Do you support same-sex marriage?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 25, 2009, 11:23 pm

Anyone who is against public displays of affection should join the Army.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 26, 2009, 2:44 am

Funk wrote:I have no issues with the rest of the points you made, just what I mentioned here specifically.

We don't actually disagree. I said that if you think it's OK when a straight couple do it, then it should be OK when a gay couple does it. You think that it's not OK when straight people do it, so it's totally legit for you to think the same thing about gays.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 26, 2009, 3:29 am

Sueven wrote:
Funk wrote:I have no issues with the rest of the points you made, just what I mentioned here specifically.
We don't actually disagree. I said that if you think it's OK when a straight couple do it, then it should be OK when a gay couple does it. You think that it's not OK when straight people do it, so it's totally legit for you to think the same thing about gays.

It's not that simple. I was suitemates (opposite side of shared bathroom) with a gay guy a couple years back in the dorms. He was really cool to hang around unless he had a guy over, in which case they'd be all over each other. It made many people uncomfortable. Gay people showing PDA is more difficult to quench when it's in a small setting. It isn't going to suddenly stop being unsightly in the eyes of people that are accustomed to watching hetero make out sessions in public. With that said, he cleaned and decorated the bathroom, had a nice bubbler, and didn't hit on me. I didn't ask him to make out elsewhere, but I know several people that would leave the room when he brought someone over. It's a touchy subject, but discomfort is not a sign of homophobia. You make it appear as if you'd take an issue if somebody was made uncomfortable by gays and not straight people making out, but you seem to not take into account that it isn't a scene many people are accustomed to being in the presence of. I would be offended by you being offended by me being made uncomfortable.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 26, 2009, 10:15 am

I am against PDA for straight couples and gay men, but encourage it for hot lesbian couples. What the hell does that make me?!?

Post by **Sylvus** » March 26, 2009, 12:22 pm

Holding hands, hugging, a (emphasis on the singular) kiss, etc. are all perfectly acceptable in public. Making out is kind of tacky, unless you're in a place where most of the people are drunk or also making out (you kids and your make-out parties!!!1!)

Learn it, know it, live it.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 26, 2009, 12:33 pm

I am offended by people using 'ur' as opposed to 'your'. WoW-Speak ftl!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 26, 2009, 1:24 pm

I am against ugly hetero people engaging in PDA's as well.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 26, 2009, 1:38 pm

Does that include an attractive hetero being felated by a dude in latex chaps? Not sure if that really qualifies as PDA if it is purely a cash transaction.

I just wanted to know because I may visit THE Ohio State at some point and I like to keep my options open.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 26, 2009, 2:06 pm

I don't wear latex, but we might be able to work something out! I can offer you Ashur's felations at a reasonable price.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 26, 2009, 2:11 pm

I suppose that is ok as long as he wears his Viking helmet.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 26, 2009, 2:20 pm

Leo wrote:It's not that simple. I was suitemates (opposite side of shared bathroom) with a gay guy a couple years back in the dorms. He was really cool to hang around unless he had a guy over, in which case they'd be all over each other. It made many people uncomfortable. Gay people showing PDA is more difficult to quench when it's in a small setting. It isn't going to suddenly stop being unsightly in the eyes of people that are accustomed to watching hetero make out sessions in public. With that said, he cleaned and decorated the bathroom, had a nice bubbler, and didn't hit on me. I didn't ask him to make out elsewhere, but I know several people that would leave the room when he brought someone over. It's a touchy subject, but discomfort is not a sign of homophobia. You make it appear as if you'd take an issue if somebody was made uncomfortable by gays and not straight people making out, but you seem to not take into account that it isn't a scene many people are accustomed to being in the presence of. I would be offended by you being offended by me being made uncomfortable.

Disagree.

I think it's totally understandable to have an immediate visceral negative reaction at the sight of two guys kissing, above and beyond whatever negative reaction someone has to a hetero couple kissing.

