If you support Gay and Lesbian Rights, Read this!

[Mirador]

An innocent bystander has just asked me, how many different human sexual practices are there in the world?, and should we consider each specific practitioner a member of a bonafide minority group with special rights to be recovered?  Here in the mountains of the Island of Hispaniola, I know of a few men who would rather 'cohabitate' with a donkey than with a woman. Should we allow 'marriage' between' man and donkey?  should we just tolerate it?  should we condemn it?  What's the issue here!!!

Mirador

[visionquest]

Mirador, I don't know why I'm responding to such a ridiculous comment, but perhaps you truly don't understand the difference, so I will try to explain it to you...

Donkey = Animal
Gays and Lesbians = Human Beings

I think that is a pretty distinct difference.
Especially since the topic at hand is not simply "sex" but the rights of people to be able to marry, not have sex.
When people make such ridiculous comments, it only proves to demonstrate how vast their ignorance truly is.
If you cannot discern the difference between a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults, and that of a man abusing an animal, then I don't think anything I can say to you will make any difference, but now at least now I've tried.

[Jenadots]

Hi, all.  I have been following this issue in the news and in my state which is just beginning the political debate about it.  

Just as an aside, I wonder why the only men who seem to really want to get married are gay...[]but that's another issue.

On this one, I am conflicted about it.  I do believe marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman, and within society.
Someone mentioned the long term effects.  I would say unintended consequences.  If we change the definition of marriage, does this mean I can legally have two husbands?  More, assuming I was crazy enough?  We know about the polygamists in Utah.  No doubt, they would like to have that as a legal definition of marriage.  What about traditional Muslims who believe in having four wives?  Will that also become legal?  

It is a far more serious debate than just two men or women who want to get married.  I can understand why.  Real love of any kind is such a rare thing in life that any two people who believe they have it should be able to live as they please.  I know two men who have been together for four decades, certainly longer than any of the traditionally married people I know.  They are about as married as anyone can be and ought to have some legal status as partners.  I don't know if that should be called marriage or something else.  Most of the legalities can be taken care of with wills, trusts, and powers of attorney.  About the only thing they can't claim as a benefit is social security as a legal spouse.  

The whole gay rights movement as a political movement does disturb me as I don't understand why sexuality has to be flaunted.  I don't wonder if someone is gay when I meet them.  It is not the first thing I think of.  And why the need for parades?  

I don't think anyone should discrimminate against them or harrass them in any way.  But I do have a concern about the agenda of the activists who get so in-your-face with their problems and sexuality and yes, often their sexual conduct in public.  Much of it is offensive.  

I don't know the effects on children if they are raised by a gay couple.  However, I do know that being raised in any kind of loving family is better than being shuffled from foster home to foster home as an unwanted child in our welfare systems.  I do believe that many gay couples adopt such children and I am sure those children are better off having a home, a place where they feel they belong.

So I really don't know what is right or wrong in this.  I know it is possible for a gay person to be as moral and as ethical as anyone else, but some of the more outrageous behaviors of the activists certainly bring attention to the promiscuity of another, very visible
segment of the gay community - one that is not at all emotionally healthy for any child to see, much less live in.

Of course, the divorce lawyers are dancing in the streets at the prospects of another whole group of people who will be paying their very high hourly rates.

If it ever came up as a vote in my state, I really don't know how I would vote.  

[Nagual]

quote:Donkey = Animal
Gays and Lesbians = Human Beings
I think that is a pretty distinct difference.

While this might be another (controversial) debate, animals are living beings as much as humans are...  Putting man above all other species is like putting white people above all other races.  So, from this point of view, I see no difference.

quote:If you cannot discern the difference between a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults, and that of a man abusing an animal

I do love my cat, and I am not having sex with it...  Love does not always come with sex.

[Huwie]

Jenadots, I see where you're coming from, but I do have issue with this one remark you made:

"The whole gay rights movement as a political movement does disturb me as I don't understand why sexuality has to be flaunted."

Campaigning for equal rights is hardly what I would call flaunting their sexuality (it's not like they chose to be gay or to be discriminated against).  Being able to marry each other is, at a guess, enough to appease most homosexuals - as far as I'm aware, it's the last real legal barrier.  It's my belief that if homosexuals were allowed to marry and have the rights of heterosexual couples we would see a drastic decrease in the political lobbying.  They just want to be treated like any other couple.

