Originally posted by: Michelle
Gay relationships are perfectly normal. They exist in every human culture. An absence of gay relationships within a culture would be abnormal or odd -- but of course a human culture has never been found where gay relationships do not occur.
Of course gay relationships exist in every culture. Are you saying that any behavior is "normal" just because it exists? Let's define normal:
In behavior etc.: normal means not deviating very much from the average.
The above definition is from Webster's Online Dictionary. If you're opposed to the definition provided, please feel free to post from another source.
It is to be expected one will find individuals who are homosexually oriented, or who are in gay relationships, in every human society. Thus, the presence of gay relationships in our society is entirely normal with respect to all other human societies. Here I am using normal to mean "standard", "usual", or "common".
Originally posted by: Michelle
Now I have a hard time understanding how 10% of the population (which I'm told is a high estimate) that consider themselves to be homosexuals could be considered being close to the average mark. Let me go ahead and provide the definition of homosexual:
1. Sexually attracted to members of your own sex.
2. Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.
Sexual orientation, and handedness, have a bimodal distribution within the population. You get large numbers of people who are right handed and heterosexual, and small numbers of people who are homosexual and left-handed. I don't think it is particularly useful or informative to apply terms like "average" or "normal" (normal in the mathematical sense, as in not deviating from the mean or average) to variables that are bimodally distributed.
And by the way, it is not the role of marriage law to "teach your children" anything. If you want to inculcate bigotry and prejudice in your children, you need to do that on your own time. Gay couples have the right to equal treatment before the law (with respect to heterosexuals) -- that is a fundamental and constitutional right, and it is a right that certainly trumps your silly notion that marriage law should be used to "teach" your children a lesson in bigotry and prejudice.
You say that gay couples have the right to equal treatment before the law. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but right now all that matters is that the majority of Americans are not ready to accept gay marriage, and this could be because the majority of Americans are not ready to accept the sexual behavior of homosexuals. Social movements take time.
Interestingly, the majority of US citizens opposed miscegenation at the very time the US Supreme Court was legalising mixed race marriages.
I think this issue will probably be decided in the courts.
Infertile heterosexuals cannot reproduce -- according to your logic "the only benefit they get from having sex is pleasure"... is this a rationale for banning marriage among those who are infertile...? Lol. Right.
You're right, infertile heterosexuals cannot reproduce, but they were born ready to reproduce. Biology tells us that it takes a sperm and an egg, a male and a female, to produce offspring. This is a very natural and normal part of reproduction.
What is your point??
You say the fact that same-sex couples are unable to produce a child together is reason enough to deny gays access to marriage. (At least, that is the meaning I inferred from your somewhat garbled post.) Infertile heterosexuals are also unable to reproduce. Should they not be denied marriage, also? Perhaps post-menopausal women should be 'required' to divorce their husbands; afterall, child-bearing is no longer a possibility for such women.
Are you suggesting that heterosexual marriage is just about love? (i.e., it is not about sex?) Every book on the psychology of human relationships I have read suggests that sex between a marital couple plays many roles other than a procreative role -- in particular, it enhances emotional closeness, and strengthens the bond between the couple. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to gay couples every bit as much as it applies to heterosexual couples.
No, I'm not suggesting that heterosexual marriage is just about love. The benefits of heterosexual marriage are you can pass your genes along by having children, and you have the support of the other parent to financially raise those children. Of course there are many other benefits, including love, sex, friendship, etc. I'm sure sex between gay couples does enhance emotional closeness. I'm just saying that I believe the biological purpose of sexual intercourse is to breed.
This discussion pertains to gay marriage. Why are you blurring "sexual intercourse" "procreation" and "marriage"? These are separate issues. Surely you don't believe a legal requirement for entry into civil marriage is the capacity, or intention, to procreate?
2. Gay sex is as normal and natural as the rain. IMHO.
Look if you would like to provide some links showing me how normal and natural gay sex is, please do so. I only wonder why such a small minority are homosexual when it's as normal and natural as the rain.
Like I said above, sexual orientation follows a more or less bimodal distribution in the population, similar to hand preference. There are always small numbers of left-handers and homosexuals in any society or population, along with larger numbers of right-handers and heterosexuals. Homosexuality is 'normal' in the same way that left-handedness is normal.