But then, once someone has that reaction, it's incumbent on them to analyze that reaction. If you can't justify a visceral negative reaction that you have to someone based solely on who they are, it's incumbent on you to change it. I bet that most of these grossed out dudes are not grossed out by lesbian porn; they're grossed out by two guys kissing. This is not justifiable.

And don't feed me any shit that, because you're not attracted to guys, there's no way that you could avoid being grossed out by guys kissing. It's not true. You don't have to think that it's hot when guys kiss, but you don't have to be grossed out any more than you would by straight people or hot women kissing. Plenty of people are able to tolerate-- or even find erotic-- sexual activity between people who belong to a gender you're not attracted to. I have no problem with gay dudes kissing. I know lots of other straight men and straight women who are the same. I know lesbians who like watching gay male porn. And so on. You can say "well you don't have to be grossed out by it, but I am." And that's true, you are. But it's not inevitable that you are. You could change that. You simply cannot convince me otherwise.

I also find it humorous that, out of that whole book I wrote on why we should respect and work toward gay rights, the only thing that anyone can or will say is "NO YOU'RE WRONG GAY PEOPLE MAKING OUT IS GROSS." Way to miss the point (except Funk, who acknowledge the rest of it, thank you).

Many of y'all could really stand to get over yourselves.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 26, 2009, 2:31 pm

If Sueven ran for president, I would vote for him.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 26, 2009, 3:10 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I don't wear latex, but we might be able to work something out! I can offer you Ashur's felations at a reasonable price.

Canelek wrote:I suppose that is ok as long as he wears his Viking helmet.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 26, 2009, 3:53 pm

Sueven wrote: Disagree.

I think it's totally understandable to have an immediate visceral negative reaction at the sight of two guys kissing, above and beyond whatever negative reaction someone has to a hetero couple kissing.

But then, once someone has that reaction, it's incumbent on them to analyze that reaction. If you can't justify a visceral negative reaction that you have to someone based solely on who they are, it's incumbent on you to change it. I bet that most of these grossed out dudes are not grossed out by lesbian porn; they're grossed out by two guys kissing. This is not justifiable.

And don't feed me any shit that, because you're not attracted to guys, there's no way that you could avoid being grossed out by guys kissing. It's not true. You don't have to think that it's hot when guys kiss, but you don't have to be grossed out any more than you would by straight people or hot women kissing. Plenty of people are able to tolerate-- or even find erotic-- sexual activity between people who belong to a gender you're not attracted to. I have no problem with gay dudes kissing. I know lots of other straight men and straight women who are the same. I know lesbians who like watching gay male porn. And so on. You can say "well you don't have to be grossed out by it, but I am." And that's true, you are. But it's not inevitable that you are. You could change that. You simply cannot convince me otherwise.

I also find it humorous that, out of that whole book I wrote on why we should respect and work toward gay rights, the only thing that anyone can or will say is "NO YOU'RE WRONG GAY PEOPLE MAKING OUT IS GROSS." Way to miss the point (except Funk, who acknowledge the rest of it, thank you).

Many of y'all could really stand to get over yourselves.

I would say that you as well should get over yourself and your self-righteous indignation. I applaud that you do not find gay men or lesbians kissing offensive at all. To each their own. I really could care less if those guys are going back and boning each other all night, or if the lesbos are munching each other. I truly could not care less.

It DOES bother me to see people that I have zero attraction to engaging in any type of sexual play or displays of affection that I might label as a foreplay. This would include morbidly obese hetero couples, goths, extremely manly lesbians, 2 guys, guy and goat, woman and emu, and a whole host of other combinations. Just because YOU have become numb to it, it does not mean that I : a) want to be around it enough to be numb to it or b) will have the numbing that comes with repeated exposure. I really don;t want to see ridiculously large women wearing spandex so tight that you can count the hairs on their 70's muslim styled bush either...and it is not like it does not happen frequently, but I don't see me not being repulsed by it.

edit: before you ask, there are 4 distinct bush styles that I recognize for the women

1) Porn chick - fully shaved or a very very tight shave into something like a flying V
2) Bar chick - landing strip or other fairly neat trim
3) Christian bush - a big patch and only trimmd enough to not poke out of standard panties.
4) Muslim bush - massive patch of fur from mid-thigh to belly button

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 26, 2009, 5:06 pm

I'd respond at length but Kilmoll beat me to it, and quite elegantly.