As for the polygamy thing, it's an interesting point but doesn't really apply here as the morals and ethics of polygamy are doubtless no more or less relevant to homosexuals as they are to heterosexuals.

[visionquest]

Jenadots,
You have some very valid concerns, and you seem to truly want to know what the right thing to do is, and I respect that.
It is very simple why gays and lesbians need to be granted the right to marry. Because whenever you deny a minority group, the same rights and privileges as another group, it is discrimination.
Marriage is simply not defined by a male and a female, that is simply false. It has been used to describe that yes, but anytime you talk about marrying two things, that is all it is, simply the bringing together of two things. Our society however, teaches us from the time we are children, that we will grow up, and experience this thing called Marriage, and we are told that it is a wonderful thing.
Then when that very same child grows up, and falls in love with another adult human being with the wrong genitals, that experience that they have always been told all human beings will get to have, is then taken away from them. Now, if they are lucky, they can have domestic partnerships or in one state they can have civil unions. Do you not see how their rights are being denied them?

Think about this, when you tell a child that if he grows up to love a woman, he can have a marriage like everyone else, but if he grows up to love men, well then he can have this new thing we created just for people like him, called something else. You are enforcing the idea in a childs head , and even ignorant adults, that there is something wrong with being homosexual, and when you teach in a society that something is wrong, the immediate response is to try to fix that! And that is terribly, terribly dangerous. Just ask Matthew Shepard, or Sakia Gunn or any other child that has been murdered by people who thought that the way they love is wrong.
Separate is not equal.

About flaunting sexuality, it is so not about that. In fact I'm glad you brought that up, because it is quite the opposite, the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones making it about sex. What gays and lesbians are asking for , is for genitals to NOT be an issue when two people want to marry. The anti-gay marriage people are the ones who seem to be obsessed with the sexual aspect of it. They are making it about sex, gays and lesbians want it to be about a loving, committed relationship with someone you want to share your life with.
Another important thing to remember is, whether or not it is accepted at the moment, it is already happening and has been happening for years. Gays and Lesbians are living their lives as married couples. They are raising children together in loving and understanding homes. Whether or not other people agree with it, it is a fact of life, it already is. It is not going to go away. That is why gays and lesbians need to be given the rights that go along with the life they are living. They deserve this right, and their children deserve it too.

And Nagual, you obviously have no interest in understanding.
Your comment makes no sense, and comparing people to animals in a matter where people are being denied a basic civil right, is just offensive. I pray you can open your heart and mind to love and enlightenment.

[Mirador]

quote:

What gays and lesbians are asking for , is for genitals to NOT be an issue when two people want to marry.

quote:

Visionquest,  that's exactly the issue I was trying to point out. Sexual orientation and marriage are two different things. Marriage is a social institution established for the procreation of children, and for that you need a man and a woman. The terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are arbitrary and don't even come close de define the infinite variety of human sexual experience and orientation (you just can't imagine what people would come up with to satisfy their sexuality urges [], and you don't need marriage for this. There is no such thing as a 'gay' and 'lesbian' minority, like a religion or ethnic group. There is no problem for two, or three or more men, or woman for that matter, to live together, and satisfy their sexuality how they please. Just as there should be no law to prevent a man and his donkey from 'cohabitating' as they please []

Mirador

[Huwie]

"Marriage is a social institution established for the procreation of children"

I disagree.  Marriage is simply a legal confirmation of status for a couple.  Children don't have anything to do with it (which is why it's legal to have children when unmarried).  This is why I don't see why homosexuals can't marry, too.

(Edited to correct a very stupid mistake)

[Nagual]

quote:And Nagual, you obviously have no interest in understanding.

Really?   Damn...  Hum...  Understanding what?

quote:Your comment makes no sense

to you.

quote:and comparing people to animals in a matter where people are being denied a basic civil right, is just offensive.

Offensive?  In what way?  Funny how you critic people denying rights to gays/lesbians, when you yourself deny rights to other beings (animals).

quote:I pray you can open your heart and mind to love and enlightenment.

