegitimate (gay sex), so that they don't start enjoying it. On top of that, a lot of them do it already, but feel it must be kept on the DL. Legalizing marriage would then threaten their hetero marriage because they no longer have to view their boring marriage as "the good thing" (and their side homo action as "the bad"). To make this more complicated, their side homo interests may not even be acted on. The whole thing is subconscious

Ultimately, anyone who feels threatened by equality is afraid of equality- of equal choice and opportunity. Gay or straight. These people believe the choice must be made for us because we may choose the "wrong" one, even though most of straights choose the "wrong" relationship partner anyway all day long.

Gay marriage ban is about keeping gay sex illegitimate. Marriage benefits children. Children are the progeny of straight sex. Marriage legitimizes straight sex by sanctioning it (generally speaking. Still can be done all wrong). So no gay marriage is saying no gay sex SANCTION.

leto
August 3rd, 2010, 15:29
This whole debate is retarded. The solution is so simple: get the government the hell out of marriage and just grant civil unions. Leave marriage up to the churches. Homophobes can still have their uber-exclusive sanctioned by all that is holy marriage, untainted by the queers. Homosexuals get the legal protection and responsibility they need. Everyone wins except the power-hungry statists.

I'm sure they will get to this right after they ban MGM:rolleyes:

Dasher
August 3rd, 2010, 16:01
I don't blame organized religion for supporting Prop 8 in California, because that is their right. But, and it's a big "but", it has earned the LDS Church a zillion dollars' worth of negative publicity, along with the narrative that they want to bully gays, and take their minority rights away -- even if they don't. Ditto for the Catholic Church, which as you know has other, much bigger negative publicity issues going against it right at the moment.

Ever since Margaret Marshall issued her opinion in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that gay marriage is legal because otherwise gays would be deprived of equal rights, ever since then, the genie has been out of the bottle on the gay marriage issue. That mainstream religion was opposed because it secretly or openly feared the legitimization of gay sex was not a legal issue in the decision of the Massachusetts case.

By the way, gay sex has been legalized in many states when sodomy laws were overturned several decades ago. Those decisions are not going to be affected by whatever happens to the gay marriage issue.

If President Obama gets another U.S. Supreme Court appointment before his term is up, after the current nominee Kagan, which seems possible or even likely, you can consider the gay marriage issue finally decided on a 5-4 or even 6-3 vote. And it will be ruling case law for all 50 states, not just the Ninth Circuit.

Dasher
August 3rd, 2010, 16:43
This whole debate is retarded. The solution is so simple: get the government the hell out of marriage and just grant civil unions. Leave marriage up to the churches. Homophobes can still have their uber-exclusive sanctioned by all that is holy marriage, untainted by the queers. Homosexuals get the legal protection and responsibility they need. Everyone wins except the power-hungry statists.

I'm sure they will get to this right after they ban MGM:rolleyes:

We used to have Common Law Marriage in the U.S. in the 19th Century. Marriage was entirely up to the sacraments of whatever church granted it. But then Big Brother butted in. Now, when you obtain a marriage license down at city hall, you are entering into a contract with the state, and all that that implies, such as giving the state permission to draft your children into the military and giving the state the right to otherwise regulate your marriage and the children that result from it.

Now the gays want to be included in this lousy deal, a contract with the state. Would they be better off if they kept their unions on the DL? In my opinion, sure, they would. But they insist on equality. It may also be necessary to let them adopt children, have hospital visitation rights, etc.

Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not. It's just a matter of time. I don't think it can be stopped. Don't bet against it coming; save your money for better uses :)

MGM, on the other hand, will likely never be outlawed in the U.S. There's too much money in it, and in case you haven't noticed, money is what runs this country. We have the finest Congress money can buy. The only thing that might stop routine infant circumcision -- and maybe just temporarily at that -- would be hospital-borne infections that resist treatment by currently-available antibiotics. Things like MRSA and acinetobacter, for example. Those could bring RIC to an abrupt halt, because parents would decide that it would be better to have their baby alive with a foreskin than dead from his circumcision and a hospital-borne infection that can't be treated.

leto
August 3rd, 2010, 17:37
By the way, gay sex has been legalized in many states when sodomy laws were overturned several decades ago. Those decisions are not going to be affected by whatever happens to the gay marriage issue.


Several decades ago? Try several years ago (2003). I guess there may have been some state level decisions before that, but Lawrence v. Texas was the federal case that overturned sodomy laws nationwide

leto
August 3rd, 2010, 17:39
We used to have Common Law Marriage in the U.S. in the 19th Century.


We still do. You really aren't big on dates are you?

Dasher
August 4th, 2010, 16:17
We still do. You really aren't big on dates are you?

We still have Common Law Marriage. Except for one thing. It isn't legal :)

Common Law Marriage was legal in the Nineteenth Century. So were Mormon polygamous marriages (until the LDS Church agreed to ban them as a condition of Utah being admitted as a state).

By the time the federal decision on the Texas sodomy law came down, it was so late it was almost moot, because other states had already struck down their sodomy laws in the 1970s and 1980s.

By the way, one of those state decisions was an appeal from a state court criminal case where the state had alleged a man had sodomized a female :)

leto
August 4th, 2010, 17:50
We still have Common Law Marriage. Except for one thing. It isn't legal :)

Common Law Marriage was legal in the Nineteenth Century. So were Mormon polygamous marriages (until the LDS Church agreed to ban them as a condition of Utah being admitted as a state).

By the time the federal decision on the Texas sodomy law came down, it was so late it was almost moot, because other states had already struck down their sodomy laws in the 1970s and 1980s.

By the way, one of those state decisions was an appeal from a state court criminal case where the state had alleged a man had sodomized a female :)

I don't know what you mean that common law marriage isn't legal. It is in some states, not in others. See: http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

As to sodomy laws, I don't know how you can say it was moot when that decision struck down sodomy laws in 14 states. When I was in high school (not all that long ago, but before Lawrence) the state's anti-sodomy law was printed inside the cover of our health textbooks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

DPX1
August 4th, 2010, 18:18
This whole debate is retarded. The solution is so simple: get the government the hell out of marriage and just grant civil unions. Leave marriage up to the churches. Homophobes can still have their uber-exclusive sanctioned by all that is holy marriage, untainted by the queers. Homosexuals get the legal protection and responsibility they need. Everyone wins except the power-hungry statists.

I'm sure they will get to this right after they ban MGM:rolleyes:

See, the problem with this is that government involvement in marriage is social engineering. There are (or were at least) a great deal of people out there who thought the whole country would go to hell if people weren't getting married and starting nuclear families. That's why you have a ton of secular incentives that come with getting married, like tax privileges and such.

If we gave those out to any two people who wished to be united in the eyes of the state, then millions of people would abandon the traditional institution of marriage. It's sort of like... a fundamentalist attempt at a "seatbelt" for the collective soul of the United States. If people stop getting capital-m Married and just choose to file for tax statuses or have their own commitment ceremonies or whatever, then you'll have a nation of couples and families "living in sin".

So, this is why the two concepts are joined. People out there are trying to save the country in their own way.

I don't believe this, I feel like you do on the subject, but I just thought I'd show the other perspective.

We can't really blame religious groups, I don't think, because marriage is such a religious concept, even on the state level. They are within their right to define marriage as they see fit, but the radicals who created the laws for marriage in the first place had no right to stretch their interpretation of the institution over every union. I think we'd be alright if we could just "not call it marriage," but because of the way it's structured, we can't.

Interestingly enough, the most radical religious person I know, believes that homosexuality is wrong (in the sense that it's a misguided path, not that they deserve to be executed or something), but believes in gay marriage and said to me one day "I don't understand why the law got involved with marriage in the first place". He's also the most radical defender of the constitution I know, so that probably has something to do with it. :\

Oh, and prop 8 got overturned. Hooray.

jninja
August 4th, 2010, 22:40
Everything I've heard about this keeps mentioning the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. If the courts rule that the clause grants homosexual marriages the same rights as heterosexual marriages there is no way they can't say that the FGM law doesn't apply to boys.

photenman
August 4th, 2010, 22:49
A California court has called a legislative ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Other states have found a constitutional right to gay marriage. These decisions uphold individuals' constitutional rights against contrary public opinion. This helps the claim that male circumcision violates a boy's constitutional rights to privacy and to equal protection of the laws.

The New York Times writes: "The decision, an instant landmark in American legal history, ... is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults."

The Times goes on, "One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination ... 'That time has passed.'"

Similarly the times have changed about circumcision. The surgery is known to be very painful, harmful, and to detract from sex. Traditional notions of circumcision as a parent's religious, cultural or personal right can no longer be used to deny boys their right to personal security and equal protection of the law under the constitution.

Dasher
August 4th, 2010, 23:48
How are you going to strike down MGM as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, when you have people running around saying that MGM is waaaaaaaaaaaay different than FGM?

That FGM is a barbaric, brutal horror that everybody rejects (except Muslims), and male circumcision is almost universally accepted across the U.S.A.

By the way, many of the people who say that MGM just can't be compared to FGM, because it is soooooo different, are right here on this forum.

I happen to think that genital mutilation is genital mutilation, regardless of whether the victims are boys or girls. But sometimes I think I'm in the minority in this. Especially when I read some of the comments right here on this forum.

If you can't even get the people on this site to agree that FGM and MGM are really the same thing, then how are you going to persuade the public?

Dasher
August 5th, 2010, 16:09
a) African tribes also practice FGM too and b)how is 55% of males circumcised in 2008 demonstrating that RIC is "universally accepted"? There is a demonstrable downward trend of RIC in the USA.

If I had said there is a demonstrable downward trend of RIC in the U.S., you would have said yes, but the clear majority are still circumcised, and it's still accepted as the prevailing custom from coast to coast. Because an undeniable majority of parents are still saying yes.

You can twist anything to find disagreement if you really want to. That's what I like about this site; so many are willing to nitpick the crap out of you and totally ignore your valid main point :)

Since you didn't attack the main point, I assume you had concede on that part :)

This may come as a shock to you, but as far as African tribes go, most Americans couldn't care less. Only Hollywood celebs and the two Willies seem to be interested in that, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton (and maybe, George W. Bush). We don't have any former colonies there...maybe that's why.

Dasher
August 5th, 2010, 16:39
"Universally accepted" is a little different from an "undeniable majority", no?

It all depends on how desperate you are to nitpick, while at the same time totally ignoring the whole point of the post.

The point of the post is that many Americans, including many on this forum, would NOT agree that FGM and MGM are basically the same thing. They would even go further, and say there's a big difference between the two.

I think that's an important point to consider before you cause us to get sidetracked in irrelevant trivia and waste our time playing games.

leto
August 5th, 2010, 16:50
It all depends on how desperate you are to nitpick, while at the same time totally ignoring the whole point of the post.

The point of the post is that many Americans, including many on this forum, would NOT agree that FGM and MGM are basically the same thing. They would even go further, and say there's a big difference between the two.

I think that's an important point to consider before you cause us to get sidetracked in irrelevant trivia and waste our time playing games.

Yes, let us not be burdened unduly by facts. :rolleyes:

Dasher
August 5th, 2010, 21:33
Yes, let us not be burdened unduly by facts. :rolleyes:

Nor be burdened unduly by serious discussion. :rolleyes:

photenman
August 5th, 2010, 22:42
Ignoring the equal protection argument, the Supreme Court has held that there is a right to privacy including bodily integrity under the constitution. Any decision like the one in California that upholds individual's constitutional rights over the majority view is a win for intactivists.

zahnmann
August 6th, 2010, 18:17
I explained it this way to a conservative brother and his wife-to-be: nobody owns marriage, period. People can own their own marriage, however they want to- but my marriage is nobody's business outside of myself and my wife.
These people obviously are threatened somehow. It could be that they are trying to protect their present marriage after riding the marriage-go-round a few times, not really knowing the root cause of their previous failure(s). I think the seed of hate is likely planted at church and media outlets. I hear the constant relentless drumming against gays, lesbians and liberals on conservative radio stations around Ohio. As Ed Schultz says- ownership has its privileges. Religious organizations can have a radio station and be completely tax-free (as I understand it), and boy do they got 'em. Especially here in the north coast of the bible belt.
Some of my religious friends are among the most motivated philanthropists that I know of. While I don't have a problem with tax-free social services, soup kitchens, relief organizations and NGOs that have religious affiliations, as soon as the belief/faith or political element enters the picture the tax free status should be eliminated.

Just my $.02
-zahn
stopthecut.org

admin
August 6th, 2010, 22:24
I met an English guy at the Symposium, and introduced him to my wife Alice.

He says: "Ron, I met you in the UK and I've seen you online a number of times, and it never occured to me that you might be straight."

Now that I look at the title of this thread and see how it shows me as the originator, I can't wonder. The title makes it sound like my marriage is in legal jeopardy.

I'm so sorry to those oppressed that we haven't yet applied sufficient well-aimed political force to put all this bullshit behind us. Please hang in there and we'll all re-double our efforts, OK?

-Ron Low
http://TLCTugger.com

ctrclckws
August 7th, 2010, 03:48
I wonder if the legal term should be something like civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to the religious groups?

Civil Union would have all the rights in the greater society that are now associated with marriage, and marriage rights would be within the context of the religious beliefs of the people involved.

1Taoist
August 8th, 2010, 13:03
Zahnmann- I feel strongly that the sense you get is simply a very firmly-rooted resistance to sanctioning gay sex. Sanctioning, as in sanctify. After all, marriage as a religious institution sanctions sex, sanctifies it, by consummation of the act after marriage vows. We all know this stuff. So if marriage sanctions sex between two individuals that the marriage has recognized, then gay people will have fully sanctioned sex- forget about "unions". I mean, after all, if two guys wanna be best friends, that's fine...but if they wanna have sex...that's gay.

Sexual orientation. That's what it is and means. Forget about how often or how good, it's that sex is a sacrament in marriage. I think in the minds of those opposed, if gays get married their sex will threaten the sex of heteros because straights have been told forever their sex is right and gay sex is wrong. It threatens their base in an illogical way- somebody else's choice impacting them -but it's all subconscious. They simply can't make the leap across the chasm that orientation doesn't make sanctified sex "right", love does, and they can't accept that love knows no bounds.