You don't have to think that it's hot when guys kiss, but you don't have to be grossed out any more than you would by straight people or hot women kissing. Plenty of people are able to tolerate-- or even find erotic-- sexual activity between people who belong to a gender you're not attracted to. I have no problem with gay dudes kissing.

Your preferences are not universal. It is not incumbent on a person to alter their preferences. I was able to stomach being in the same room as him while he had a guy over (we'd usually be in huge pot smoking circles), but the discomfort never passed, despite the fact that I respected his needs and didn't abruptly leave the room. This occured over the course of a year.

I'm a tolerant person. It's not a matter of having to be grossed out. Again... it's not like a switch that can be turned on or off. I would tell him "no making out with your friend" when he was hanging in my room and he obliged understandingly. A gay person doesn't hold me to some standard of voyeuristic gay acceptance, so why are you? A line betwen respect and freedom is established. My suitemate and I lived just fine and not by the terms you think are necessary.

Damnit, I responded at length.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 26, 2009, 7:27 pm

I don't care for straight people making public displays of affection anymore than I like gay people doing it, it's inappropriate, period.

Pretty much the same, that's not socially accepted behavior once you pass college age.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:4) Muslim bush - massive patch of fur from mid-thigh to belly button

Most middle eastern\muslim women shave... Think auntie flo, no water.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 26, 2009, 7:38 pm

People are going to have to get used to living in a society with gays and lesbians all around them, and realize that they're human beings just like you and I. Other than their sexual orientation, they are no different. They should be treated as equals. Not almost, but complete equals. If anyone wants to kiss their partner in public, they should be able to. If you don't like it, quit staring. This is a free country after all.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 27, 2009, 8:00 am

If anyone wants to kiss their partner in public, they should be able to.

Absolutely, take it home if you want to snake your tongue down someone's throat is my point.

People are going to have to get used to living in a society with gays and lesbians all around them, and realize that they're human beings just like you and I. Other than their sexual orientation, they are no different. They should be treated as equals.

No argument from me. GLBT folks should also keep in mind that if they choose to wear a uniform (I almost said costume) that identifies them as such to expect "issues" of various sorts. To me it's much the same as goth kids in high school who are baffled that people make fun of them. What sort of reaction would you expect if you started wearing a superman outfit around on a daily basis?

Back to my thread about the femme guy wearing his collar into <rural building supply store>, you must have a realistic expectation of others. Does that make it right? No, but people aren't going to change overnight either.

Once the legal dust settles it'll take another 20+ years before society changes in non-urban areas.

Taly · Post by **Taly** » March 29, 2009, 1:20 am

voted no.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 29, 2009, 1:54 am

Taly wrote:voted no.

Why?

Taly · Post by **Taly** » March 29, 2009, 2:11 am

I am a Christian and for personal reasons.

And before you ask yes it says it is a sin and an abomination unto him in the bible. If that is what you want in your life then thats your choice. I just do not have to like it =)

Now before you judge me a bad person I do have a few gay friends. I just don't aprove of what they do but they are still nice people =)

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 29, 2009, 2:17 am

Apparently, a the tenets of a 3000 year old magic book allow for weekends of debauchery in Las Vegas as long as you don't slip your cock into a man hole.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 29, 2009, 2:27 am

Taly wrote:And before you ask yes it says it is a sin and an abomination unto him in the bible.