So nice of you; but might take a while...  I am not as clever as you.  [|)]

[visionquest]

Mirador,
I already pointed out in an earlier post, how marriage is not for the procreation of children since people past child bearing age can legally marry, and people who are infertile or otherwise unable to have children are also legally able to marry, and people who have abandoned their families can remarry without any intention of  having any more children. Not to mention the fact that gays and lesbians do have children together, whether by adoption, as many heterosexual parents do, or by artificial insemination, again, just as many heterosexual parents must. Why can heterosexual parents who adopt children legally marry, but not homosexual parents?


I could go on, but It seems silly that i have to point this out once, let alone twice.  
And as I also previously tried to explain, it is not about sex, it is about love.  Marriage is about two people being committed to sharing their lives together and being devoted to only each other, as partners in life. But you seem to think that marriage is based on sex, and it is not. If your marriage has no more substance than that, I am sorry. You do not have to be married to have sex, you do not have to be married to have children or to raise them. But you do need to be married for everyone else to know that two people are committed to each other, and only each other. Again, I am truly sorry that you do not understand this. I know with the heterosexual divorce rate being what it is, and adultery, that it may seem to you like marriage doesn't mean anything, but it does mean something to those of us who do not have the option, because people like you think you have the right to tell other people what they should and should not be "allowed" to do.

Nagual, there is nothing worth commenting on in that post, sorry.

I'm only going to respond again, if it is in response to someone who actually is interested in understanding, or has an intelligent argument that has not already been explained, repeatedly.

In the event that that does not occur, lol,
God Bless you all, and may you all find inner peace and understanding and love.

[Mirador]

Ok, so we allow gays and lesbians to marry. Then why not allow multimarriages, like polygamy, or close kin marriages, like dads with daughters or brothers with sisters? Aren't we starting here a slippery slope cascade of possibilities that will transform society?  Will it work? will it be a better society for all? and what about those who hold the belief in the sacredness of the tradicional family, that a child should have a male father and a female mother? Will they accept the change? Will they fight back? Are we ready for the backlash, are we willing to fight? Remember, the Civil War was fought for a less passionate ideological difference than this. And all to redress a misconceived sexual prejudice!

Mirador

[Huwie]

Polygamy is a totally different thing, because at least those who want it can be married once, homosexuals aren't currently allowed even that.  They're being denied a basic right that is available to everybody else.  Don't you see that?

"what about those who hold the belief in the sacredness of the tradicional family, that a child should have a male father and a female mother?"

What if they're wrong?  Also - and I'm getting sick of repeating this now - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children!

[Kazbadan]

Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man []. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!

Well, i was just kiding. But i think that the phobia against homossexuality (i will abreviate with HS) it is based on natural instincts: if every individual on a population it is homossexual, there will be no new new childs, and thus damning the population, as a whole, to the death. Maybe it is that what happens in nature, and if true, it may be the same thing happening with humans. Of course that this is just an extrapolation, not an excuse for the phobia.

I just have problems on seeing HS womens....it is sad to know that will never have any chance with her! lol, again, i am just kiding.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Visionquest
I have read your replies with interest. First of all I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this essay is not mine and my views does not nessesarily reflect those of the one who wrote it. However that said I must admit he/she presents a compelling argument. In comparison I find your arguments quite tame and on the borderline to becoming agressive, flaunting words like unintelligent etc etc. You present a emotionally charged type of argument mostly asking us/me to make desisions as if "it was me". If I chose wrong or right based on MY FEELINGS is unimportant. Just becourse I may or may not agree does not make something a just cause. I could be wrong. If you are hinting that their cause is just becourse some feel in a similar way, consider the words of the famous historian Toynbee. "the majority is often wrong....mostly in fact".

All that to say that the issues brought up in the essay are valid. Maybe I should turn things around and ask you the same way.

What if you became the mother (in time) of a sweet boy. YOu watched him grow and go from a kid to a young man. At 13 of age he starts being curious about sex and spends a long time in your neighbours apartment. After some weeks he appears one day with a 60 yr old man clad in leather and presents himself as a sexslave to this guy. Saying that he has come out of the closet. How would you feel.

Before you all scream child abuse remember that the age for sexual consent in some countries is 13. This scenario though very emotionally charged and somewhat on the edge is not an impossibility.

Regards Mustardseed

[Huwie]

Mustardseed, I was starting to think that was a very coherent and well-put post until that last bit.  What, exactly, does that have to do with the issue at hand?  We're talking about the right of homosexual couples to marry.  No more, no less.

That's what I'm trying to discuss, anyway...