4. You say gay men don't seem to be leading the "best life". What is "the best life" according to you? Do you think you have a right to co-erce gay men into leading your idea of a "best life"? Do you understand that the purpose of a constitutional democracy is to allow citizens to make choices that are DIFFERENT from the choices that OTHER citizens make. There is NOTHING ILLEGITIMATE about people making "lifestyle" decisions that are different from your own. I find it bizarre and odd that you seek to demonize gay men simply because many of them do not share your own constricted, inflexible and illogical fundamentalist xian or social conservative dogma. Please, continue believing your silly beliefs--but realize that you have no right imposing those beliefs on others.
Well there Aidanjm, why don't you look at the stats. Let me see, depression, suicide, drugs, HIV/AIDS, etc. No, I don't think I have the right to coerce gay men into leading my idea of a best life and I never said that I do! My statement was that gay men do not SEEM TO BE leading the best life. This statement does not translate into, "Gay men lead a terrible life and I will take it upon myself to make sure they conform to my way of thinking!" There are STATISTICS to prove it. I know that there is NOTHING ILLEGITIMATE about people making "lifestyle" decisions that are different! Again, I will say that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT THESE LIFESTYLE DECISIONS. I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT!
Actually, a plurality of American citizens support at least civil unions for same-sex couples. Only one third of American citizens oppose any rights + protections at all for same-sex couples.
Elevated depression rates among gays (and elevated suicide rates among gay teenagers) are in my opinion a symptom of a homophobic (anti-gay) society -- just as horrendous + vicious attacks on gay people (such as the fatal attack on a gay man in London the other day) are a symptom of a homophobic society.
By the way, did you know that depression and sucide rates are much higher among women than men? Does this indiciate that women as a group are not leading "the best life" they could be? What should be done about that?
Well you go on believing your silly beliefs and realize that YOU have no right imposing YOUR beliefs on the MAJORITY of Americans that DISAGREE with your beliefs!
There you go again with your nonsense about gay people imposing their beliefs onto you. I'd guess most gay folx wouldn't care much at all what you believe re: the morality of homosexuality. I'd guess they WOULD object if you were to support the creation of laws aimed at denying gay people fundamental rights or protections. I am thinking of laws such as the recent constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. The gay couples in the states where such amendments were passed will have no legal rights to visit their partners in hospital, make medical decisions for their partners, place their partner on their health insurance policies, etc. It is one thing for you to disagree with "homosexual marriage" or the (so-called) "homosexual lifestyle"; it is quite another thing for you to seek to have those objections codified into law. There are many behaviours I find obnoxious; however I do not necessarily seek to manipulate legislature to ban those things. It would be great if people like you could learn similar restraint. Banning something simply because you disagree with it is not an appropriate or mature way to behave in a free + democratic society.
6. Are you "blaming" bisexuals who transmit the HIV virus from the gay to heterosexual community? I would have thought it is the responsibility of every individual to take measures to protect themselves from STDs.
I agree with you. It is the responsibility of every individual to protect themselves. I was actually reviewing some stats from reputable sources that showed how HIV/AIDS is transmitted and by whom it's transmitted. I do blame bisexuals that do not inform their partners that they are having unprotected sex with a high risk group. I would blame anyone that does not inform their partner that they are having unprotected sex with someone else.
Is it not the responsibility of every individual to make sure they are protecting themselves from STDs when they decide to have sex? How difficult is it to use a condom? Simply assuming your partner doesn't have HIV/AIDS because you don't think he or she is a drug user, or bisexual, is a pretty stupid way to approach this issue, I would have thought.
One in three lesbian couples are raising children; one in five gay couples are raising children. Your children are already playing with the children of gay parents. Some of those children are adopted; the vast of kids raised by gay couples were produced by one or both of the partners in former heterosexual relationships. Your desire to segregate children raised by gay couples from your own children is just noxious bigotry.