You can't use the Bible argument against people who don't put their faith in it. Agnostics and atheists don't really care what the Bible says. To them it's nothing more than a book of fairy tales.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 29, 2009, 2:53 am

Your god also forbids tattoos in Leviticus, but you claim to have a tattoo. If you're going to use rules mandated by bronze age witchdoctors to justify discrimination in the 21st century, maybe you should be a little less selective in the rules you obey.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 29, 2009, 5:47 am

LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA HEP ME JESUS LALALA

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 29, 2009, 4:17 pm

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
These are the most often quoted verses by those who insist that the Bible condemns homosexuality. One principle of biblical interpretation is consistency. The verses immediately before and after these prohibit eating rabbit, lobster, shrimp and pork. They forbid women from wearing red dresses, and declare abomination for all who wear clothing made of mixed fabrics. They bar from ministry anyone with any physical defect. Shouldn't we question the motives and integrity of those who insist these two verses are the eternal word of God, but ignore everything else in the same document?

Genesis 19:4-11 and Judges 19:22
The best Hebrew scholars are in unanimous agreement that what happened at Sodom was about the violation of the ancient code of hospitality toward strangers involving a threatened homosexual rape. A parallel story in Judges tells the exact same core story except that the rape is heterosexual and actually did happen, resulting in the woman's death. Yet, no one suggests that is a condemnation of heterosexuality. Another principle of biblical interpretation is: let the Bible interpret itself. The books of the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah list the specific sins for which Sodom was destroyed. They list arrogance, adultery, oppression of the poor, insincere religion and political corruption. Homosexuality is not mentioned. In Luke 10:10-13, Jesus clearly states that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

Romans 1:26-32
St. Paul was suspicious, fearful and disapproving of all sexual acts. Homosexual acts were no exception. He clearly believed that all people were heterosexual and that those engaged in homosexual acts were doing so as conscious acts of rebellion against God an idea totally alien to homosexual people. The exact words he uses to declare homosexual acts as "against nature," he also uses to describe men with long hair (even though Jesus, as a first century Jew, would certainly have had long hair). People who take the Bible seriously (as opposed to literally) have long since realized that many of Paul's comments on socio-cultural issues are not meant to be binding on twenty-first century Christians. Who today argues for a return to slavery, or that women are forbidden to speak in church?

I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:5-10
These two passages include the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai." The best Greek scholars now admit that they are not sure what these words meant to the original writers. The word "malakoi" is now considered to have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. The word "arsenokoitai" has now been found in extra-biblical literature of the same period and ap-parantly referred to cultic temple prostitutes, not homosexuals. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, translated by the world's greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars, contains a footnote to these two words which reads, "These Greek terms...do not refer to 'homosexuals,' as in inappropriate older translations."

The Gospels
If homosexuality were as critically important an issue as many seem to think, surely Jesus would have said something about it. He didn't.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 29, 2009, 11:26 pm

Taly wrote:And before you ask yes it says it is a sin and an abomination unto him in the bible.

Finally someone took the bait...
It does say that in the old testament, you are correct. However, if you keep reading the rest of that bible you'll get to a part where Jesus comes, frees man from all the tangled laws and rules of the old testament, gives some new very simple rules to live by, and then dies, etc. etc.
If you are truly a Christian, you cannot use the bible as an excuse to be intolerant of a group of people that broke really old rules that your own messiah said aren't important anymore.
It also says masturbation is a sin, have you ever done that?
It says drinking to excess is a sin, pretty sure I saw you do that.

Jesus preached about tolerance, and yet Christians seem to be very intolerant as a group.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 30, 2009, 1:52 am

Not the whole of the Christian group. That is not fair. It is generally the evangelical or born-again folks. I may be wrong, but that is my personal experience. Don't get all down on the regular Christian folks. Speaking of tolerance.... not knocking you, Bokbok, nor anyone else, but just take a moment to realize that even non-belief can be considered a type of faith, if ya will.