[Mustardseed]

My point exactly. If one uses examples like the one I use above the issue gets emotionally derailed. This is what I felt Visionquest did. Hence you get into discussing these excamples instead of the issues at hand.

Regards MS

[Gandalf]

According to one of my anthropology texts (Small Places, Large issues: an introduction to social and cultural anthropology, Eriksen, 2001):

a man can theoretically have as many children as he likes, while a woman's capacity is restricted to one child per year. From the perspective of human reproduction, it can be said that sperm is cheap while eggs are expensive. This fact may be a partial explanation why men try to control the sexuality of women as well as the tendancy for men to regard the women of the kin group as a resource they do not want to give away without receiving other women in return.

Why do men want many children?
As well as the obvious male urge 'to reproduce', They often require the labour power for their fields or herds, or in modern 'western' societies, to bring wealth to the kin group through other means (financial). The children can form the basis of political support and provide a form of 'old age insurance policy'.
Children provide continuity to the kin group and allow the transmission of property and status to between one generation and the next (within the kin group). This allows the kin group to pool resources over time and stop them bleeding away to their competitors.

In many societies in the world, polygyny is widespread. In some other cultures, such as modern 'western' culture, one wife is the prefered choice. Certainly, regarding the marriage institution as such, its rationale is evidently, at least partly, its ability to produce and socialise children, in order to continue the kin group and transfer resources to the next generation, denying its use by any other group.

Comparatively speaking, romantic love is *rarely* seen as an important precondition for a good marriage. Rather, marriage is frequently arranged by kin groups, not by the couple concerned. If the couple happen to like each other, this is seen as a bonus. Marriage is therfore most commonly viewed as a relationship between groups, not between individuals.

The ideology prevalent in 'western' societies that marriage should be based on 'pure love', which may even trancend class boundaries, is peculuar if seen in a comparative perspective. Among the Maasai for example, it is seen as a distinct disadvantage if romantic love between the two spouces is to powerful.
To sum, the 'western' notion of marriage being related or for the purpose of 'romantic love' is a minority concept, comparativly speaking, only arising in the later middle-ages.

Marriage is a purely social construct. Its perceived importance is that it allows for the union between two groups, allowing them to ally and become more powerful through the sharing of their resources; in this respect the creation and socialising of children is viewed as an essential characterstic, as it is the children who allow the group to continue beyond the present generation and therefore allow the transfer of resources (property & status) beyond the current generation. By pooling resources in this way, kin groups can survive in the greater world where resources are limited and competition between groups is fierce. This is as true of 'western society' as it is of any other.

A notable point about marriage as a social institution is that it is so important to some groups that they emphasise its importance by attributing 'divine' attributes to it, to give it more social power.
Modern 'western' christian marriages are an example of this, along with hindu, some buddhist, islamic and judaic ones. However, marriage is very much a social (and political) idea, and as such is so important that many attempts are made to increase its social force, including religious attributes.
--------------------------------------------

Now, the above comments by Eriksen here might lead some people to think that i am backtraking on my previous support for gay marriages. Actually i'm not. What I am pointing out is that the 'western' concept of marriage 'for love' is actually unusual among most cultures in the world. This concept IS unusual, therefore the usual arguments do not apply to the same extent. Although Eriksen is right that the same concerns are expressed by western males as by all others, the fact that western culture has this odd trait of marrying for love marks it out from the others.

In the particular case of western civilisation, since it supports the unusual notion of marriage for love (which can often inhibit any child bearing possibilites), then gay marriages should be allowed as it is also a form of 'marriage for love'. Many marriages for love do not produce children, perhaps the woman is too old, perhaps they are infertile; whatever, what I am saying is that in western society, children are NOT always the prime motive anyway, so this cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage. As for marriages' other main function, to forge alliances between kin groups: gay marriages, if recognised, can fulfil the same function as straight ones in any case. Therefore, seen within the unusual contxt of western society, I see no reason why gay people cannot marry. They are a minorty group in any case and do not 'threaten' larger kin groups in any way, and suggestions that they do are paranoia.