The irony is most straight people stop having sex when married, and this plays a role in the projection of hate, too. They don't wanna sanction gays because they actually have more sex, and therefore probably a more enjoyable marriage.

THAT is how it threatens them.

Tally
August 8th, 2010, 13:55
Now that I look at the title of this thread and see how it shows me as the originator, I can't wonder. The title makes it sound like my marriage is in legal jeopardy.
I think your title could be better stated. Perhaps "Gay Marriage Issue does not threaten my marriage" would be better.

As we advocate our issues, we need to be mindful of memes. They are very powerful. Unfortunately, the thread title implies that the gay marriage issue threatens marriage. That is not a good meme for those who advocate equality for all regardless of sexual preference.

Too many in our modern society are swayed by sound bites (memes). Knowing that, we should strive to present sound bites that support our position. Let's use positive memes.

1Taoist
August 8th, 2010, 14:33
In regards to memes, Tally, the new title does the same. It's a fact that the human mind can't process no, and it in fact produces a subconscious yes. If you say "you are not ugly", you are subconsciously saying the person is ugly. Strong minds don't fall for this, but weak ones do. Remember Obi-wan Kenobi talking to the guards..."We are not the ones you're looking for..."

;-)

Tally
August 8th, 2010, 18:05
In regards to memes, Tally, the new title does the same. It's a fact that the human mind can't process no, and it in fact produces a subconscious yes. If you say "you are not ugly", you are subconsciously saying the person is ugly. Strong minds don't fall for this, but weak ones do. Remember Obi-wan Kenobi talking to the guards..."We are not the ones you're looking for..."
Good point. I knew this, but forgot. It just goes to show how hard it is to come up with good memes.

If we could do the Jedi mind trick, our work would be over.

metalwhere
August 9th, 2010, 18:02
In regards to memes, Tally, the new title does the same. It's a fact that the human mind can't process no, and it in fact produces a subconscious yes. If you say "you are not ugly", you are subconsciously saying the person is ugly. Strong minds don't fall for this, but weak ones do. Remember Obi-wan Kenobi talking to the guards..."We are not the ones you're looking for..."

;-)

As all they gays walk in to get married: "Who? We are a loving man and woman; Sir are you calling my soon to be partner a man?! I assure you she is a woman, who happens to have a genetic condition (read: Y chromosome) that puts her reproductive parts on the outside."

I'm sure that will work... ;)

photenman
August 10th, 2010, 17:37
dasher, it doesn't matter what the public thinks. FGM and MGM are basically the same for legal purposes. No medical basis, private parts, risk of complications, always causes harm, causes loss of sexual function. Both violate the right to bodily integrity, right to autonomy. The equal protection clause prohibits protecting females and not males.

1Taoist
August 10th, 2010, 18:49
This came up the other day- these religious people who feel homosexuality is wrong in general are the same peeps opposing same-sex marriage, and if they really want to curb gay sex they should let them get married cuz that'll put an end to the sex. ;-). Here's the rub, though...they don't want gays to stop having sex, they want the sex to remain wrong, thus non-sanctioned. If you connect their belief system to this- that gays are goin to hell -they want gays to keep fuckin their way there. If they don't, then their belief system is bogus so it depends on this illusion and fear-based mythology.

Dasher
August 10th, 2010, 23:01
dasher, it doesn't matter what the public thinks. FGM and MGM are basically the same for legal purposes. No medical basis, private parts, risk of complications, always causes harm, causes loss of sexual function. Both violate the right to bodily integrity, right to autonomy. The equal protection clause prohibits protecting females and not males.

You're right. Now if we could just get Ted Olson and David Boies to represent us on the case...

WoundedBird
September 21st, 2010, 20:55
I don't think I'm transcending things and honing in on a business model, really. Though I do think that I want to remain open to the possibility of sex outside the relationship in the future, at the moment I don't feel any desire for that.

It's bizarre, but I've actually felt strange urges involving wanting to be able to "have a baby" with my lover. I don't really even fully understand it, but it just feels like pure love and I like the idea of creating life with our love. Of course we can't, and ultimately I don't think I can handle raising a child anyway, lol...but I do think some of the same procreation urges occur in gay people in different ways. I'm glad I can't get pregnant nor make my lover pregnant, I wouldn't want to deal with the stress of worrying about that. But there are all sorts of layers to human sexuality that I feel, some that would be considered traditional, and some untraditional.

I do want to marry my beau. Of course it's wrong that we don't have that right in the vast majority of the United States. It doesn't hurt our relationship, but it's blatant discrimination and it angers me. I don't ever want to be denied seeing him while he's in the hospital in intensive care because I am not recognized as family, or something akin to that...things like that happen to gay couples all the time. And the tax breaks would be welcome. There's no reason the law should discriminate on religious grounds.

WoundedBird
September 26th, 2010, 20:06
I would like to add - I like the idea of calling all legal marriages "Civil Unions". Then the actual marriage aspect could remain religious. No matter the gender of the people who are uniting legally, it will be called Civil Union. Then in regards to the religious ceremony, a person can identify as "married". I would be fine with that. I am Agnostic anyhow, and so is my beau. I know I would like to be legally united one day, and have a small, secular ceremony with only our closest loved ones present...

I seriously don't understand how me being with my beloved threatens anyone else's relationship. That is just absurd. It's a weak excuse to discriminate against gay people.

freddys
September 26th, 2010, 22:30
I am still waiting for anyone to explain in a logic fashion how the relationship between a couple totally unrelated and unknown to us could possibly have had any bearing on the relationship between my wife and me.
Best regards,
freddys.

1Taoist
September 27th, 2010, 11:11
You're gonna be waiting a long time. Cuz it isn't logical.

Most illogical processes are holistic. This means they aren't linear. They go back to go forward, down to go up, and deny in order to validate.

I personally have a theory that there is no such thing as gay, primordially speaking. The idea of marriage represents the union of male and female PRINCIPLES, not people. This is actually a rock-solid truth- look at the yin yang principle.

What happens is we are fooled by appearances. What appears to be two men...are really a male and female principle disguised. The fact that one has a penis instead of a vaj is just a physical variance in the principle. All healthy gay people are representitive of the principle of yin and yang in relationship.

Even straight people do this. Sometimes the woman is the "male" and the man is the "female". Their genitals are switched, but we don't notice it as easy cuz it's still present in a physical sense. In gay relationships, there's a glaring omission- one physical rep is missing. And the substitution of the anus as female genitalia is in essence an inversion of the principle, and inversion, according to primordial principle, doesn't create life, it creates it's opposite. And we have a lovely thing called AIDS oddly lobbying this point.

If we look deeper, past surface illusions, we can almost see the female/male within the gay relationships. All relationships- ALL- breathe this principle outwardly. But people are too fooled by outer illusion. Ultimately, if two gay men are able to have inverted vagina sex in a way that is healthy, they are the equivalent of alchemists. Straight people simply have it easier- the equipment is already set up, but we still fuck it up.

A gay friend of mine told me that gays don't have any choice, the ass is all they got. That's a curious statement when looked at from a female/male perspective. Think about it non-logically: the female has a CHOICE- the vagina or the ass -and we choose. They are even very close together. The male, as female, has NO CHOICE. Free will is gone. And a world without free will, a world forced into one road, is a world- according to religious belief-belonging to the devil.

You asked for a logical explanation, and this is an attempt to illustrate the deeply subconscious processes producing such consciously-illogical thinking among people regarding marriage as between a man and a woman. These are eternal processes, and if two men are allowed to "invert" the principles they feel, on a collective level, their world is literally threatened.

Meanwhile, many truely in love gay people find ways around the surface limitations in pursuit of the primordial order, and many even give up anal sex, even if unconsciously. Kind of like straight married men give up certain activities when moving toward a better more fulfilling relationship with "the right woman". Everyone, gay or straight, feel gently compelled to give up certain pursuits in service to a deeper more fulfilling "union".

As I've said before, I believe that at the heart of this fear is an unwillingness to sanction gay sex, cuz that's one thing marriage, religiously, does. By sanctioning, we are sanctifying. And for some that is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, gays in love are continuing to externalize a genuine universal principle, while the rest of the world views the illusion.

SteveN
September 27th, 2010, 17:59
I support Gay Marriage as well... after all, they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.... :D

gtabula
September 28th, 2010, 07:03
[Post Removed]

Dasher
September 28th, 2010, 13:55
And the substitution of the anus as female genitalia is in essence an inversion of the principle, and inversion, according to primordial principle, doesn't create life, it creates it's opposite. And we have a lovely thing called AIDS oddly lobbying this point.

Apart from this seeming conclusion that AIDS is the natural result of anal sex, I agree with everything you say. Which is a reality-based, common-sense analysis of why religious people will probably never accept gay marriage in the U.S.: because approval of gay marriage amounts to approval of gay sex. There are at least a few non-religious objectors too, some of whom may be homophobes. General public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of gay marriage though, even in California despite the Prop 8 vote a couple of years ago.

As far as substitution of the anus as female genitalia: I know one gal whose motto is "let's skip the vagina, and go directly to the anus." Anal sex is not the exclusive property of The Gays.

On the question of which came first -- AIDS or The Gays, I think we know the answer to that question. AIDS first made its appearance in the U.S. in the late 1970s/early 1980s, after gay men in New York City and Los Angeles were injected with an experimental Hepatitis B vaccine (which could have been a mysterious coincidence or not depending on one's views; the scientific community has differing views on this, while the public health community automatically dismisses the connection as nonsense). The Gays, on the other hand, have been around for a couple of thousand years.

The general public in the U.S. automatically assumes that all gays indulge in anal sex almost by definition. But if you ask a gay guy if he knows anyone in the gay community who refuses to take part in anal sex, he'll probably tell you that, sure, there are many gay guys like that. Some of them are actually turned off by it.

Not to excuse irresponsible gay behavior like barebacking, but AIDS is no longer exclusively or predominantly a "gay disease" in the U.S. There was a time, for a number of years in the U.S. in the 1980s, that AIDS was almost exclusively afflicting white, middle-class, circumcised gay guys. This is no longer the case.

And it is worth noting that, outside North America, AIDS is primarily an affliction of heterosexuals. Which is not to say that gays elsewhere can't get it; they can. And some countries (like Iran and other countries where The Gay is a serious religious taboo) claim they don't have any gays, and if any should show up and admit it, they stone them to death. In those countries, AIDS is 99.9% transmitted by heterosexuals, even if the official figures are questionable.

I know there are several gay guys on this forum -- please correct me if I've got something wrong here...if I was politically incorrect on something, please forgive me.

1Taoist
September 28th, 2010, 21:02
Nice points, Dasher. You and I can have a healthy and challenging discussion.

On one point though: you seemed to have missed my point that the difference between girls having anal sex and guys havin it is simple- she has a choice. Inherent in her anatomy is The Choice. Woman choose, remember, what comes into this world and what doesn't. They are the bringers of life. My point was to highlight that women have the choice, men don't- they're stuck with one hole. I suppose for them you could say the choice is the anus or not. But it is not the anus or pussy (in M2M).

And FTR...I like that girl already :-D

I will take issue with you that HIV has been around since the '70's. There is some very sound medical theories that it has actually been around since the beginning. We just noticed it in the '70's.

I don't much subscribe to any govt plot to "create" HIV. I WILL say the govt created AIDS. That much is for sure.

I will also point out that HIV/AIDS is not primarily a hetero problem around the world. It is just STaTED as so. Incorrectly, IMO. No matter what you think you know, this is not effecting hetero people in the US or anywhere really, unless IV drugs are in use.

That leads me to say HIV/AIDS is primarily a drug-user's problem. Nothing to do with sex much at all, other than a helper of something that's already in route anyway. Might be a vaccine problem.

When the gay community is able to disassociate itself with IV drug use (the only other known way to get it besides blood transfusion), they will stop suffering stigma of their sex. But I don't think that will happen, because it may unfortunately be forever linked to it.

We simply have to recognize the HIV/AIDS problem is not an indiscrimant retrovirus. Do you know any hetero people who've gotten it? Know anybody who knows anybody, who isn't a risk-group player, for real? When you admit the odd answer to that is no, and this shits been around now for 40yrs (according to you) and you think you wouldn't have known somebody straight somewhere who got this by now??

It's the simplest logic in the world.

You actually stated this yourself, but didn't know it: in the US it's been primarily gay, but everywhere else it's hetero. You pointed out the Hep vaccine, which goes on abroad too (Africa). I think it's obvious that sex has little to nothing to do with it truly cuz sex happens everywhere. What isn't happening is heteros gettin this in the US. If you're completely honest with what you see and know in the field, you'll see the only HIV you ever see is among gays and drug users.

Sadly.

I think those who oppose gay marriage feel this and know it way below their conscious ability to articulate it. There lies their refusal to sanction gay sex. It's like sanctioning IV drug use (in their mind). Perhaps worse.

Many gays do not partake in anal sex. And those are the ones you will see are HIV-. No, nobody gets it by blowin people. You get it blown up your ass.

The AIDS lobby is a billion dollar biz. They don't wanna hang the gays, they wanna make $$$ off them. After all, they're not gonna get them to stop.

darkpassenger
September 29th, 2010, 10:30
Some free country huh?

You should be able to marry whomever you want and be protected from circumcision. Gay marriage should be legal. Alteration of an infant -> illegal.

While i'm at it, churches and religion should be taxed. Since it is a money making scam anyway.

Free country... What a bunch of bullshit. I pay taxes for more of this bullshit.
This world is a cruel joke.

WoundedBird
October 1st, 2010, 11:54
Taoist, I understand some of the ideas you are illustrating. However, I think all human beings are a combination of feminine and masculine qualities. With my partner and I, we both have different qualities which could be construed as masculine or feminine, but I don't consider either of us "the man" or "the woman". Were two human beings with penises who are in love with each other.

Also, gay men do have a choice when it comes to the ass, as you say, lol. There are plenty of gay men who do not have anal sex. This seems really difficult for some people to believe... But often times my beau and I have oral sex and kissing and holding without any penetration. I do like the "having him inside me" while sharing sexual pleasure dynamic going on, I do like for him to "top" me sometimes and it's great. He sometimes likes me to do the same to him, even though it's not my favorite thing. But I've had relationships with other guys where we had no anal sex at all, and I was still feeling romance, love, and passion...we still had good sex and good orgasms. I know a few gay men who avoid anal sex completely.