We all believe in some sort of goofy shit. That is what makes us human.

Back to the issue at hand....

Gays, yes. Intolerance, no.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 30, 2009, 8:23 am

There's only one unforgivable sin and buggery isn't it.

Many folks need to read the book without sect_x's filter on their glasses. "Freed from the law" means what?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 30, 2009, 5:02 pm

Cane, I know that not all Christians feel this way. But for many of our controversial social issues, it is members of the Christian faith, using tenants of that faith (even if falsely justified as above) to denounce other groups. Does the fact that leaders of these churches don't denounce these 'extremists' (or in some cases, they even support them) not then mean that the group as a whole then feels that this intolerant behavior is acceptable (or even right)?

Regardless, I'm not here to bag on anyone for their faith. I completely respect anyone's beliefs, no matter how crazy. However, when those beliefs inspire behavior that infringe upon the rights, or even the well being of others...I have a problem.

Anyways, I just like to argue...and Christians are a very easy target. Because most are steadfast in their faith, and while quick to quote something, generally completely ignorant about that which they are quoting.

I love everyone. Even the jackasses.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 30, 2009, 5:35 pm

I love everyone. Even the jackasses.

Awesome!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 1, 2009, 5:08 pm

Taly wrote:I am a Christian and for personal reasons.

And before you ask yes it says it is a sin and an abomination unto him in the bible. If that is what you want in your life then thats your choice. I just do not have to like it =)

Now before you judge me a bad person I do have a few gay friends. I just don't aprove of what they do but they are still nice people =)

taly .... with regards to your comment ... you can't selectively like things from gay culture yet find them immoral sinners, i think its a little hypocritical of people to laugh their ass off to will and grace and then go and say... well .. homos are sinners...

also

Hiding behind a bible as an excuse for intolerance makes you no better than the westboro baptist church people.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 2, 2009, 1:33 pm

Drasta wrote:you can't selectively like things from gay culture yet find them immoral sinners, i think its a little hypocritical of people to laugh their ass off to will and grace and then go and say... well .. homos are sinners...

OK. I'll say it... wtf?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 3, 2009, 1:38 pm

Big day for gay marriage:

Vermont House passes bill legalizing gay marriage, now just requires governor's signature to become law (may or may not happen)

Iowa Supreme Court overturns Iowa state ban on gay marriage; declares that a ban on gay marriage is inconsistent with equal protection. Court basically went through every rationalization for a gay marriage ban and pronounced all of them crap.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 3, 2009, 4:54 pm

Sylvus wrote:I agree with that. Religion can have the word "marriage", and anyone who is interested in their deity of choice recognizing their partnership should go ahead and get "married". If they want to use that status in a legal manner however, require a "civil union license" that can be notarized or whatever at the church if they're getting "married", or at a courthouse if they are just entering a "civil union".

Any problems with that?

"Honey, will you civil union me"? Not terribly romantic but then watching two guys make out makes me want to puke so what do I know.

I know you are just trying to please everybody, so I would accept this as a resolution so this is not directed at you but the people who are against it. It bugs me that people who hold their faith think they never make consessions to make life more convenient all of the time and that is total crap. What's so sacred about marriage anyway when you can have a divorce, or, even stranger, an anullment?

It's all because of religion that this is an issue. Religious people are hypocritical on a regular basis. Religion itself is not supposed to make it's way into governmental decisions.

I will never understand why someone who is not effected in any way, gives a crap about the institution of marriage when the institution itself is anything but one to begin with.