Regards,
Douglas

PS Mustardseed, I read that essay you posted. I'm not sure about the rest of it, but most of the material related to the classical period was sh*t!
To say that the baths of Caracalla were like any other 'homosexual baths today' is bullsh*t. Roman Thermae (public baths) were huge complexes, like our leisure centres today. They were for public use and were certainly not attributed to gay people. Of course, now and again you might have got the odd incident, like you get anywhere but it was not a 'gay hangout'.
Your author has swallowed hook, line and sinker, the old stereotype about 'gay greeks and romans'.
In fact, although greek aristocrats and the upper classes practised a form of homosexuality in some areas, (alongside heterosexual relationships), this was still a minorty grouping, and there is no evidence that these practices were endorsed by the population at large. In addition, homosexuality was frowned upon by Roman culture and was negativly viewed as 'greekness'. Likewise, the comments about Augustus and other roman aristocrats being gay, owe more to slander by their political opponents than reality, which incidently, provides more evidence that homosexuality was not endorsed. If it was, why use it as an insult? Again, your source just accepts these allegations without engaging his/her brain: tell them to do a history course. Sure, there is evidence that some in the upper classes liked to swing both ways, but hell, what's new.

[wendi]

I think this is an appropriate topic for this forum.  I will paraphrase something I read in Robert Bruce's book:  Negs can have a lot of effect on someone's sexuality.

This may be why there are warnings against that kind of thing in the Bible.  Also, in some smaller psychological circles, homosexuality is considered an illness.

From the cowardice that dare not face new truth
From the laziness that is contented with half-truth
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth
Good Lord, deliver me.  Kenyan prayer.

Thou my mother, and my father thou
Thou my friend, and my teacher thou
Thou my wisdom, and my riches thou
Thou art all to me, O God of all Gods.   Ramanuja Indian prayer.

[Mustardseed]

Hi all
Since we are all living in a very "spiritual" reality I would like to air the following theory. I would like to ask you all to refrain from emotional outbursts and name calling and treat this theory with respect, and use valid arguments instead of ridicule.

Is it possible that Homosexuality, especially male, but also female, could be an overshadowing of an succubus that has turned to a fullblown posession. In a sense a posession of a female entity, a symbiotic relationship of sorts.

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

I was expecting someone to answer this question. How about it , is that a possibility?

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by Kazbadan

Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man []. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!

I take my words back.
I support gay marriages!

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by Kazbadan

Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man []. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!

But only the gay marriages between men.
None for women.
Sorry.

[need]

I suspect that what Mustardseed said about negs and homosexuality may be right. There is too much about human nature that we don't know, what Robert has written has very wide implications but not enough technique on clearing. But in saying this we must remember many people have burdens that we don't know where they are coming from.We need less of a scare job and more practicalities which is very lacking in the psychic arena.

Human sexuality and interference with this energy is of great concern because it is cwntral to the human race. In present form we cannot exist without it , hopefully someone will come up with a way of clearing the human field of this problem.

We must remember that human kind is complex and closes away what we don't want to look at. What about intersex people. Life can be difficult and believe it or not much of the time evrything is trying to get you down especially through conflict, anger, antagonism and group gang-ups, blow-out bloodshed,be careful who you criticise the world can gang up on you like you did something wrong in a terrible way.But the abuse homosexuals receive from other can be horrendous, along with self hatred and doubt, they have a heavy deal as it is,and they like everyone else have a right to live. Who knows why we act like we do or choose what we think we want.Who knows if what is written about God is the truth about God.

Thinking about this issue has made me think that having to gain a "right" is a great example of man's inhumanity to man,why are we so much less than that we have to gain a right to some kind of liberty, think of the suffragatte movement for women, and the struggle of the african-american in America. "Giving them rights" while being a step forward will still be used somehow for restriction and defining of the human reality. This world is about "divide and conquer" but there are times when people have had enough of brutality and unfair inhumane wicked treatment and group-up against the offender. Oppression always leads to upheaval.

[no_leaf_clover]

As an alternate reason as to why some people are homosexual, and the one I'm leaning more towards now, I've read article from a website on spirituality that it has to do with our past incarnations. The idea goes something like this: when we reincarnate, we usually incarnate as the same gender as we were in our last life. However, we do incarnate differently on occasion as we need it. In doing this, sometimes feelings we'd been used to in previous lives are suddenly awkward, but nonetheless people go with these feelings over their hormones, and so it's natural in a way. I'm not saying that homosexuality is necessary as spiritually healthy as heterosexuality, but either way I wouldn't hold anything against gay people or want to restrict their free will.

[ImmuredSoul]

[:O]