Anyway, back to the male/female thing, all of my beau's friends are women. He doesn't really hang out with men by choice other than me, lol. All of my friends are men, straight/gay/bi whatever. I have always gravitated toward men more often than women, in friendships as well as sexually. I like nice clothes and have a heightened sense of aesthetics (a gay stereotype, of course) ....my beau is a nicely groomed man, but has no affinity for or interest in fashion or design or anything of the sort. In some ways he is passive and will submit to my command, I can be domineering sometimes. In others I let him take the reigns. As far as our appearances and demeanors go, I seem "more gay" to people than he does...most people figure it out after spending some time with me, while he is completely "straight acting" and has a booming bass voice.

.I can relate to what you mean about feminine and masculine energies. I just think, and have even been told as much while discussing this with friends, that some of us, myself included, portray equal amounts masculine and feminine energies. Some people do lean one way or the other, I think. One ex of mine was very delicate and feminine in demeanor and carriage...not "flaming" just very feminine. I always felt that he had a female soul, or however one wants to put it. Ultimately he was a bit too much in that direction for me, I like a good helping of masculinity in my guys, just a preference...

It's nice to think that gay people are manifesting such spiritual principles. I do think that without the weight of traditional expectations on our shoulders, we can sometimes be more free to love as we wish. Many gay men have open love relationships, where they are able to explore sexuality with other men under certain parameters. Other gay men I know are monogamous and seem like any traditional heterosexual union. I know that I am somewhere in between...one day I might want to open up my relationship...but in the mean time I like being monogamous, it makes me feel safe and secure.

I don't know, digging beneath all the BS and looking at the big picture...I think gay and straight people are much more similar than dissimilar. Most people I know, of any sexuality, desire love, romance, affection, security. I know I do. I just want to spend my life with the person I love the most, go out and trudge through our daily battles...but come home and climb into our womb every night to recover.

Unregistered
October 1st, 2010, 18:54
Ya know all the gays need to just shut the fuck up and get lost already, I am sick and tired of hearing about gay rights, or your strange gay partners or gay whatever.

Look it is either youre preference to be the way you are or who knows maybe it is genetic and natural selections way of cleaning out the gene pool either way it is not my problem so please quit pushing your bullshit on everyone already. One would think left to their own devices and the inability to procreate the gays would simply dissapear.

So I agree gays, you should have the right to get married just not around the rest of us. Please go have your life why dont you start a gay nation somewhere where your kind can all be togother and marry each other have tea parties or whatever the hell it is you all do, but for goodness sakes quit pushing your gayness around, believe it or not others do not care to be around it, read about it, hear about it or be pressured into accepting you as normal. Why? because you are not normal. Yes it is just that simple. You gays are abnormal get over yourselves already but mostly just shut the fuck up. In the beginning there was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

1Taoist
October 1st, 2010, 19:07
This may stretch the topic a bit, but you made me think of something.

A gay friend of mine said to me that straight people think that gays are no different than straights just the sex is different, but it's the opposite: gays and straights are totally different, just the sex is the same. I pondered that, at the time, as intellectually profound.

But maybe not.

I realized that another straight friend of mine says he and I are totally different, when I say we are more the same. We have this discussion often. But he is single, has done nothing with his life and is rather professionally and personally stunted, whereas I am long married, several kids, professionally successful and a full life.

I might add my gay friend is like my straight friend.

My point is that ones ability to perceive our similarities may be related to our ability to function and do well in life. Those who are not as mentally, physically, or spiritually healthy tend to see themselves as "different" whereas those more healthy and functional see more of the universal similarities. You, woundedbird, would fall into the healthy category, it seems. You see more of how similar we are.

I tried to say to my gay friend that the sex isn't the same because without the reproductive element it is totally different. But love is not. My straight friend thinks he's totally different from me cuz he isn't as good looking as me. I just kind of lowered my head; he's obviously suffering some.

freddys
October 1st, 2010, 23:24
Ya know all the gays need to just shut the fuck up and get lost already, I am sick and tired of hearing about gay rights, or your strange gay partners or gay whatever.

Unregistered Guest: nobody forces you to read the posts you don't agree with.
Best regards,
freddys.

admin
October 1st, 2010, 23:26
you are not normal

I'm very proud to live in a society that so shames such ignorant views that someone needs to log out and post anonymously to utter them.

-Ron

1Taoist
October 2nd, 2010, 11:40
The nature of unregistered is exactly that. He is unregistered.

Views like his reflect his personal frustration with his own sexuality, and his anti-life in general. He can not manage to get registered any other way than giving way to this bile, and in the end he is still unregistered.

He is not a closet gay, he is not impotent, he is not a shit-eating asshole, he is not the worst kind of human being.

He is unregistered.

gtabula
October 3rd, 2010, 09:56
[Post Removed]

WoundedBird
October 16th, 2010, 19:14
I think gay and straight people are completely alike. I am in love, I want to marry my partner and be with him for the rest of my life. I had a period of promiscuity in my youth, but that is common among straight people as well. Men in general tend to be more frantic about getting sex than women, we have a lot more testosterone. I now fully want to be monogamous with my lover. There are people both straight and gay who prefer open relationships. But most gay men I know want to find "the one" - just like most straight people I know. I have no doubts that I have found my soul mate, and there is nothing dirty or wrong about what we feel for each other. It may sound cheesy-hippie, but how in the hell can unconditional love be wrong? How can two people showering each other with affection and kindness be evil? Why do people feel the need to invalidate my relationship with my beau? We behave together just like any straight couple I know. We hold each other, we kiss, we talk for hours, we make love, we bathe together sometimes, we have romantic dinners when we can, we hold each other when we cry and celebrate together when we are happy...

Gay people love just the same as straight people, and we enjoy sex just the same too. I can't imagine why some gay men would try to say that we are completely different, that seems absurd to me. The polarities people perceive are just illusions. We are all human. We all enjoy sex and we all enjoy love...unless you are a sociopath, and there are sociopaths of every race, sexuality and creed.

1Taoist
November 2nd, 2010, 22:56
Agreed. I respect your views and they are sound.

However...

Human beings are not capable of unconditional love. That is what distinguishes us from animals. We do not even love our children unconditionally. We love them innately, in a way that is beyond unconditional. Love for humans IS a condition- it requires elements that are beyond our comprehension. And this condition is dependent on them.

Humans demand and need conditions in order to function in love. Love grows and changes as those conditions dictate and permit. The idea of unconditional love means, literally, that you can love anyone, and that's just not the case. In fact, unconditional love is an oxymoron.

hypospadia
November 3rd, 2010, 01:28
I don't know, digging beneath all the BS and looking at the big picture...I think gay and straight people are much more similar than dissimilar. Most people I know, of any sexuality, desire love, romance, affection, security. I know I do. I just want to spend my life with the person I love the most, go out and trudge through our daily battles...but come home and climb into our womb every night to recover.

My 2 cents here....

In terms of raw numbers, there are more straight people in the world having anal sex than there are gays.

There is nothing a gay couple can penetrate that a straight couple couldn't also.

So what's the fucking problem, eh?

WoundedBird
November 3rd, 2010, 03:01
I don't think feeling innate love is conditional upon having children...if it is I guess I will never experience it, because I don't plan on having any kids. That isn't because I'm gay, it's because I don't want to deal with raising children...I would want to be a fantastic father and I fear I don't have the energy!

I have felt different forms of love in my life...admittedly I haven't, and most likely will not, feel the special kind of love having a child involves. I respect that that must be a beautiful thing. But I have felt familial love, friendship love and romantic love. I know the way I feel for my current (and ostensibly final) beau is more intense and pure than any love I've ever felt...even that for my family...and it is a beautiful thing too.

The bottom line, as we are talking about the legality of unions...straight and gay couples are more similar than dissimilar. Remember, many straight couples can't conceive. Gay people raise children too, many even conceive the traditional way...and they get to feel that same special love for a child or children that a straight person would. The law shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not people can have children.

admin
November 3rd, 2010, 21:04
I don't think feeling innate love is conditional upon having children

I think we are all evolved to have a basic urge to see to the well-being of the next generation. I like the example of honey bees. Evolution has created a brood of worker bees who will never reproduce but who selflessly look after and defend the eggs of their sister the queen.

-Ron

1Taoist
November 4th, 2010, 13:09
I think, woundedbird, you totally missed my point. Which was that human love is a condition, it is not something we choose, and that condition is very particular.

As an adjunct to this topic, last evening we were out to dinner and ran into a woman who was the mother of one of my son's classmates. My son just happened to blurt out the question "where is so-and-so's father?" and the woman looked at him and said "oh, hon, she doesn't have a father, she has two mommies". My son just sorta gave her this crazy look, like he didn't appreciate that answer. My son knows about gay people and the marriage debate (he's 6), and we have tried to explain it to him progressively but there is some part of him that doesn't accept it. It's interesting. I pondered on the way home why.

One thing that bothered me was that this woman jumped in to declare her status as a lesbian, which in her mind erases the role of men. As progressive as I am, I think there's a good way to explain things and a bad way. She was a pushy militant dike-type. I get the feeling that there is, in a progress city like los Angeles, a sort of lack of awareness among gay people that their recent ability to live outwardly and declare their lifestyle as couples is somehow something rock-solid and permanent, when in many parts of the world she would be stoned to death. I observe that many don't appreciate the very recent social opportunity they have, and just think this is some social experiment that has instantly found it's way completely. It is not. Being openly gay has only BEGUN it's path to acceptance. She could have said "well, I'm not really sure" or "he doesn't live with us". That would have been more truthful to nature than this bullshit about two mommies.

My feeling was, no, every child has a father. However so it may be. Two lesbians don't do this together, as cleverly as they try to arrange it. Nobody has two mommies. We all come from one mother and one father. The other "mommy" is just the real mother's girlfriend. And to underscore this fact, take a look at lesbian relationships dissolving who have kids- the one with no biological connection is SOL. Shocking as that may seem.

These details I feel are taken for granted and assumed by some as simply declarative, which I feel undermines the actual state of things moving forward to understanding. Gay marriages and parenthood are issues far, far from being underwritten in a socially functional way because never before has there ever even been the opportunity. Many, I feel, are rushing forth based on their pushy personality types, with outward pride totally having forgotten that in any other time and place they might be mortally persecuted for their orientation. It's like a sense of entitlement that they get away with in certain areas gets turned into an opportunity for projection psychologically, seeing as many gay people have internal struggles that are profoundly difficult on them.

Can anyone else weigh in on this aspect? I just noticed that this aspect bothered me, and while I support orientation acceptance, I think some mistakes are made on the side of gay/lesbian people as well, seeing as they really are new at this. These re-defining efforts are what many people resist, if they don't even have the awareness to know why.

greg_b
November 5th, 2010, 05:34
It is an interesting situation and your reaction to it, thanks for sharing. I am not clear on exactly what caused your feeling of discomfort.

Are you bothered because she did not explain things in an age appropriate way?

Because she did not react/explain the way a woman married to a man in the traditional way would have?

Because she did not explain the biological method for her son's conception in addition to explaining his parental situation?

Because you feel that these relationships should be seen and not heard?

I think it is not easy for change to become integrated into society, espceially when some feel threatened by it. I am not suggesting that you are threatened necessarily, just that some in our society are, and that can affect what all of us take to be the norms for behavior in our society.

Regards

1Taoist
November 5th, 2010, 11:50
One thing that bothers me about your posts Greg, is that you use subconscious psychology to avoid confrontation. You know exactly what bothered me, but you use the negative "I'm not sure what bothered you", which is a clever subconscious way of saying "I'm sure what bothered you". And you proceded to list what you think those things are, all in clever, indirect text by way of the negative. You suggest all these things, then negate them "I'm not saying you are threatened". Are you even aware you do this? If so, you're somewhat of a maipulator. If not, you are cowardly in conversation.

This sort of stuff works on weaker minded people than you, and you probably have adopted this as your own personal method based on your general lack of straightforwardness. I point this out because you have used these well-known principles of psychology, in this instance, against yourself. You've missed the point all together.

What upset me is her statement "hon, she has no father, she has two mommies", which is a) untrue; and b) a negation of the male principle. Why do they do this? Who knows, but I've known many a lesbians who have an utter war-like disregard for men.

Nobody in this world can delete the universal male/female, yin/yang. They can wish it to be male/male, female/female, but it is never gonna be that. That isn't to say gays aren't universal. They are. Beneath the type of genitals people mate with (same or hetero) is a swirling mixture of male/female principle. In every case. And that's what unifies us. We are more alike than we are different. It is the mind that tries to invent the world it's way.

This woman didn't address my son's question, and if you saw his face you'd know that. He wasn't asking who cares for his friend, or what sexual orientation the mother is, he was asking where's her father. This effort in my opinion undermines the ability for people to understand a newly-burgeoning acceptance, and in order to push her lesbian agenda she lied to a child, essentially. That does NOT move us forward.

I'm not saying I know the right way to handle things, but I am saying sensitivity has got to be an element toward that. Let me also share that one day last year, in kindergarten, it was raining and cold and I noticed this little girl had no jacket. She was dressed in a thin summer shirt. I said something to the teacher and she said "Yeah, I know, I may have to call her mom, it's that her mom thinks jackets are unnecessary and children should develop toughness". I said "What?!". Guess whose mom this little girl was?

Too many people think life is some sort of human experiment, to the point where common sense, sensitivity, and awareness lack. This keeps us from moving forward as much as ignorance. Too many people project their psychology onto situations (like you, Greg), and universal principles are twisted to suit creative agendas, instead of honoring the principles that create variation.

Situations like this woman created are divisive. Women and women are never gonna create life without us men. They can choose to love each other and live very productive lives in that respect, but if at the root they dream of a world without men...well that's just as wrong as dreaming of a world without gays.

1Taoist
November 5th, 2010, 12:04
FTR...

Relationships seen and not heard? How does that even apply? What was seen? And as far as heard, why not simply say "He doesn't live with us"? Is that not true? Why does a child always need an explanation for a complicated thing? Is it cuz it makes this woman feel empowered? Did she want my son to think two women made a baby? WTF? Should we seize every opportunity to push issues of social awareness, or should we have a little discretion?

This type of thing has shown to trigger anger toward gays (misguided) in hetero parents for teaching things to their kids they may not be comfortable with (lesbianism). This needs to be brought along gently.