Taly, it's good that you chimed in, but how does it effect you if one of your gay friends gets married? if it's going to make that couple happy, why would you be against their happiness?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 6, 2009, 12:41 am

Ashur wrote:
Drasta wrote:you can't selectively like things from gay culture yet find them immoral sinners, i think its a little hypocritical of people to laugh their ass off to will and grace and then go and say... well .. homos are sinners...
OK. I'll say it... wtf?

lol what i meant was ... if like homophobe_01 enjoys watching the TV show Will and Grace ...but yet thinks homosexuals are evil sinners, that is a bit hypocritical imo.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 6, 2009, 11:29 am

... and where exactly did Taly start blathering on about how amused she is by the vaunted "gay culture"... I think you lost me somewhere sir.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 6, 2009, 11:48 am

I think it was the whole "i've got gay friends and they're great, but I hate their icky, sinful ways" thing...

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 6, 2009, 1:19 pm

I don't know, I think you can "hate the sin and love the sinner".

For example if your mom was addicted to heroin, you certainly don't have to hate her to hate the fact that she's a junkie. So I'm not sure your argument is as clear cut as you present it. No, I'm not saying homosexuality is the same as drug addiction. I'm just saying you don't have to approve of everything done by those you love/befriend or you are a hypocrite. That is illogical.

My best friend is either gay or bi, he's ambivalent about it and says it doesn't define who he is and I concur. It's never impacted the way I feel about him as a person or a friend. But if I hate the fact that he disguised that raccoons lived his attic rather than fixing the problem but don't hate him as a person, does that make me a hypocrite too? I don't think so.

So the "Will and Grace" argument holds no water with me.

EDIT: I don't hate on Homosexuals, just horrible arguments

miir · Post by **miir** » April 6, 2009, 1:51 pm

For example if your mom was addicted to heroin, you certainly don't have to hate her to hate the fact that she's a junkie. So I'm not sure your argument is as clear cut as you present it. No, I'm not saying homosexuality is the same as drug addiction. I'm just saying you don't have to approve of everything done by those you love/befriend or you are a hypocrite. That is illogical.

What a fucking ridiculous analogy.

Try replacing 'addicted to heroin' with 'racial minority'...

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 6, 2009, 1:57 pm

Gays and lesbians are treated like second-class citizens. That's the problem. The hypocrisy is that the majority of people who discriminate against the gay and lesbian community are "Christians".

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 6, 2009, 2:02 pm

I think Miir is generally right, but I think absolute categories obscure some real subtlety that does exist. While sexual orientation is not a "choice" in the sense in which the word is commonly used, I do think that sexual orientation is influenced by culture, context, etc. Sexual orientation is not simply an invention, but it's also not something that's strictly programmed into our brains. Similarly, being a heroin addict is not fully a matter of free choice, either.

Nevertheless, being gay is very much like something immutable, and being a heroin addict is much more like a free choice, so the point stands.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 6, 2009, 2:07 pm

Ok, whatever...

P.S. Actually, have fun folks. I'm going to stop posting here on any subject that isn't purely apolitical.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 6, 2009, 4:09 pm

I've got to say, I think that this has been a fairly rational and respectful conversation, given the standards of VV and the fact that it's on a controversial and emotionally charged topic. Sure, Miir called your analogy 'fucking ridiculous,' but it's Miir and this is VV.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to read the "love the sin, hate the sinner" attitude as a truly odious form of condescension and bigotry. I don't think that this is inevitable-- reasonable people can also see that attitude as an appropriate and moderate compromise. But I find it hard to believe that you can't see why some might view it as condescending and offensive.

If you don't want to talk politics any longer because you don't think it's productive or interesting, that's fine. But if you don't want to talk politics because you think that the responses to your views are unfair or intolerant, I think you're being particularly thin skinned.

And I know that it's frustrating to be a minority voice, but the political dynamics of this board do not fit the simplistic left vs. right paradigm that many seem to believe. On issues of racial politics, for instance, I (as someone who is very liberal on the subject) am often in the minority. Even my arguments on this thread, less controversial than my views on race, have attracted some attacks from people who generally fall into the liberal camp.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 6, 2009, 7:32 pm

Sueven wrote:I do think that sexual orientation is influenced by culture, context, etc. Sexual orientation is not simply an invention, but it's also not something that's strictly programmed into our brains. Similarly, being a heroin addict is not fully a matter of free choice, either.

