What use are they if they only tempt you but can never be used?Originally Posted by Scat
What use are they if they only tempt you but can never be used?
Absolutely. I've read homosexuals using terms like "jailbait", there is the whole bear culture (men with lots of body hair), etc. While I hate to overgeneralize, mature homosexual men generally want an adult partner. Male homosexuals run the gamut, or course. Some of them into teens, just like some heterosexual men are into teens.
No. I was honestly confused by your answer, and was seeking clarification. It was not rhetorical. You seemed to be focusing on the sex aspect, as opposed to the gender aspect, and that did not seem to comport withyou previous positions.
I would appreciate if you would respond to my original questions to you, with non-questions. I'll amend. Of course, if the answer is "religion" or the like, I agree there is nothig more to argue about, expect whether we should allow religion to dictate law.
If two (possibly but not necessarily) gay men are raising a child together, being married allows them to provide better resources, better security, and better support to their family, in areas like health insurance, chronic illness, and estate planning. What better reason do you need? What better reason do you use to justify heterosexual marriage?
So how do psychologists draw that prepubescent-postpubescent line?
I get your analogy with male hetero running attraction down through the female teen ages (& how ethics are relative across cultures) but have never thought or read about it with male specific homo interaction. Female changes seem so much more pronounced to me. Maybe that's just because I'm a guy, I don't know.
The sex aspect was important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have started your scenario with "If two gay men are raising a child together...". Or so it seemed to me.
As I mentioned, we've had this exact same discussion at least once before, so this will probably be my last post along these lines in this thread.I would appreciate if you would respond to my original questions to you, with non-questions. I'll amend. Of course, if the answer is "religion" or the like, I agree there is nothig more to argue about, expect whether we should allow religion to dictate law.
If two (possibly but not necessarily) gay men are raising a child together, being married allows them to provide better resources, better security, and better support to their family, in areas like health insurance, chronic illness, and estate planning. What better reason do you need? What better reason do you use to justify heterosexual marriage?
Your question is operating from the assumption that I think two men should be allowed to adopt children together, an opinion I do not necessarily share. So it just doesn't make much sense.
To reiterate the point I was making, if you take heterosexual sex out of the marriage equation (something that I feel certainly *does* belong in marriage, and has since time immemorial, to the extent that having a non-consummated marriage is grounds for annulment in most states), then why leave sex in the equation at all? You might be one of the few who believe that two non-gay roommates should be allowed to marry, but even if so, most don't share that view.
One of my good friends growing up in California's father was a gay LDS member. He was actually on an episode of Geraldo Rivera back in the day talking about it, though I was too young to know or care about what he felt about the church. My mom knew more, I may ask her about it sometime. IIRC he wasn't much of a churchgoer but I think his mother took my friend and their siblings to church.
It started with Earl [Watson], Randy [Foye] and Marvin [Williams]–the veteran guys. I thought the young guys did a good job of following their lead getting us off to a good start. - referring to the Jazz/Bobcats game on 3/1/13
Earl, Randy, and Marvin started the first quarter 0-3, scored a whopping zero points, and finished with a turnover in the first quarter.
Your head coach of the Jazz ladies and gentlemen.
I think more information and more support will do wonders for everyone involved.
Corbin sucks.
One of the guys on the website that the OP cited is named Ty Mansfield. He received a lot of hate mail from those seeking tolerance when he decided to get married to a woman. I think it's important that tolerance goes both ways, regardless of what your religious belief or sexual orientation is.
Corbin sucks.
Well, I think we can at least agree that the LDS church is fairly consistent on this issue. They understand it is human to have sexual desires but self control is one of the many values they try to teach their members. Unmarried members are taught to refrain from any sexual act until they enter into marriage and the members that cannot do this must go through the proper repentance process. So really the LDS church is not asking its homosexual members to do anything its other members are asked and taught.
"You're mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"
Dude, come on. At least straight Mormons have a path to banging. Imagine never getting to make love because your eyes are blue.
I hate Candy Boye.
Interesting discussions guys. I find the angle from religious people interesting.
What if there was a new prophet, and he was gay. I mean, let's just say there's a gay man who gay people start following as a leader.
Kinda like Mohammad/Jesus in the middle east, Joseph Smith in Utah or Missouri or wherever it is, etc.
Let's call him Fabulous Jesus from San Francisco. What if he and his followers establish their own gay religion, and their text includes marriage (of the gay variety). Then, would this gay religion kinda be on equal footing, since it's also a religion? It wouldn't be 'ruining' the institution of marriage any more, or would it? Or would the argument then shift to 'my institution craps on yo mama's institution'.
Discuss.
Well, there are religions that permit gay marriage. That's why the the Supreme Court overruled Prop 8 in California--because it was infringing on people's freedom of religion. At least, that's my understanding.
There are plenty of members that never get married for a variety of reasons but they are still all asked to live their life without participating in sexual acts.
"You're mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"
Yes, but I think BabyPeterzz' main point was that the true injustice is taking away someone's opportunity to have sexual relations. The members you described at least have that, even if you're correct in that they experience the same struggle of going through life without sex due to their inability to find a spouse.
I don't think this comparison is valid. Although it is very clear that one's sexual orientation is not something derived by choice, you seem to be inferring that it is caused by genetics through your comparison to eye color. Just because it is not a choice, that does not necessarily mean it is genetic. That is not to say that it is not genetic either; there is simply not conclusive evidence to prove whether it is genetics, environment, or some combination of the two.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