And isn't it "Don't ask, don't tell" that you're referring to?

admin
November 5th, 2010, 14:00
Hi,
you are cowardly in conversation

If this needs said it could be said in a PM.

-Ron

greg_b
November 5th, 2010, 17:10
Sorry 1Taoist, apparently I touched a nerve. Feel free to ignore my post.

Regards

WoundedBird
November 10th, 2010, 07:11
I have a sperm donor more than a father...he was gone by time I was 6 months old. I was raised by heterosexual woman with my brother-in-law as my surrogate "father figure" - though he was more of a big-brother figure.

I guess I don't get what your point really is Taoist. Kids just find it weird and recognize something "isn't quite right" with two same-sex people raising a child? I don't know if that is universally the case.

As far as unconditional love goes, I don't know, maybe humans aren't really capable of it. There are reasons I love my beau, those could be considered conditions. There are many parents who don't love their children and vice versa.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at...are you saying you disagree with same-sex couples raising a child or is your point something else entirely?

1Taoist
November 10th, 2010, 13:56
My point is something else entirely.

First of all, a father is a father. That is unconditional. Whether he's there for just creation or the raising as well. Just cuz someone else does the raising doesn't make them the father. This is nature's cruel move on some- the father is the father, no matter what.

My point was that this woman, IMO, demonstrated reverse prejudice, which is just as bad as homophobia. Same-sex couples must approach the raising and culturalising of children with the same savvy that straight people do. The look on a child's face isn't the point, it is the result of poor sensitivity to the na´vetÚ of children. As I said, my son knows about gay relationships- he had that look cuz she didn't answer his question and instead gave him some social invention from her progressive fantasy world.

Its gonna take years of trial and error to get these new relationships to settle into society without such confusion. Such confusion furthers and entrenches social ignorance and fosters resistance, because many have not grasped the nature of their orientation and it's movement toward social acceptance. They abuse their opportunities to solidify things with things that don't change and won't ever- procreation.

I hope my point is clearer. I don't need to explain certain personal things to my kid's friends any more than a lesbian needs to. It's called being adult. And as I said, it's not about hiding the fact that someone is lesbian, it's about honoring the fact that a child comes from a man and a woman, not two women. Like it or not.

admin
November 10th, 2010, 20:57
a child comes from a man and a woman, not two women

I hear "they" are remarkably close to being able to clone humans.

1Taoist
November 11th, 2010, 10:27
"They've" probably done it. And that doesn't change a thing, Ron. Kid still came from a woman and a man, just second generation.

Glad you brought that up, cuz I'm sure some gay and lesbian people may utilize this- it seems this would be the ultimate form of homo-pro (homo-procreation). We get a taste of this in hetero procreation, and even so with gay/lesbian surrogate and in-vitro, but cloning is a few steps further. Not only would they love their own gender, they will reproduce themselves exactly.

And I'm sure some will mis-use this miracle of life to make the social statement that men aren't necessary. Since they haven't come anywhere near producing a human without actual female gestation, I think cloning will lead some to the claim that there is no father. Think about how that even sounds. Even though, ultimately this claim is false, because as I said a clone is a second-gen copy of someone with an actual father (wonder if that woman has much of a relationship with hers. Whattaya wanna bet not?).

All this pertaining to marriage? Marriage is just a business deal, one that has a well-worn path. Gays and lesbians are just finding out that path, while finding out how individual it is to make work.

WoundedBird
November 12th, 2010, 09:26
Are you sure gays and lesbians are "just finding" that path? I think you're quite wrong. There have been lifelong partnerships between homosexual partners since the beginning of recorded time and probably beyond. The only difference is the church and government not recognizing it. That means nothing to me. I would say I was married already once...for 5 years, if it had been legally possible we would have had the certificate. And I would say I am "engaged" now with no rush to have a ceremony...with my current beau who I intend to be my last and I hope it works out that way.

Everyone gets it, it takes sperm and an ovum to make a baby. When my dad left when I was 6 months old, should my mother have simply rustled up some guy to make sure I had a "father figure" in my life? Things are very complicated in this world. And the well-worn path of marriage in heterosexual couples also shows that more than half end in divorce, as we all know.

I don't care about whether we call the legal aspect "marriage". I'd prefer we call it Civil Union in the legal sense, for straight and gay couples, and then the religious part can be a personal thing. I have no desire to have any church recognize my partnership, I am Agnostic and so is my beau.

I am not sure where this thread is even going at this point. It started out about gay marriage and now it's a debate on whether children need a "traditional" male and female parental partnership to be raised well. I am very glad my father was gone, he was an ignorant racist homophobic bigot who emotionally abused my mom and sisters. My mother was understandably done with men after two abusive relationships, and so hasn't been in a relationship in 20 years. She and my sisters and my sister's husbands raised me as one big family. I had female and male role models around me. I can understand the argument that having both men and women involved in the child's care could be beneficial...but to say they have to have a traditional mother and father to be healthy and happy sounds like BS to me.

What woman are you talking about? This is starting to get bizarre. A hypothetical woman who claims men aren't necessary and had a bad relationship with her father has now entered the discussion...

1Taoist
November 12th, 2010, 18:12
Wounded, you have now gotten yourself into the crux of the issue. Marriage, in America, is about KIDS.

You don't know where this thread is going because you, IMO, don't understand what marriage is. And this is what leads gays into the conflict they complain about and fight against. Marriage is not some idea, or nebulous relationship, it is a hard paper fact. That's what makes it so interesting. Having some "beau" for 5 years isn't marriage. You're just revealing how little understanding you have of the reality that is marriage. It's the difference between saying you're makin a movie with Steven Spielberg and actually having a contract with him that says so. It's nice that you're friends with him, but if you don't have the contract you ain't really in business with him. Sorry. Get real.

Marriage is a business that is based on the most nebulous of things...love. Irrational. Due to this irrationality, this nebulous state that lives or dies on a whim, we require a more solid foundation with which to provide and care for something not so nebulous and which lives or dies in a very real way...kids.

It's nice that you pointed out that you consider yourself "engaged", that you intend on your current beau to be the last one, even as you consider yourself divorced from the previous one whom I'm sure you felt equally about.

:-D

You were right, we're all more alike than different, even if it's just in your creative imagination.

Marriage benefits kids, mostly. But it does benefit spouses in some ways, but the way I look at it you had all the joys of marriage without any of the terrors...which in my opinion disqualifies the analogue to marriage. It's like fantasy role-playing...all the fun of being a prisoner without the actual rape.

Not really a prisoner.

1Taoist
November 12th, 2010, 18:45
And dude, nobody said you have to have a traditional mother and father to be healthy and happy. Stop spreading that nonsense.

WoundedBird
November 17th, 2010, 17:09
You sure do know a lot about me and my relationships for someone who only knows me through a message board and a few posts. My feelings for my beau are nothing like the ones I had for the first guy. I said I would have married him legally if it had been legal. Plenty of straight people make mistakes in marriage. Not all straight people have children. Your definition of marriage is not the universal one. Over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce in the United States.

I've already stated that I don't care about the word "marriage" - I like civil union better, for both gay and straight people when it comes to the legal matter.

You are being blatantly insulting as far as I am concerned. How do you have any clue if your marriage is stronger than the relationship I have with my partner? You don't. And I don't claim to know anything about your relationship, either.

Without any of the terrors? I lived through more than my share of terrors. I lived with the same man for years and had a very hard time leaving him due to financial entanglements and the fact that I was emotionally attached, we were very much in love at one point and it went sour.

There are plenty of hardships in relationships that don't involve children, as well as joys. There are plenty of straight couples who never have children for a multitude of reasons. I don't care about the word marriage, for the final time, but to say gay people can't experience the equivalent of the bond a straight couple can, is absurd.

Because I was once in love with someone who was wrong for me, and am in love again with someone I feel is right for me, doesn't mean I am "playing". I don't know how many gay people you are friends with, but it isn't like Queer as Folk in real life. The relationships are very similar to those between two people of the opposite sex. There are good and bad couples in every category, and everyone experiences hardship.

Not all straight marriages produce children. Should they be allowed marriage licenses? You said marriage is all about children in America.

I have a feeling that the reason others abandoned this thread is they see no point in arguing with you. I don't either, at this point. I am sure I can count on you to vote against my right to legally unite with my partner in the future. Whatever, we all have our positions. I think yours is rather ludicrous. Kids aren't born with such prejudice. My mother raised me without a father, she had no choice. Sure, it would have been nice for her to have a partner, but she didn't. Does that mean there was "just something wrong" about my childhood?

You know nothing about my relationship and you make a lot of assumptions. So marriage is a legal contract...yes. Can you give a logical reason why gay people shouldn't have a right to that same contract? Call it a Civil Union, that is fine with me. Leave the word marriage religious. How can you possibly know the dynamics of my relationship with my partner? Because I broke up once with someone I can never have a legitimate relationship? I was 17-22 the first time around...how many straight couples have unsuccessful relationships in their youth?

How do you know what I experienced in my first major relationship? I was subject to a lot of abuse, quite frankly. How absolutely crass of you to pretend to know what I went through. I had all the joys and none of the terrors, oh I wish. Interpersonal relationships are similar across the board when they become very close. Why did you feel the need to attack my personal relationships to make your argument?

1Taoist
November 21st, 2010, 12:03
First of all, you're continuing with the nonsense and the misunderstandings. You remind me of my brother, who is gay, and every time I disagree with him on any personal issue (non-gay) thinks I'm "homophobic". No, I just don't agree with you.

I'm responding because I, like you, think this is a worthy discussion.

Despite your utter confusion, I voted FOR your right to marry. I think gays should be able to follow the same business model, either simply for legitimacy in our society, legal protection, or simply love.

You are right, many gays have relationships with plenty of terrors. I know many. In point of fact, those with the biggest problems dealing with dissolution involve kids. Either surrogate or adopted. Heed what I'm saying...you don't know what I'm talking about.

Yes, you had relationships, and ALL relationships can go bad, cause disappointment and entanglement issues. But the fact is our society is not structured for gay relationships. Yet. It neither supports them nor encumbers them. It actually stubbornly refuses to define them.

I don't need to know anything about your relationships to know that you don't know what you're getting into. You THINK you do, but you don't. You THINK your previous relationships give you some modicum of sense, but they really don't. And many gay people don't.

Relationships can be good. They can be bad. You say you don't care about marriage, that you experienced it's equivalent, and you think we should leave it to the religious. This is what I mean that I don't think you understand what marriage is. You wanna have all the joys of the idea without getting into (really) it's reality. Despite what you think of all the mess and struggle you encountered with your previous, and that somehow the fact that you were young and dumb and didn't "really feel the same" about the other matters at all- you didn't experience marriage. You experienced a bad relationship. That's all.

As gays begin to marry, really, they will begin to experience it. It's greatness and it's not-so-greatness. And I'm all for it. Not cuz I want you to learn anything, but because it is your right.

Our society can't quite grasp, yet, what gay relationships are or mean. As much as we know they are like straights, they are also different. To ignore this is naive.

There are many powerful reasons people are resistant to this. It is our job to educate and re-shape these reasons so that consciousness can accept it's value and it's need.

The reason I brought up kids is because in straight sex this is a natural result of the act. No matter how loving or intense gays get sexually, they are never going to produce a child. This means their union isn't going to produce another life that needs care and support. But as we see, this stumbling block sexually isn't exactly disabling them from fulfilling their bio imperative: surrogate, in-vitro, it's all happening. They go around the limits of their actual love-making. And this is good--

But it brings us to the real-world structure of marriage: kids. Many straights don't have kids, or can't, this is true. But that is besides the fact that a man and woman combine and produce kids. It's not important who does or doesn't, but how the fact happens. People have unintended pregnant ALL the time. And they fall out of love.

Who cares about all the legal woes of two adults who get married stupidly and then find out they don't love each other? We care about the real victims. The children who irresponsibly arose from it. They are the victims of this mess.

Marriage is an illogical state of union, and you can call yours a civil union or whatever, but that doesn't address the illogical side of love and the irrational need to declare something worldly yet otherworldly to another person. Why gay people want to get married is the question, and the responsibility is on them to accept this dual concept and it's real-world failures.

It's important in life to remain less encumbered. Yet, it is important to have the courage to be encumbered. Marriage is an irrational statement that over time becomes more rational, and I find it interesting that you dismiss the desire of other gays to address and engage the marriage ideal despite it's 50% failure rate. I think somewhere inside you you know you may fail at this current relationship as well, and thus keep a safe distance. I understand. This is deeply subconscious, possibly from your upbringing. You are not unlike straight kids who endured the same.

WoundedBird
November 21st, 2010, 14:52
I think the conversation needs more than two parties to really continue on in a productive manner.

I don't want to go into the details of my relationships, and I would have to to dispute some of this. I have other matters in my life that mean more to me than arguing whether or not I have "real" relationships or am just "playing". I wish things were that easy for me.

Anyway, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, and to say whatever you want. I feel too much intensity right now trying to present information to my niece regarding why she shouldn't cut her coming son, and planning on a major move in my life and the future of my romantic relationship, as we have lots of obstacles in our path, to argue about my love-life on this message board.

I'll return to this later on...

1Taoist
November 22nd, 2010, 11:41
Nobody's arguing about your love life except you.

And I agree, more people should weigh in, but do not.

WoundedBird
November 23rd, 2010, 21:26
It's nice that you pointed out that you consider yourself "engaged", that you intend on your current beau to be the last one, even as you consider yourself divorced from the previous one whom I'm sure you felt equally about.

:-D

The comment and the smiley face were blatantly and obviously meant to get my goad, and they did. I shouldn't allow such things to happen, however.

How do you know what I feel? I did not actually feel the same feelings for my first partner as I do for the current one, not even close.

Marriage benefits kids, mostly. But it does benefit spouses in some ways, but the way I look at it you had all the joys of marriage without any of the terrors...which in my opinion disqualifies the analogue to marriage. It's like fantasy role-playing...all the fun of being a prisoner without the actual rape.