I disagree. I think that in an environment that's more accepting of it, it may seem more prevalent but I think that's only because (as you've pointed out) being "out" is an uncomfortable process made much easier when in an accepting environment. I definitely believe that homo/bisexuality is something you have no choice over and whether or not being true to yourself or lying about it in fear of not being accepted/loved are one's only choices.

I also disagree that being a heroin addict is not fully a matter of free choice. If your argument is that having an addictive personality makes you more susceptible and that that kind of personality is not something one chooses to have, I'll give you that. I believe that one can be an addict and not have a choice in it but being a practicing addict is very much a choice. One chooses to do drugs. One chooses to deny help. Granted, the alternative (from an addict's viewpoint) is neither appealing nor easy but the option is most certainly there.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 6, 2009, 9:10 pm

Laneela,

On the sexual orientation point: My reason for believing in the cultural and contextual contingency of sexual orientation is based on the fact that expressions of nonheteronormative sexuality have varied widely throughout history. You've got the propensity of some Greeks and Romans to have particular sorts of man/boy relationships. You've got certain Native American tribes, who'd have ceremonies at which children would declare their adult gender, which often involved living out the opposite gender, to the point where genetically-male-culturally-female individuals would scratch their taint to simulate menstruation. "Homosexuality" has simply been so different from culture to culture that I find it hard to believe that our culture now has hit on the one true manifestation of homosexuality, what it 'really is.'

And then there's so much variation within the sexual categories as we conceive of them. Bisexual is an immensely complicated category that includes wide varieties of behavior and preference and, taken seriously, may very well include almost everyone. Some people identify their sexual orientation as submissive, and are attracted sexually to dominants without regard to gender. Transsexuals challenge the categories, especially given that their orientation sometimes does and sometimes does not change with their gender (that is, a man can become either a straight of gay woman, while a woman can become either a straight or gay man). Some people change their orientation within a lifetime-- from dating primarily men to primarily women or vice versa, from a butch to a femme lesbian, whatever. There has got to be contingency there-- it seems unlikely that someone would just be genetically programmed to progress through 4 or 5 different orientation variants in a particular order.

That said, the fact that something is contingent does not mean that it is a matter of choice. People can shape their sexuality in some ways, but only around the edges. Someone who goes from straight to bi is not choosing to make that transition.

I also disagree with you on addiction. I think you're overlooking many of the physiological and emotional subtleties of addiction. But we can talk about that in a different post if you want.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 6, 2009, 9:22 pm

Once you meet and talk with someone who was persecuted for being gay and has gone through numerous other trails and tribulations due to their sexual orientation, you may change your opinion.

After I listened to several people like this tell their story, I came to the conclusion that it's hard wired into these people. Everything else is simply over analyzing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 6, 2009, 9:27 pm

I have.

To repeat, the fact that something is contingent in no way means that it's subject to personal choice.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 12:55 am

The Wall Street Journal

Why Gay Marriage Matters
The state should recognize our choice of partner.

I often tell friends that a part of me is gay, even though I've been happily married to my wife for 12 years. What I mean is that in April 2003 I donated a kidney to my older brother David, who is gay. The transplant took place at the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics -- and it was, in a very real sense, a miraculous event for our entire family.

So when David called me last Friday excited about the Iowa Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage legal, I wasn't surprised. "You know what this means, don't you?" he asked. "It means we can visit those we love when they're dying in the hospital; it means we're finally treated like family."

Most hospitals in America only allow spouses and immediate family members to visit a patient during a medical emergency, when a patient is unconscious or in critical condition after a car accident, heart attack or kidney failure, for example. These are the moments when our spouses are most needed, the moments when life and death decisions are made -- and, if necessary, goodbyes are said. My brother, whose kidneys failed when he was in his 30s, understands these moments.