Yes I know. My son's best friend (a girl) has two dads. I only know because I allowed her to spend the night and her biological father did not pick her up because he was passed out from partying the night before. His live-in boyfriend eventually came over and picked her up. I'm simply saying that I don't want my kids to think gay relationships are the norm. BTW, I'm willing to bet that many of us would not even exist if being gay was perfectly normal, normal as the rain. You should thank your parents for their heterosexuality.
Lol. And did this dad pass out every night from excessive partying? Or was it perhaps his birthday or a special celebration? I hope you don't believe that vast numbers of gay parents are abusing alcohol or behaving irresponsibly. Surely you must be aware that all the reputable research so far conducted on gay parents indicates they are no less responsible than hetero parents, and no less able to provide a stable, healthy environment for their children.
And you come back to the "pleasure" issue. You know, the vast majority of sex is had for reasons of pleasure, not for procreative purposes. How many pregnancies have you had; and how many times have you had sex with your partner?? If the latter figure is much greater than the former figure, it would seem to me that you are guilty of having sex with your partner because... YOU ENJOY IT. What does that say about you, I wonder?
Wow, you're quite the expert! First of all, it's none of your business how many pregnancies I've had. Gay sex provides no benefit other than pleasure. I believe that was my statement. Do I need to say it again?
I inferred from your comments that sex for reasons of pleasure alone is incompatible with your morality. You object to gay people having sex, because you think they are having sex simply because they enjoy it -- and as far as you are concerned, that isn't reason enough; there needs to be a procreative component for sex to be morally acceptable. Is this a correct summary of your view on this?
If the above is true, then I would like to know if you apply these standards to your own behaviour. Do you have sex solely for the purpose of getting pregnant? Or do you perhaps have sex for other reasons?
You know, maybe if the gay community tried to tone down the gay parades that have floats of all kinds of body parts for our children to see, as well as men strutting around in little g-strings, society would be more accepting. Maybe if gays started using protection and actually took on a little more responsibility with regard to the fight against AIDS, society would more accepting. Maybe if gays were not as sexually promiscuous as they are, society would be a little more accepting of them. Maybe if they hadn't attacked the Boy Scouts, society would be a little more accepting. Maybe if they didn't try to shut Dr. Laura up (because she of course has no rights when it comes to freedom of speech), society would be more accepting.
The spread of HIV/AIDS has been drastically reduced in the gay community. That is due to the efforts of gay community health programs -- most of which have been funded by the gay community itself, because the US federal government does not like federal money being used to provide sexually explict (i.e., accurate) information to citizens on ways to prevent the transmission of STDs.
Really. I'd like to see some links to that information. I hear HIV/AIDS has increased quite a bit among Afrian American females. Also, according to UNAIDS 2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic, infections are on the rise in the United States and Western Europe. In the US, an estimated 950,000 people are living with HIV ? up from 900,000 in 2001.
Yes. I said: GAY MEN have made changes to their sexual behaviour, which has resulted in a fairly dramatic reduction in the number of new HIV/AIDS infections within the gay community (compared to new infection rates in the early 80s). There is some evidence that some gay men have become somewhat complacent about safe sex practices (e.g., condom use) and this needs to be combated with education programs targetted to the gay community. However rates of new infections within the gay male community are still much much lower than they were two decades ago.
HIV/AIDS is spreading very rapidly outside the first world, particularly in Africa, where in some countries more than 40% of the population is infected. (Do I need to remind you that the predominent mode of transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa is heterosexual intercourse?)
Most gays aren't sexually promiscuous. I am amazed at your nastiness. You seem to be quite deliberately slandering gay people, evoking and perpetuating all the old stereotypes of gays as sexual predators, gays as promiscuous, gays as irresponsible and careless, etc. Frankly, *I* don't think that "people like you" SHOULD be trusted with the important task of raising children. What can you possibly offer a child, other than lessons in hatred, bigotry, prejudice? On the other hand, I won't be seeking to legislate to ban social conservatives or xian fundamentalists from raising children. Even "people like you" have the right to be treated equally before the law. 🙂
Nastiness? Oh, you're pretty nasty there yourself. Are you gay? Is that why you're so defensive? You don't know a thing about me. I haven't said anything that can't be supported. Perhaps you should pull your little head out of your world of denial and look at the facts. You know that's the thing about you guys. It doesn't matter to you what the facts are. If it's negative and people mention it to you, you call it slander, evoking and perpetuating old sterotypes, etc.