Your opinion of what children entail is a bit startling...you consider them to be "terrors". But to say that relationships are based around children primarily, and without them we get all the fun without any of the hardship...well, it's bullshit, quite frankly...and also sounds like so much sour grapes. Two people sharing their entire emotional worlds is what coupledom is about to me...not whether you procreate or not. You know nothing of what I went through in any of my relationships. I never claimed to know anything about your relationships, as that would be silly. I am having to go through incredible obstacles to be with my current partner, and the love we have isn't any different than that of a straight couple. You can disagree, and clearly do...that's fine. Your position is offensive to me, saying that I get all the good stuff, or if there is bad stuff it's partially related to the fact that we don't have children...it's a catch 22...we shouldn't have children, but unless we do, we don't know what real love is like.

There is no reason to belittle my relationship because we aren't going to have children together. There are plenty of tribulations to endure whether there are children or not.

1Taoist
November 24th, 2010, 12:24
That's not what I said at all. At all. Re-read it.

Relationships don't have to do with kids, MARRIAGE does. Mostly. But you just don't get it. Marriage in this country is set up FOR CHILDREN. The fact that you argue this, and distort my posts, is evidence of your outright ignorance over what the institution of marriage really is.

You're just a guy with fantasy ideas of "marriage" like it's something you do after you and your beau "share emotional states". Gimme a break. You don't know what marriage is because you've never been. Case closed.

You don't have to have kids to be married, or to be a couple. It's just that the system is set up FOR children. And to keep you from having children all over the place with different people. Those that don't have kids aren't any less married.

And you got something else horribly mangled: terrors aren't children, but they can be. The terrors I'm talking about are the struggles for long-term functional intimacy and legal, familial, and business entanglements that are incumbent in marriage (and it's dissolution). If you've got all those without actually being married...then you're a disaster, no matter what you do. You think what you had was tough? If you had been married it would have been ten-fold. Fact: when you're married there is no easy way out. Period. And once again, don't say you know what it's like being married- cuz you don't. Stop that.

WoundedBird
November 24th, 2010, 17:00
I am not trying to distort your posts. I genuinely thought you were telling me that my relationships are akin to role-playing since they aren't legal. That isn't what you meant, thank you for clarifying.

Actually, I know multiple gay people who are in long-term business and financial entanglements, so you are the one who is ignorant in that regard. There are ways other than marriage which can culminate in such difficulties. Maybe not to the same extent, but then there are prenuptial agreements, not that they account for everything.

I see your point about people not having children all over the place with multiple people, okay. I'm glad not to have the problem of accidentally impregnating my partners.

Many gay people go to great lengths to arrange things as closely to legal marriage as possible, since we are not allowed the same legal allowance straight couples are. That doesn't make a person a "disaster" any more than it makes a straight person seeking marriage a disaster.

But I feel no need to argue such petit points. I think I understand your position now. I don't agree with 100% of it still. And your "I know some gay people" thing sounds painfully similar to someone saying "Hey, I have black friends!" when saying something that could be construed as insulting to blacks.

I'm glad that in the end you recognize we are all humans and love is love. Marriage is another issue entirely, and you're right, I wasn't able to legally marry my partner in the past. However, the general emotional dynamics were the same, and I also incurred some financial problems due to things we had put in both of our names.

I still want to see the data though that proves marriage should be all about children, and therefore gay people don't deserve the right to marry in the same way that straight people can. I haven't read those documents and you haven't provided them. I think instead you are talking about your understanding of how it works, which is fine, but you seem very righteous in your approach...like you are in possession of knowledge above and beyond we mere mortals.

Again, thank you for clarifying your position in regards to the matters of love and relationships. I have no desire to fight my Intactivist brethren.

1Taoist
November 25th, 2010, 12:13
In fact I am in a position of superior knowlege- to you. Because I'm there, you are not. And never have been.

You keep making the mistake of saying your "feelings" are the same as a married person- an actual married person (talking NEUTRALLY here, neither gay nor straight)- when you have ZERO reference for this. You are not in a position to compare if you've only known one side of an issue, especially if it's the side that didn't experience the thing. You're like the boxer who spars but doesn't actually do a fight; you can know what boxing is like, but you can't know the pressure of boxing. [and again I know what I'm talking about]

I mention the disaster reference because so many people, including gays now, are trying to rush headlong into this thing called marriage, when if you look around...really look around...you will see what a disaster it is. I don't get the appeal. But, it's an irrational thing. It's what we do. Bein single ain't some picnic either. We get married, really, for reasons we don't understand. It's a compulsion.

This isn't about relationships. This is about marriage. What is it, exactly? What's it like? Those who've done it will tell you- it's hard and it's great, but most of all it's stuck. By sheer force of law it makes us deal with things we might otherwise skip out on. This includes child-rearing, but not exclusively; it also means maturity, commitment, intimacy, acceptance, tolerance, endurance, health, sexuality, financial responsibility...

Whether you like it or not, there isn't much difference between what you stated- gay people setting up remarkably close to married people -and people who are actually married...but that difference makes ALL the difference. You're right, if you just live with someone for long enough you can become common law married (by default), but again, not gays. Why? Mostly cuz of kids. You see, many clever people like you mentioned figure out how to get as close to marriage as they can without actually being married, and for a reason. Therefore our laws take away the opportunity this clever maneuver provides.

In the end, you'll find that your relationship isn't much different. It's now only solidified by law. That means both protection and enslavement. You'll see. And you'll make the best of it. It's like the death penalty- it's a deeply-flawed system that once in a while kills the wrong person, but on the whole it seems a necessary evil.

Gay people will eventually find this out. And I'm not talkin about the two old queens who've been together anyway for the last 30 years and will be til death. I'm talkin about the younger now-socially-accepted people who don't have to hide their secret.

Lastly, I resent your comment equating gays with black people. Like I know people that are gay like black. This is more of the reverse-homophobia "gay is the new black" card. I am part black. I have a gay brother. I don't "know" these people...I AM these people.

WoundedBird
November 26th, 2010, 11:05
Gay people will eventually find this out. And I'm not talkin about the two old queens who've been together anyway for the last 30 years and will be til death. I'm talkin about the younger now-socially-accepted people who don't have to hide their secret.

What about the "old queens" who lived openly? Oscar Wilde anyone? Rimbaud, Verlaine? Auden? Truman Capote? Allen Ginsberg?

You are part black and have a gay brother, you are so counter-culture. I don't know how I can compete with that.

You really think there have been no openly gay couples ever?

What about the gay couples who DO have kids? I don't think that makes a marriage, but you do...and many gay people do have children. You can belittle the relationships all you want, but that is just rude, you don't know what they are experiencing. You don't intimidate me. You declare your superiority but have nothing to bring to the table but delusions of grandeur.

I don't care that much about being legally married. But I don't see why we should be denied that right. Where are those documents that state that marriage is about children? Not just your declaration of such, but the documents that point to the reality.

The way I can relate black people and gays is a series of civil rights tribulations in this society. Right now it is trendy to be gay in a sense, everyone has "gay friends" - just like with black people in the 70s and 80s. Interracial marriage was once illegal, just as gay marriage is now. I am not playing any cards..I'm analyzing the reality of social equality in our society.

To this day, if my partner became ill and he had a bigot family which didn't want me to see him...I would be barred from doing so as he passed away. That is the same thing that happened to interracial couples before marriage between them became legal. People can deny that a gay couple are family to each other in the states where gay unions are not legal, which is most of them. In fact, people have been arrested for gay sex in modern times and it is still possible in a handful of states. How is that equality? The reasons behind the ban on gay unions is thinly veiled bigotry. Harvey Milk had to fight Proposition 6 which proposed the ability to fire gay people from public jobs such as teaching. My partner is a teacher. Am I wrong to think such laws are a threat to our very lives? I have known gay people who were almost barred from teaching due to bigot parents who thought their children were at risk by being taught by them.

I am not sure what your position is, and I am not sure where you are going with this...but you have stated several things that just aren't true. I feel the need to point that out. There have been openly gay couples throughout history

Considering marriage enslavement is a bit dramatic...but if you think it that then I would suggest simply avoiding it. There is no reason gay people should be denied the same "enslavement" that straight people are. Not all marriages are monogamous, straight or gay I am in favor of civil unions for all who are interested. If I want to share in the financial responsibilities of life with another man I should have that right. If I want to be legally considered family with another man I should have that right. I don't understand why other people want to keep that right from gay and bisexual people. If I want to have a civil and legal ceremony to cement the reality that I am uniting with another person I love I don't see how that threatens other people's unions.

In fact, some people, like Ron, feel that us being denied that right is a threat to his own union, not the opposite. There are some people who are refusing to marry until gay people are given the same rights. I'm not advocating or opposing such sentiment, but it exists out there.

I don't understand why you need to say things like "two old queens who lived in the closet together for 30 years" - what is the purpose of that? Not all gay couples have lived in the closet. For those who did, don't you think it was out of fear of what would happen if they were open about it? There are people who aren't legally married who have expressed commitment, maturity, etc in their relationships. It's insulting to declare that all gay couples have lacked that due to their inability to marry legally...then say that they shouldn't have that right because they can't have children in the conventional sense, together.

You possess superior knowledge and you know what I have experienced in my relationships...how can I argue with such logic and proof?

1Taoist
November 26th, 2010, 18:54
You just validated my point and contradicted it in the same breath. My point was that gays DID live in fear. That was my point. And talking about openly gay couples as existent is actually insulting your own cause- these people were few and far between and I am the one pointing out the condition you'd like to see changed. Get your head on straight, will ya?

I really wish you'd stop misunderstanding and mangling every post I make. I am very clear about my position, it is YOU that is unclear. Gay people should marry if they want to cuz it is everyone's right- I just don't think it's all that great an idea. For anyone. But that's beside the point. It's what we do, and gay couples should live openly.

Which brings me to something interesting you threw in there: bisexuals should be able to marry.

What exactly is a bisexual in marriage? How's that gonna work, actually? You see, the definition of a bisexual is that they are sexually active with both men and women. How do you get that covered in a marriage? Oh, I know I know...the couple is "free" to be sexual with others, right? Great. Except that isn't marriage. That is open marriage (purportedly).

Every sane individual will come to the stunning realization that these constructs just don't pan out the way they are thought out. I don't wanna waste energy extolling the history and difficulties of the swinging culture, cause whatever consenting adults do is their business, but all of this falls squarely outside the conundrum that is marriage. And why gays are meeting so much resistance; making these states work is, literally, re-defining marriage, which is what people are resisting.

I think it's these roadblocks that are causing such difficulty. I think two gay people getting married is no different than 2 straights- it's following the business model. Not so sure about the bisexuals.

Feel free to weigh in, though.

WoundedBird
November 27th, 2010, 21:55
A bisexual in marriage is a person who is attracted to both men and women who is marrying a person. Whether they marry a man or a woman, if they are bisexual, they are attracted to both men and women, and are therefore a bisexual in marriage.

On the rewriting of definitions. Do you really think most people care that much about what the dictionary says? Is it a major semantics issue, or is it an issue of something else? What about the definition of "gay" - that word had nothing to do with homosexuality until the mid-20th century. Why didn't straight people become so upset about that one? What about the word "cool" - we use it in the US more often to mean something that is good and/or fine, but that is not it's original definition. The definitions of words evolve all the time. I really don't think the problem for most people is that we are going against the dictionary. Words are added to the dictionary as time goes on and words develop. We don't live in a static world, even though some people wish we did.

Why don't we refer to all unions, legally, as Civil Unions. Then when straight people go to a church and have a ceremony, that can be a marriage? That seems fine with me, I don't understand how that would be a problem. We have evolved a lot since the beginning of this nation.

I still don't know what your position is on whether gay people should be allowed to unite legally. You have gone to some length to define your opinion of what marriage is...but not whether you think gay people should have the right to partake in such. Your position is not actually very clear. However, what I took offense to was you saying things like "two old queens in the closet" and that I am "essentially role-playing" with my partners.

At this point I think you should just state your opinion of whether gay people should have the right to the same legal protections and benefits that heterosexual people are, in uniting. I personally have stated multiple times that the term Civil Unions is fine for me...as long as we get the same legal benefits. Since not all straight people have children, but all straight people are entitled to the right to marry, I don't think bringing up children is relevant here. I know plenty of straight married couples who never had children and never will.

I think many people come up with a lot of red-herrings to distract from the fact that essentially they find gay couples disgusting, and just don't like them. I don't see how it hurts someone else's marriage for me to have legal rights with my partner. That is a rather weak partnership if so.

If my partner becomes ill, and only family members are allowed to see him...do you think it's right for me to be denied seeing him because I am not legally considered family?

Bottom line, should gay people be given the option to have the same legal rights of union that straight people do, if they so choose?

greg_b
November 28th, 2010, 07:18
Nicely summarized, Woundedbird. 1Taoist, I for one am not clear on what you are saying either. Let me try and show you where my confusion lies by excerpting form you last post. It may not help, but then you seem to repeatedly ask for other people to chime in. Feel free to ignore my post if it is just going to get you angry, that is not my intent.


...Gay people should marry if they want to cuz it is everyone's right- I just don't think it's all that great an idea. For anyone....

...gay couples should live openly...

...What exactly is a bisexual in marriage? How's that gonna work, actually? You see, the definition of a bisexual is that they are sexually active with both men and women. How do you get that covered in a marriage? Oh, I know I know...the couple is "free" to be sexual with others, right? Great. Except that isn't marriage. That is open marriage (purportedly).

Every sane individual will come to the stunning realization that these constructs just don't pan out the way they are thought out...

...all of this falls squarely outside the conundrum that is marriage...re-defining marriage...

...I think it's these roadblocks that are causing such difficulty. I think two gay people getting married is no different than 2 straights...Not so sure about the bisexuals.

Feel free to weigh in, though.

My confusion is that you seem to say that gays should marry if they want, but then seem to say that is redefining marriage, a seemingly odd way to state it. But then I do not think I understand how you are defining marriage. If they are redefining marriage, then they are not yet able to marry in the traditional sense, by definition? Or do you now accept that marriage has already been redefined?

And who is the "anyone" for which you feel this is not a good idea? Literally anyone? Or gays? And how does your feeling that it is not a good idea factor into this discussion? Was that you original point, that you do not feel gays should or is it that you do not feel anyone should?

Gays "should live openly", yet your original post seemed to suggest that you were not comfortable with those two ladies "living openly", at least in how they answered your son's question, but I still do not understand why that was...