I find your evocation + perpetuation of homophobic stereotypes of gay men to be obnoxious. So yes, I would choose to describe you as a nasty person.
🙂
I wonder why you think I am "defensive"? I am simply calling things how I see them... I DO think you are a bigot.
🙂
As for my sexual orientation: I would not choose to share that information with the likes of you.
Note: The Massachusetts Department of Education and GLSEN co-sponsored a conference at Tufts University entitled "TeachOut." There was one workshop entitled, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Children between the ages of 12-21 were welcomed to attend. They learned about cum and calories, spit vs. swallow and the best thing for a man to eat if he wants his ejaculate to be sweeter. One boy suggested that if you're going to go down on a guy, you shouldn't brush your teeth for four hours prior to going down on him. This is to avoid HIV/AIDS transmission. Oh, they also discussed fisting. Yes, this is just the kind of lifestyle I want my children and grandchildren to be a part of. Don't you?
Google "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School" if you really want to know why Americans do not respect these organizations that "represent" the gay community.
Whatever. Please crawl back into your hole.
No comment on what our children are learning?
I did a quick search on the queer sex workshop. This is what I learned: The workshop was targetted to gay teenagers aged 14 and older. (Not 12 years and older -- as you stated in your post). Furthermore, the workshop was held off school campus -- it was held at Tufts University -- and the lesbian and gay kids presumably attended it on their own time. (Why didn't you mention this, I wonder? Reading your comments, I got the impression this workshop was held on school time, as part of the curriculum, and that it was "forced" onto all students, both gay and straight). The workshop was titled "What they DIDN'T tell you about queer sex... in health class". Given a title like that, you would have to expect there might be some explicit sexual content. The topics you mentioned -- "fisting", oral sex, etc. -- were raised by the gay and lesbian teenagers who attended the work-shop during a question + answer session. If those gay + lesbian kids were old enough or mature enough or curious enough to ask sexually explicit questions, then I think they probably deserve accurate, un-biased and frankly "sex positive" answers. Gay kids don't have the same access to (relevant!) information about sex that straight kids do; maybe those kids were just really curious, and took the opportunity to ask questions in an environment where they knew they wouldn't be ridiculed. Who knows? At any rate, this workshop took place in 2000. The people conducting the workshop were sacked or resigned. This kind of workshop is not, and never has been, offered to school children on school time as part of an official curriculum, as far as I can tell.
Gay rights organisations are not obsessed with providing sexually explicit information to children. They are concerned with the safety and well-being of gay teenagers. Most gay rights advocacy for children concerns issues of bullying & discrimination within schools.
I guess the paragraphs about the workshop and It's Elementary are considered slander in your eyes as well. I do not hate gays and I do not teach my children to hate gays. I've had gay friends and I've been to a gay pride event. I guess what I'm trying to say is if gays want others to accept the gay lifestyle, then maybe responsible and mature gays should be leading the way. I'm serious.
You are free to disaprove of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. Please refrain from codifying that moral myopia into law.
🙂
If you want people to respect what you believe to be your constitutionally protected right then the gay organizations and the gay elite need to respect the right of freedom of speech. Going after the Boy Scouts and shutting down Dr. Laura is not going to help in your fight for your rights because while you're fighting you're stomping on the rights of others.
You know, it was the religous right who intiated use of those kinds of strong-arm tactics. They're still doing it. There is a country singer, Winona Judd, I think, who does occasional performances for a lesbian boat cruise. Various religious organisations have been demanding that she stop performing for lesbians -- they say that by performing for lesbians, she is "endorsing" homosexuality -- and have threatened to initiate a boycott of her music if she doesn't comply. Countless gay characters in movies, soap operas, etc. have been eliminated because of 'religious right' organised boycotts (against the networks who air programs featuring gay characters, or against the companies that advertise during shows featuring gay characters). This kind of stuff is all perfectly legal in a free-market capitalist economy. A small number of gay rights organisations such as GLAD employ similar tactics. Can you blame them? I certainly don't.