To me, sexual preference is separate from how people are joined together from a religious or civil/legal perspective. I think that is where it gets confusing and requires carefully thought out definitions. It would be a lot easier if religious and civil marriages were separated, rather than being co-mingled as they are today.

Why do you use the word "purportedly" when discussing "open" marriage? It sounds like you do not agree that an open marriage can work, but do you see an open marriage as being within your definition of marriage? It doesn't sound like it since you say "that is not marriage". People are certainly fallible, so some will be able to work it out, some will not. That should not, in my mind, change the definition. Saying that "Every sane individual will come to the stunning realization" that they "don't pan out" simply repeats that thought without adding anything new, other than making it sound a lot more forceful.

As I said, Your various posts have not helped me figure out what your concern was or why. But I am only posting because I am curious. I have followed the recent media discussions and am married, so have some interest in this issue. If this post causes you undue frustration and irritation, feel free to ignore.

Regards

1Taoist
November 28th, 2010, 14:15
Wounded: first...I appreciate your attempt to define bisexual, although in my opinion you've failed. I know your complicated explanation makes sense in your mind, but I don't get it. The simplest explanation is usually best. And in this case, bisexual doesn't refer to a "union between two people", it refers to an orientation. And in your words, this orientation is both transient and spot-specific- who you're with now temporarily defines you...as one side of the fence. At least for the time being.

A bisexual person can get married to one person, but they are only "half-married" (:-0) because this one person is only half of their stated orientation, this one person can't fulfil the complete sexuality of said person. This is the problem with labeling yourself as such- it locks you out of the marriage idea. If you're saying that bisexuality is a misnomer- it only refers abstractly to who you're with at that moment rather than true identity, then there is no such thing as bisexual marriage.

I sympathize with such people, but saying "I'm with this person now, but I could easily be with the other too" just renders the person indescriminant in their orientation- they love who they love irrespective of their sex. What I'm saying is bisexual has no relation to marriage. It actually has no place in the discussion because it, by definition, doesn't fall within the marriage structure.

I'd respect you more if you had just said you don't know how it would work.

And let me add something that is baffling me: why in the world you insist on claiming you don't know my position on gay marriage. I've only said it ten times. It's like you are so blinded by your own view you don't really read mine. I think gay people should be allowed to marry. RE-READ MY POSTS.

1Taoist
November 28th, 2010, 15:21
Greg: I apologize if my positions haven't been clear to both of you. When I said I think gays should be allowed to marry, I meant it; any two people should be able to marry if they wish to. Where you apparently got confused is that I said I don't think it's a good idea...for anyone. Anyone, meaning anyone. I don't think marriage is a good idea for anyone (sadly).

I say that because I think it's a flawed arrangement that makes far too many people miserable. Just my view. But it's not to be confused with thinking it's not a good idea for gays cuz they're gay. Get it?

Redefining marriage is what this is. Why are you both in denial of this? Trying to call marriage "gay marriage" is a redefining, and then "bisexual marriage"? If that isn't a re-defining I don't know what is. If what both of you are clinging to is the idea that marriage isn't about orientation, fine. I agree. There is no re-defining. Marriage is just a union between two people. Who cares what their sexual orientation or their respective sex is. I agree with this.

But then there's reality. Our society has a certain structure, like it or not. Saying a gay or a bisexual should be able to marry another gay or bisexual is bringing definitions into a definitionless union.

I'm simply bringing into the mix the conundrums. Does a bisexual marry another bisexual? If not, then one bisexual and one heterosexual...what does that equate to? It's not bisexual marriage any more than a gay man marrying a hetero woman would be gay marriage. You see, this is the flaw I see in labeling all these states of marriage. It buries us in the complications that arise in labeling.

Like, for instance, transgender marriage. If someone is transgender, this in itself is transient. If it's two women, which is a gay union, and one is becoming a man, this temporary state is somewhere lost between hetero and gay marriage. Assuming a transgender will eventually become a man, does that now make them hetero marriage? And if only we just kept it simple...and made it simply marriage is a union between two people. Who cares what their orientation is or their genital status.

How about a hetero marriage where the woman wants to have sex with women? Does that make her bisexual? And if so, is her marriage about her bisexuality or her union with her husband (which is hetero)?

And here's a real zinger: if a hetero couple likes to enjoy another man, where the man fucks the other man (assuming he's bi or gay), does that gay sex make the original couple a gay marriage? And just ask, sometime, if people feel there's a difference between a married hetero man fucking men occasionally and a hetero married woman fucking women occasionally. You'll find that people think the husband is gay and the wife is "bi". Doesn't matter what the truth is, or how you explain it. Doesn't make sense, just one of those undeniable double-standards.

All the above brings us to what I've said earlier in response to the irrational resistance gay people are meeting and why straights feel "threatened". They don't want to sanction gay sex. Marriage sanctions sex (irrespective of whether you have kids). Their marriage is threatened by the re-defining in their mind of what sex is sanctioned. If gay sex is sanctioned, I think many will feel the urge to try it, and this falls outside the marriage idea. You see, marriage is not a fertile environment for sex. It just isn't. And as irrational as heteros are about this, it comes from a deep fear of their own sexuality and their own structure. This is why gays will obtain their rights- this unconscious irrational fear-based resistance will crumble in the face of the fact that marriage, like nature, doesn't give a fuck about whether you're man or woman but instead that we continue. Marriage is an irrational idea that moves us toward a rational one.

That being said, if gays wanna get married and can pull off this struggle, I lift my glass to it. It's a hard one. And if they can succeed where many heteros have, and arrive at the "good marriage", I'm all in support of it. But the biggest reality check of adulthood is realizing you get married knowing NOTHING about what it is or what it takes, and that's what makes it so interesting.

1Taoist
November 28th, 2010, 16:01
Also Greg: my discomfort with the ladies was rooted in the fact that she tried to confuse my son into the idea that his friend was sired by two women, when she wasnt. Just my take. She took the opportunity to state her sexual orientation rather than answer the father's status (even if non-involved). It bugs me that gays like her are TRYING to redefine things that aren't redefinable. In that case she would have been more respectful to honor the question of life instead of shoveling in her partner status and this horsehit of two mommies. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it pisses me off about as much as if she'd said she was getting her son circumcised.

And to address your last concern, I personally have come to the reality that open marriages are just another foolish endeavor. This is just people's attempts to redefine the undefinable- their natural restlessness and inability to maintain monogamy. It sounds great and new-agey...but sorry. Many have tried and this shit-show continues to fail. Sorry.

It might be because whenever you make conscious (or open) something that isn't part of the intended structure, you get blow-back. This is why people who marry can be imperfect; they may stray but the key is that it isn't accepted. It's done, but not accepted. What I'm saying is there is method to the madness. You are addressing conscious and subconscious. When you give subconscious (polyamory) the controls (thru open acceptance), it will fuck things up. Whatever is great will turn horrible. That is the law of duality. When you consciously say "I love this one person", and them stray due to your subconscious urges overwhelming you, you have still kept the subconcious in check by chastising it as unacceptable. The minute you give in and say "everything goes", you're in trouble.

Maybe you don't agree, but marriage starts us out with the universal business model. Over time, it is up to us to make it our own. This means expanding it's expression perhaps in ways that others may find unacceptable, but that nonetheless work for us. But even after this process has come forth, it is still under the original framework that is universal and unchanging, and thru which we see past the imperfections and illusions of experience.

WoundedBird
November 28th, 2010, 22:19
Actually sexuality is not by definition who one sleeps with, it's who one is attracted to. A person can be gay and never have sex, just as one can be straight and never have sex. Someone can be attracted to both men and women and choose to marry a man or woman because they love that person, I don't see the confusion there. Many people, such as the OP (from what I understand) feel sexuality is fluid in most individuals. And almost all married people I've known feel lust for others outside their marriage, whether they act on that lust or not. Monogamy is not a requirement for all people in their relationships, whether they are legally united or not. For me, I prefer monogamy, but that is besides the point really.

It seems that for you, Taoist, it's your way or the highway. I am not that concerned with whether or not you respect me. My concern in that regard is limited to the people close to me. If I went around worrying about random people on the internet not respecting me, I would have a lot of anxiety on my hands. I feel like arguing with you is akin to running on a treadmill...we aren't getting anywhere thus far.

I never said "bisexual marriage" - I said a bisexual person can be married and they are still bisexual. It actually seems to be you who is confused about the definition of sexuality. You're the one who is ranting about the bisexual thing. I don't think it's that relevant either. I was trying to simply be all-inclusive, because not everyone is simply gay or straight.

My main concern is I want the right to legally unite with my partner and have it recognized that we are family. If you have a very negative view of marriage, I don't want that to affect my ability to enjoy the same legal rights you already enjoy. I don't care if other people "accept" me per se...I just want to have the same rights two people of opposite sex already have. I know gay people who are legally married, and I know many gay couples who live together in harmony and monogamy for decades, and are still going strong.

I still need to see the documents that clarify your position that marriage is all about business. Most people I know, perhaps they have a more "romantic" definition, but that doesn't make their definition wrong because you don't care for it.

Also Greg: my discomfort with the ladies was rooted in the fact that she tried to confuse my son into the idea that his friend was sired by two women, when she wasnt. Just my take. She took the opportunity to state her sexual orientation rather than answer the father's status (even if non-involved). It bugs me that gays like her are TRYING to redefine things that aren't redefinable. In that case she would have been more respectful to honor the question of life instead of shoveling in her partner status and this horsehit of two mommies. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it pisses me off about as much as if she'd said she was getting her son circumcised.

Why don't you just explain to your son that it does take sperm and an egg to make a baby, but that doesn't mean the man who created that sperm and the woman who grew that baby are going to live together and raise it. There are all sorts of different family situations in this world. I think you are the one confusing your son more than those two women. My nephews had a basic understanding of what homosexuality is and that I am a homosexual since they were little. They didn't need to know sexual details. They just knew that I like men the way most men like other women. Any luridness comes from the intolerance and over-sexualization of gay people, not from gay people themselves.

You seem a lot more concerned about what other people do in their bedrooms than I am, and that does disturb me. You rant and rave that everyone else is confused and ignorant...that is called Ad Hominem...attack your opponent rather than address the point. At this point, I suppose, whatever your position is, which is still really not that lucid...that you disagree with me and I with you in regards to gays ability to raise children. There have been studies done which support my view, that show that children can be raised in a healthy way by any number of domestic situations. My mother was a single mother, if she had told your son "Jaime only has a mommy" would he then be confused that she had immaculately conceived of me? That seems sort of silly. If your son is confused, explain it to him. Children aren't the fragile eggshells some people make them out to be in this way...they are capable of understanding a lot. You don't have to go into sexual details to explain these situations to a child. Basically, you have shown blatant intolerance of gay couples and try to mire it in all sorts of ramblings in different directions. You are disgusted by the fact that those two women are raising that child in the situation they are. You say you would have more respect for me if I just admitted that I am ignorant, that I "don't know how it would work." I could say the same of you. But then, do you really care that much whether or not I respect you or your opinion? I never said anything nasty to you as you have to me...I was offended by certain things you said, and you have been offended by certain things I've said. So be it, it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things. I don't have to know everything to know that it's none of my concern what other people do in their marriages. What is of my concern is people who actively oppress my ability to legally unite with the partner of my choice. We are discussing topics, not fighting in a cage match.

Whatever other people do in their marriages, I don't see why that concerns you so much. All I was saying is that there are many different types of relationships and marriages in the world. Different people do things different ways. Wanting everyone to do something the same way as you, or think of it the same way as you, or else they are to be considered stupid and/or revolting, that is intolerance. If you are so assured of your righteousness, I am confused as to why you become so enraged when someone simply disagrees with you and probes you to clarify your position. I never intended to get into a textual fist-fight on this board, you are the one who tried to bring it to that level. Your anger is very palpable.

You are terrified of changing the status quo in some ways, yet trying actively to change it in others (circumcision). Some people would say you have no right to tell them whether they can cut their kids. I would disagree. I would also disagree that you have the right to tell two people of the same sex that they can't raise a kid properly. Looks like many of us are trying to change the status quo, and many people would say we don't have the right to do that. If nobody ever tried to, though, we would still be in the dark ages.

My biggest disappointment at this point is that this thread was completely derailed. There is a real topic here. Maybe we can let our debate rest, Taoist, and leave the thread open for actual discussions that might illuminate something?

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 01:24
I have never said gays can't raise children. You are completely incoherent. But maybe the fact that I was not happy with one woman's child raising (and there are plenty of other straight people I don't appreciate either), that I'm somehow referring to all gay people. That is nonsense. And you know it.

You're just fighting to fight. "Well I know someone who has done this, and that, so you're just wrong". "You're not clear on whether or not gay people should marry", even though I just said how I feel. Yatta yatta yatta. An argument for everything and the exception proves the rule.

I think you're arguing with me because I make sense, and that to you doesn't make sense.

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 01:29
And I love people on this board who actively engage in topics and then when they're frustrated and defensive state that "the topic has been derailed".

Nobody forced you to discuss this, kid.

WoundedBird
November 29th, 2010, 02:11
Okay, so you aren't opposed to all gay couples. That is the first time I really heard you say that. That's great. I am genuinely glad to hear that. I am just fighting to fight? I don't want to fight. It's over with. I want the thread to open up and allow for real discussion now.

No, I mean that I don't think we are discussing anything relevant to the topic at hand...I didn't blame you solely for that. I am at fault too. It's over with, no biggie.

A lot of adoptive parents, straight and gay, don't include the sperm donor in the child's life, usually that is the choice of the person donating the sperm themselves. If you have other issues with those parents other than that they said "He has two mommies" then I didn't hear about it. Should she have said the name of the man and where he lived? Should she have explained how she used artificial insemination or how she conceived with a man and then started raising her kid with her lover? Would that have been less offensive to you? How would that confuse your son less? If I agree with you on something, I will say so. I like agreeing with people more than I like disagreeing with them. I agree with your statement that some gay couples can be good parents, so we already agree on something.

If you don't see how some of the things you said were offensive, then fine. I am not going to lose sleep over it. This is just gotten silly. I admit fault for getting engaged in it. It's over with, this back-and-forth. I didn't expect it to turn into this. It seems vain to continue on in this manner.

I am leaving all the former discussion points you and I have addressed behind, your anecdote about those women is not that important in the grand scheme of things. I am not a kid. You don't actually make sense all the time, you were all over the place. But I don't want to do this anymore, it feels pointless. Let's leave it, okay? I never ever said that anyone "forced me to discuss this" Now you are intentionally misquoting me. - I said I think we have gotten off topic and I would like to see the thread have some productivity, so I would like it if there could be some real conversation other than you and I arguing. I think I am being perfectly reasonable in that request. We have both stated a lot of thoughts, and we apparently miscommunicated somewhere in there. Shit happens, no big deal, life goes on. I really would rather have a rational discussion with multiple parties about the issue of gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever we want to call them. Any conversation can grow stagnant in a vacuum. If nobody else wants to chime in anymore, then we can let the thread die. If so, maybe it can continue on.
And please, for the love of whomever, somebody else take this thread in another direction. The complete lack of interest by everyone else on the board shows how dead this thread is becoming, and I think it could be a fruitful area for discussion. It has nothing to do with you "winning" - but I figured you would take it that way. That's fine. Let's please be mature adults and not make this thread a battle of egos. If you know you are right, you don't need other people to validate that on an internet message board, do you?

Please somebody chime in with something in regards to the topic of gay marriage/civil unions, and don't be intimidated by the debate between Taoist and I. This thread doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the board. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

greg_b
November 29th, 2010, 07:05
Thank you for clarifying and trying to help me understand. And I would like to compliment you on using wording in your post that fosters discussion, a welcome change.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that much clearer on your position, as you seem to be covering several issues that to me are seperate, and on the marriage issue seem to be taking two, contardictory stands at the same time, however, as I said, this is not clear. Let me see if I can reword and highlight what still confuses me.

...any two people should be able to marry if they wish to. Where you apparently got confused is that I said I don't think it's a good idea...for anyone. Anyone, meaning anyone. I don't think marriage is a good idea for anyone (sadly).

I say that because I think it's a flawed arrangement that makes far too many people miserable. Just my view. But it's not to be confused with thinking it's not a good idea for gays cuz they're gay. Get it?...

Sure, this is easy to get. But in my mind, the issue of whether a marriage works or not is irrelevent to the definition of whether it is a marriage or not. A car is still a car in my book, whether it works or not. I suppose that if it has been damaged sufficiently, at some point you will say it is no longer a car, but it was a car until then. So, here you seem to say that a marriage can be between anyone, irregardless of their sexual orientation. I get it.

...Redefining marriage is what this is. Why are you both in denial of this? Trying to call marriage "gay marriage" is a redefining, and then "bisexual marriage"? If that isn't a re-defining I don't know what is. If what both of you are clinging to is the idea that marriage isn't about orientation, fine. I agree. There is no re-defining. Marriage is just a union between two people. Who cares what their sexual orientation or their respective sex is. I agree with this...

Here is where it is still confusing. You say that two gay people getting married redefines marriage for you, but then say you agree that marriage can be between any two people, irregardless of their sexual orientation. Are you defining marriage as a union between two heterosexuals? Are you defining marriage as between any two people? I do not think this is means I am in "denial" or "clinging", I feel on very comfortable solid ground in my view. From what I have read, it this issue of how to define marriage that defines the whole argument against gay marriage. Or do you mean that those against gay marriage are clinging to this idea, suggesting that you do not think that their veiw point is likely to dominate in the near future?


...But then there's reality. Our society has a certain structure, like it or not. Saying a gay or a bisexual should be able to marry another gay or bisexual is bringing definitions into a definitionless union..

Agreed, Structure, with very different viewpoints by some segments of society about what that structure should be. Definitions are what provide the structure, so I do not understand your last phrase. There is no definition of what a union between two people is? Seems to me the argument is over exactly that, what should the definition be.

...I'm simply bringing into the mix the conundrums. Does a bisexual marry another bisexual? If not, then one bisexual and one heterosexual...what does that equate to? It's not bisexual marriage any more than a gay man marrying a hetero woman would be gay marriage. You see, this is the flaw I see in labeling all these states of marriage. It buries us in the complications that arise in labeling..

I do not see the flaw...if the defintion of marriage is kept seperate from the defintion of sexual orientation. Two people get married. A person has this type of sexual orientation. These do not have to be combined, though many in our society do. I cannot tell from what you say whether you do or not. Neither is right or wrong, just a different way of looking at it. People could simply agree to disagree about which is a better way to look at it, but then some segments try and foster thier view on others, hence the argument over gay marriage.

...Like, for instance, transgender marriage. If someone is transgender, this in itself is transient. If it's two women, which is a gay union, and one is becoming a man, this temporary state is somewhere lost between hetero and gay marriage. Assuming a transgender will eventually become a man, does that now make them hetero marriage? And if only we just kept it simple...and made it simply marriage is a union between two people. Who cares what their orientation is or their genital status..

Again, not difficult for me regarding whether they are married of not. But that is just my viewpoint. I guess I do keep it that simple, and until I find some reason that makes me feel it is not that simple, I will stay my course.

...How about a hetero marriage where the woman wants to have sex with women? Does that make her bisexual? And if so, is her marriage about her bisexuality or her union with her husband (which is hetero)?

And here's a real zinger: if a hetero couple likes to enjoy another man, where the man fucks the other man (assuming he's bi or gay), does that gay sex make the original couple a gay marriage? And just ask, sometime, if people feel there's a difference between a married hetero man fucking men occasionally and a hetero married woman fucking women occasionally. You'll find that people think the husband is gay and the wife is "bi". Doesn't matter what the truth is, or how you explain it. Doesn't make sense, just one of those undeniable double-standards. .

Again, it makes perfect sense to me, I do not see the difficulty. Two people get married. This simply says they intend to live together and be treated as a couple. It does not proscribe what sexual activities they can do as a couple. It does not say that they must never change. I do not see where the double standard comes into it. That is unless you say that marriage is defined as a union between two hetersexual people only.

...All the above brings us to what I've said earlier in response to the irrational resistance gay people are meeting and why straights feel "threatened". They don't want to sanction gay sex. Marriage sanctions sex (irrespective of whether you have kids). Their marriage is threatened by the re-defining in their mind of what sex is sanctioned. If gay sex is sanctioned, I think many will feel the urge to try it, and this falls outside the marriage idea. ..

I think this is a great point. I am sure this is what underlies the need many have to define marriage as between two hetersexual people only. Since I am not threatened, I do not share this viewpoint.

...You see, marriage is not a fertile environment for sex. It just isn't. And as irrational as heteros are about this, it comes from a deep fear of their own sexuality and their own structure. This is why gays will obtain their rights- this unconscious irrational fear-based resistance will crumble in the face of the fact that marriage, like nature, doesn't give a fuck about whether you're man or woman but instead that we continue. Marriage is an irrational idea that moves us toward a rational one..

This is a very curious statement. What do you suggest is a fertile environment for sex?

...That being said, if gays wanna get married and can pull off this struggle, I lift my glass to it. It's a hard one. And if they can succeed where many heteros have, and arrive at the "good marriage", I'm all in support of it. But the biggest reality check of adulthood is realizing you get married knowing NOTHING about what it is or what it takes, and that's what makes it so interesting.

I agree that marriage is not the easiest thing to pull off over the long term. For gays, doubly hard since many in our society feel threatened by them.

...Also Greg: my discomfort with the ladies was rooted in the fact that she tried to confuse my son into the idea that his friend was sired by two women, when she wasnt. Just my take. She took the opportunity to state her sexual orientation rather than answer the father's status (even if non-involved). It bugs me that gays like her are TRYING to redefine things that aren't redefinable. In that case she would have been more respectful to honor the question of life instead of shoveling in her partner status and this horsehit of two mommies. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it pisses me off about as much as if she'd said she was getting her son circumcised...

So you believe that she was intentionaly trying to decieve your son and make him think that sperm are not needed for conception? Interesting, and I suppose it should not be unexpected, considering the sad state of knowledge in this country regarding biology.

Regards

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 11:16
No, Greg, it is not redefined for me- it is redefined for THEM. You're not really listening to my words. I said that it is gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people who are doing the re-defining. I think marriage is just a union between any two people. In some ways it is the alternative community that is seeking the definitions and it is the conventionional community that is resisting. And the other way around.

This reverse-state is a consequence of the fact that the conventional community can't see that marriage isn't actually defined as a man and a woman ONLY. It is actually just two people. It was when gays wanted to exercise that fact that the resistance woke up and said "whoa". They tried to define it as man/woman, and then the GLBT tried to define it, mistakenly, as their own brand. This is just a case of branding going on. If you hear the word gay marriage enough, you start to think it's something real...and whallah. Gays get married. I know something about marketing, and this is what the war is.

Don't deny that gay people aren't redefining. Are they the resistance, or is the conventional community? The conventional community says it's defined. The gay community says it is not...but then go about redefining by branding their own form of marriage. Gay marriage, bisexual marriage, lesbian marriage, and yes hetero marriage...are all brands.

Mark my words. This is a marketing war. And who stands to make money from their successful brand? The state. Therefore, this re-branding will win (gay marriage).

And in regards to wounded's schizo rants about "it's over, done" but just keeps on continuing...

The fact is you're lucky we're discussing this. Man up. Nobody else is. Why? Cuz nobody seems to care. Nobody wants to contribute not cuz of us but because they don't care about the issue (except Greg).

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 11:36
Greg: your comment on the flaw of labeling. I feel you skirted the issue. The fact is nobody is out there advocating leggo marriages- meaning two plain ole people who just combine any way they want to make some new form of sexuality. Nobody does that. The vast majority of people are narrowly defined, and that's okay.

Do people philanthropically express their sexuality? Sure. But they don't build marriages around it. At least the smart ones.

Truly gay people get married to gay people if they can. But, there is this phenomenon within the gay community where gay men go after straight men. Why? Without really derailing us, let's just ponder that aspect as part of people's contradictions. Gays are really attracted to straight men cuz...it's what they're not supposed to have, it's the male ideal, it's a challenge, some guys will do it, and on and on and on.

But we're trying to responsibly address genuine happiness. Straight couples are encouraged to pursue and construct lives and relationships that foster long-term health and well-being. Straights who chase after lesbians to "bring them back" are not worthy of discussion. So why am I discussing it? Because marriage isn't really about sexuality. It IS about identity. Healthy gays will marry healthy gays, not a straight chick. Does that mean some gays and straights don't get together in some sort of "arrangent" that works for them? No, they do. But they are probably and more than likely disfunctional people with probably some degree of low self-esteem and/or abuse issues from childhood (without going too psychological). I mean truly. That is really just the case.

What we're discussing is how the society at large can responsibly integrate gays into marriage, not gay marriage into society.

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 11:44
Greg: a fertile environment for sex is a bath house.

Just kidding.

Maybe a bar around 2am.

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 12:02
Lastly Greg, on the issue of the lesbian...

No, she wasn't intentionally trying to deceive my son. Unless it's truly unconscious. I think she is simply so caught up in her definition of her life that she actually can't answer a simple question without obscuring the facts. I think it is HER that is confused. My son is NOT confused. He looked at her like she was.

All parents have to do is give a simple answer. Children don't need too much info. But perhaps my son actually suspected that his friend was raised by gay women and wanted to check. That is possible. Children can sometimes catch adults in their own shit sometimes. That's what makes them clever- they are simple. But his intuition caught her and she took the bait, and I'm always surprised when adults are undone by kids. You may think he didn't "catch her in her shit", but then again you weren't there. And, as I said, her having two mommies is horseshit. He didn't ask her how many mommies she had.

And to address wounded's earlier comment asking about this woman as a parent, he obviously doesn't read my posts. I explained that I had issues with this woman as a parent earlier because she sends her little girl to school on cold and rainy days with no jacket cuz she "wants her to be tough". In a man's world? You figure it out. Adorable little girl, mom not so much.

Like, for instance, we went to a wedding and we all wore black tie tuxes. My brother's boyfriend decided to wear a white dinner jacket to be different. And you know all the talk about that stuff (what is appropriate), and my son, wearing his black tux started giving this gay man a hard time for not wearing "a tux". Now, this was just funny. But this guy got all emotional and started getting unraveled by my 6yr old. Seriously. I had to remind this guy the kid is 6.

If you ever watch the movie Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood, you'll notice this interactive way men give each other a hard time. It's this sort of back-handed love. Now, if you looked at that literally, you'd think it was rude (hey asshole, how you doin? What the fuck do you care, you a doctor? No, I don't, just bein nice you cocksucker). This is really how guys talk to each other. And you can't take it literally. It's a roast. But I've found that gay men don't have much skin for this type of ribbing. Not sure why. It's like women don't talk that way to each other. They actually do the opposite ("oh, dear, I love your dress!" (even though they hate it, or the girl wearing it)).

Curious ways we are, indeed.

greg_b
November 29th, 2010, 18:09
No, Greg, it is not redefined for me- it is redefined for THEM....the conventional community can't see that marriage isn't actually defined as a man and a woman ONLY. It is actually just two people. It was when gays wanted to exercise that fact that the resistance woke up and said "whoa". They tried to define it as man/woman...Don't deny that gay people aren't redefining. Are they the resistance, or is the conventional community? The conventional community says it's defined. The gay community says it is not...but then go about redefining by branding their own form of marriage. Gay marriage, bisexual marriage, lesbian marriage, and yes hetero marriage...are all brands....

OK, got it, I think. You do not see gay marriage as redefining marriage. For you, marriage is between two people, independent of their sexual orientation.

But other people, I would say "some" other people, be they straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, open, etc are trying to redefine mariage to suit themselves. Branding is a good way to say it I suppose, same as saying they are trying to get support for their view on what the definition should be. Not everyone, but some segments that feel threatened or feel that they are not being treated equitably.

Greg: your comment on the flaw of labeling. I feel you skirted the issue......

Not really sure where to go with this one, you lost me. But don't worry about it, no biggie, probably not worth pursuing.

Greg: a fertile environment for sex is a...

Chuckle, right. I have always been partial to the out of doors myself...

Lastly Greg, on the issue of the lesbian...

No, she wasn't intentionally trying to deceive my son. Unless it's truly unconscious. I think she is simply so caught up in her definition of her life that she actually can't answer a simple question without obscuring the facts...

OK, thanks for clarifying. So you were not happy because she was ignoring the fact that a man was involved in providing the sperm, if not more, and she was only presenting her and her partner as if that is all that is neede to bring a child into the world?

You are right, I was not there, and that is exactly why I am not assuming what the back story may be. It sounds like there may be a lot more to this than what was posted. But I think I understand your feelings now, so I think I have enough for my purposes.

Thank you, the last few posts have been enlightening and again, I appreciate the way you are phrasing things so that it is easy to carry on the discussion in a mutually respectful way.

Regards

1Taoist
November 29th, 2010, 19:22
Cheers.

Americut
November 29th, 2010, 20:00
I kind of don't want to do this here, but I also don't want to open another thread about marriage. I'd say of the few forums I frequent, I believe this one has the most maturity and knowledge, on average. So here it is...

Due to sharing my personal experiences around here quite a bit, a number of you know I've been engaged for some time. These past months I have been saying "my woman" rather than "my fiancee" though. (I'm not sure why, but it almost feels condescending to continually say fiancee :confused: ). Well, maybe not here, but I feel that guys on other forums take it that way more. Anyway, hah. Onward. So I'm engaged in the sense that my woman and I have agreed that we wish to marry each other. But we are not particularly religious. By definition I suppose I'd be deist, whereas she does not acknowledge a god. We don't need to get all into that but I'll only say that I'd like for her to acknowledge a god if possible and she was fairly receptive to my short talk about that, one night. Moving on.

I've read this entire thread by now. Older posts in the past and more recent ones today. There's this talk of marriage and civil union. I don't know much about the differences between the two, but we would like to be officially united somehow. We want her to have my name. We want it official. When I die, I want her to inherit my belongings, by law. If either of us are in the hospital, I want the other to have the same rights as the father or mother would. Et cetera. Aren't these things and more taken care of through marriage or some sort of official union? Is the situation with living together long enough to be considered legally wed, enough to cover these and other related things? The bond between the two of us is more "official" to us than any law related matter, but as far as the law is concerned, it means nothing. That said, we want a lawfully official unification, and don't know the best way to go about it.

OR is it all just unnecessary blabber?? I mean, her parents have been together for about 30 years and they never had a wedding of any kind. Her mother still has the surname she was born with. But are there reasons why this is a bad thing?

This is something I've needed to research for a while. My favorite way to gather such information is sometimes on a forum like this, with experienced, knowledgeable adults that can provide direct insight, rather than me sifting through tons of completely unfamiliar information, from the get-go.

Thanks for any advice. And apologies if I indeed should have created a new thread regarding marriage/union, for these inquiries. I'm not big on creating threads :p

admin
November 29th, 2010, 22:43
I'd like for her to acknowledge a god if possible and she was fairly receptive to my short talk about that

I think it's realistic to expect someone to acknowledge and respect your reasons for thinking there is some higher power. But you can't ask someone to believe something they don't believe. But often it's just a matter of defining things. If you want your partner to say there is a god that cares about what individuals do, and hears prayers, and intercedes, well as a deist you don't even think that so you'd be fighting an uphill battle. If you just want your partner to call whatever did or didn't exist before the big bang god, or to call the laws of physics the "mind of god" like Hawkings does, then you guys can probably agree on that.

We want her to have my name. We want it official. When I die, I want her to inherit my belongings, by law. If either of us are in the hospital, I want the other to have the same rights as the father or mother would. Et cetera. Aren't these things and more taken care of through marriage or some sort of official union?

Getting married has lots of financial and practical advantages in the US, including in most places her name change is comp'd, but she probably still has to "do" a name change.

Is the situation with living together long enough to be considered legally wed, enough to cover these and other related things?

I'd say no. I was in favor of not marrying, only because I don't acknowledge anyone's or anything's right to legitimize my relationship, but there are just so many plusses.

But you can accomplish a marriage on paper any time, just go sign papers at the county courthouse whoever does the licensing these days where you are. The party/ceremony you might have is just an entirely different thing. You don't need to have anyone of any official sort of authority preside. If I was doing it today, I'd probably have a ceremony where a few of our friends jointly presided.

Just be grateful you don't have to ask 250,000,000 people for the right to be a couple: http://www.commercialcloset.org/common/adlibrary/video_large.cfm?AdDetail.video=726MTVpermission2.f lv&clientID=11064

Americut
November 29th, 2010, 23:08
Thanks for your input, Ron. I've got a lot to think about!!! Always positive light.

greg_b
November 30th, 2010, 05:36
My wife's sister got married in the Quaker religion, which simply involves getting the correct papers and having them signed by witnesses, as the
Quakers do not have ministers, or other officially designated persons.

Several states have very fast marriage procedures before justice of the peaces, and have a reputation for quick in and out weddings. My former boss took advantage of that route.

I think you need to do some research, but your desire is easy to achieve.

I agree with Ron that regarding beliefs in god, if it is important to you, you need to carefull sort out what exactly is important to you. Expecting an atheist to adopt your view that there is a god of some sort could be problematic, depending on what you are after deep down. I suggest that you think deeply and discuss at length with her.

Best wishes!

1Taoist
November 30th, 2010, 11:08
An interesting thing to note is your, Americut, struggle to decide and your role-models who apparently decided to do nothing. We are greatly shaped by our parents, both consciously and unconsciously. I feel that many people, as I've said earlier, get married for very unconscious reasons. It's "what we do". One of these unconscious reasons is that our parents did it. Or didn't.

Some may rush out and get married. Some may languish in indecision for decades, and some may simply flat out decide not to. For decades.

This is why I say marriage is a difficult and deeply-flawed endeavor many enter into. But many people do find a way to make it work, and are happy, but these people find a way anyway. In other words it wouldn't matter what they did, they'd make it work, cuz that's the kind of people they are. Irrespective of institutions.

I would even suspect that such people, if you looked closely, have created a different model of marriage than the traditional one. Yet, if you tried to delineate the principles they employ toward such, you'd find them to be classic and traditional. Not sure if that makes sense to others, but it does to me.

I think many gays will succeed if they adhere to classic and traditional principles: like respect, acceptance, compromise, accountability, kindness, strength, responsibility, sacrifice...and most of all love. Not love of sex, real love. The path of discovery of that is monumental. All these things and more.

BaltoJim
November 30th, 2010, 16:50
To WoundedBird,
I think you're beating a dead horse. There are people who understand the similarities between gay and straight couples, and there are those who will NEVER get it into their heads. My parents for example were of that second group. There are also plenty of people at my job that don't have a clue either. Well, to all of them I say, "Get out of my face!" I don't want or need any of their abuse. Nothing they say or do will help or hinder what I have in my personal life. It's frankly none of their business to begin with. I congratulate you on your current relationship. I've been in one for 11 years now. We're not "married" even though we live close enough to a place where it's legal. We're just fine on our own. We've got everything that straight couples have without the "marriage certificate". One more thing-- my relationship does NOTHING to threaten straight marriages, like riding public transportation doesn't threaten people who drive cars to work. It's different situations for different people. So don't let jerks get under your skin too much. Believe me, it's just not worth the hassle. :-)

Americut
November 30th, 2010, 22:54
Thanks Greg and Taoist.

As far as this thread is concerned, my inquiry can be considered settled. If needed, I will get into it further at another time and perhaps in a new thread.

1Taoist
December 1st, 2010, 00:21
BaltoJim: Angry much?

This is the sort of blatant reverse-hate that shows nothing but that. What people need to move forward are less militants who mistake their own problems for something good.

:-)

WoundedBird
December 2nd, 2010, 19:22
Oh I'm done beating the horse, LOL.

I don't care that much about the legal aspect in regards to how much I am in love or any of that. It just irks me to think that I don't have the same rights to legally unite over the vast majority of my home nation that straight people have. It's not something I think about very often though. I am more concerned about routine infant circumcision than I am about gay marriage. At least I have choices in my life, and I thank the stars that I wasn't born in the Middle East, where I likely would have been mutilated AND been denied the right to even partner with another man much less marry him.

I think I summed it up when I said we all have our opinions and whether or not those opinions offend others, that is life, overall the relationship I have is between my partner and I, nobody else.

Thanks for the congratulations and likewise to you for your LTR.

admin
December 2nd, 2010, 22:35
Oh I'm done beating the horse

It's late and I'm trying to see what's new at the forums and I glanced at "done beating the horse" and my mind saw "boning a horse" until I re-read it twice. :)

we all have our opinions and whether or not those opinions offend others, that is life

I guess we have to remember what I tell my mom about how I don't go to her church anymore. I can't will myself to believe what I don't believe.

WoundedBird
December 3rd, 2010, 13:48
It's late and I'm trying to see what's new at the forums and I glanced at "done beating the horse" and my mind saw "boning a horse" until I re-read it twice.


LOL

I guess we have to remember what I tell my mom about how I don't go to her church anymore. I can't will myself to believe what I don't believe.

Ah, yes. I am in the same way. I have a defective denial mechanism. I can't will myself to believe what I don't believe, either.

1Taoist
December 3rd, 2010, 14:30
Sure you can. You did it all through my posts. You believed I wasn't for your right to marry.

:-|

WoundedBird
December 3rd, 2010, 15:26
That was a misunderstanding. Not denial. I truly am sorry for misunderstanding you, though I also think you were deliberately rude at some times. I really, really want us to get past that though. If you don't want to be friendly with each other, I understand, but I don't want to argue anymore. And I'd really prefer it if we could be civil to each other throughout the forum. We're both grown men, there's no reason we can't bury the hatchet and leave it, is there?

And I'm glad to hear you have no personal objections to my right to marry. You were philosophizing in a sense and I see that now. It's just that you stated your ideas as absolute facts, that was part of the confusion. I now understand that you are not personally opposed to my right to marry my partner. Thank you for the clarifications.

1Taoist
December 3rd, 2010, 17:58
I was attempting, as few around here do, to extrapolate and expose some of the reasoning that may be behind the resistance to the reality of gays marrying. To just dismiss them as baltojim so intelligently suggested isn't going to change people's perceptions. Like circumcision. If you can expose their reasoning as faulty, they cannot continue in that position successfully. They can only continue if you get mad at them and tell them to get out of your face. That's when they have you. You're validating their faulty reasoning. Faulty reasoning feeds on other faulty reasoning. That's what I meant by people confusing their problems with something good, and in this case it was baltojim appealing to your exclusivity as two gay men, with overtures that we're just never gonna get gay love, even though you say out of the other side of your mouth that it's just like hetero love.

WoundedBird
December 3rd, 2010, 20:04
Well I get your drift Taoist, I didn't realize that was what you were doing. That's cool.

Baltojim was just being nice and tipping his hat in my direction. I don't feel any exclusivity toward gay men. Most of the people I know are straight, and we all get along just fine.

I never, ever said "You just are never going to get gay love if you aren't gay." There is not such thing as "gay love", in my eyes. Love is love, whomever it is between. There are different types of love as far as there is the love one has for a child, the love one had for a sister, the love one has for a romantic partner. But at the end of the day, it's a feeling of intense closeness, a bonding and compassion for another person that defines love for me. I don't see who said "Nobody else can get gay love". Baltojim said some people don't understand that there isn't a difference between the romantic love between a man and a woman, and two men or two women, and some people do. If you are in the latter category, great. If not, that is your right. I don't think everyone is only talking about you here, clearly you don't have a pure hatred toward gay people. I thought at one point you were telling me that my relationship is akin to "playing games" and I got defensive earlier. I now see that isn't what you meant, and we've moved on.

I told you I was sorry I misunderstood you, I think I've been civil and even nice. I said I regret that we got into a battle of sorts and I don't think it serves any purpose. Please, let the thread open up and evolve. I wasn't mocking you, I said that I was done beating that horse, meaning I was no longer going to keep debating with you on something that was just a misunderstanding to begin with.

I would like the thread to be more than a trite set of arguments about who is more intelligent or wise. We are all intelligent adults here and there is no reason for petit bickering. We wouldn't be aware of circumcision as mutilation if we were all dense.

It's difficult in my opinion to prove someone's reasoning is faulty when it comes to homophobes. Generally they use religious grounds to oppress us, and there is not much logic involved in that. They will always default to "God said it is wrong".

1Taoist
December 3rd, 2010, 21:44
Ok, that is fine, but I should address one more thing you misunderstood: I didn't say your relationship was "playing games". I said YOU are playing games when you consider your relationship "was basically marriage" which qualifies you to know what marriage is like. I said no you don't. If you are two dudes in a relationship running around saying "we're basically married", then I think that's playing a game. Marriage is a reality. That's all I meant. Role-playing referred to the stuff people in relationships do to pretend. If you and your beau set up house together and get up and make coffee and go to bed together after a long day and fight over the gas bill...that still ain't married, no matter how you try to look at it.

You ought to consider more that it's both. Your relationship won't be that much different, but maybe it could, if you're actually married. What this is about is including gay people in the actual institution that is marriage. What I've been saying wounded is it really has NOTHING to do with your relationship. At all. As a matter of fact, many times the actual marriage fucks up the relationship. Sad as it is.

Fools rush in, where wise men fear to tread.

I agree with your idea of civil unions, but many are not satisfied because that creates a second-class of unions, which is not the point.

WoundedBird
December 3rd, 2010, 22:50
I understand what you are saying and disagree on parts of it. Having a joint banking account, sharing bills, living together, sleeping together...those are all parts of most heterosexual marriages and also things I had in two previous relationships, as did my partner in his previous relationship. It took him a long time to extract himself financially. I understand it's not exactly the same legally, but the guts of what it's like to be married are there. Even my straight friends think that it is very similar. I totally understand that legally, and therefore literally, I have never been married, nor have I had to endure a legal divorce. So you're absolutely correct in saying I've never been part of the institution of marriage. So we can lay that to rest, I think. Now I fully understand, I just don't fully agree with all of your reasoning.

No reason for that to make us enemies or for this aspect of the conversation to linger on.

I am more concerned about the debate on whether we should be legally allowed to unite, we gay people. I don't see any objections that aren't based on religion. I am fine with the term "Civil Union". I think it should be called that legally for both straight and gay couples. Then marriage can be a religious ceremony people can choose depending on the tenets of their personal religion and/or church. I know that is a major overhauling of terminology in some people's eyes, but I am interested in changing the status quo where I think it is unjust. Whatever we get, though, even if marriage remains a straight thing and civil unions become the gay equivalent, as long as we have the same legal allowances as straight married couples, I will be happy.