Of course, this is just one example of how Friday's decision changes the lives of gay and lesbian couples in Iowa. As the court wrote in its unanimous decision, the 12 plaintiffs (six couples) expressed "the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa." These include: "the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care . . . the inability to share in their partners' state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections," and the denial of "several tax benefits."

"Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs," the court continued, "is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage." In other words, they desire to be recognized as married couples, as a "family" to use my brother's word.

With Friday's ruling -- which upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman -- that desire has become law. As early as April 24, gays and lesbians will be able to exchange vows in civil services.

As for religious attitudes toward same-sex marriage, the court respectfully, and in typically plain-spoken manner, explains that "the sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law."

My brother and I and millions of Iowans are proud of our state at this moment. Others aren't. There are many (some of them beloved family members) who believe marriage, civil or otherwise, should only be between a man and woman; others aren't opposed to same-sex marriage but don't think the courts should mandate it. Indeed, there's a movement here in Iowa as in other states to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union solely between a man and woman. (Such an amendment couldn't get on the ballot here until 2012 at the earliest.)

To this, I would simply ask why? Why blemish our constitution and narrow our definition of equal protection when our state has been a leader on such historic civil-rights issues as slavery, interracial marriage, women's rights, and desegregation?

As the court wrote in its decision: "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

Here's to marriage, a "supremely important civil institution." And here's to including, not excluding, kind-hearted people like my brother David, who want nothing more than to find the right person, settle down, and one day perhaps get married.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 7, 2009, 1:16 am

Sueven wrote:Laneela,

On the sexual orientation point: My reason for believing in the cultural and contextual contingency of sexual orientation is based on the fact that expressions of nonheteronormative sexuality have varied widely throughout history. You've got the propensity of some Greeks and Romans to have particular sorts of man/boy relationships. You've got certain Native American tribes, who'd have ceremonies at which children would declare their adult gender, which often involved living out the opposite gender, to the point where genetically-male-culturally-female individuals would scratch their taint to simulate menstruation. "Homosexuality" has simply been so different from culture to culture that I find it hard to believe that our culture now has hit on the one true manifestation of homosexuality, what it 'really is.'

And then there's so much variation within the sexual categories as we conceive of them. Bisexual is an immensely complicated category that includes wide varieties of behavior and preference and, taken seriously, may very well include almost everyone. Some people identify their sexual orientation as submissive, and are attracted sexually to dominants without regard to gender. Transsexuals challenge the categories, especially given that their orientation sometimes does and sometimes does not change with their gender (that is, a man can become either a straight of gay woman, while a woman can become either a straight or gay man). Some people change their orientation within a lifetime-- from dating primarily men to primarily women or vice versa, from a butch to a femme lesbian, whatever. There has got to be contingency there-- it seems unlikely that someone would just be genetically programmed to progress through 4 or 5 different orientation variants in a particular order.

That said, the fact that something is contingent does not mean that it is a matter of choice. People can shape their sexuality in some ways, but only around the edges. Someone who goes from straight to bi is not choosing to make that transition.

I also disagree with you on addiction. I think you're overlooking many of the physiological and emotional subtleties of addiction. But we can talk about that in a different post if you want.

I respect your opinion and admit that it seems well-studied. I maintain mine though. I agree that culture has a definite effect on the prevalence of homosexual "acts", if you will, but I don't believe that it has any effect on the state of being. We could go around and around with this (and I'd be happy to - human nature being one of my favorite discussion topics) but what it boils down to is that I don't believe sexual orientation is learned or shaped by one's environment in the same way that other sexual preferences are. There is definitely the "innate bisexuality" school of thought and I don't disagree with it's probability. A transsexual definitely challenges the categories. Theirs isn't simply a matter of sexual orientation and often isn't a matter of it at all. Theirs is a matter of sexual identity and therefore, a different subject altogether. =P

Also - I conceded that there are physiological and emotional subtleties to addiction. I, myself am predisposed. I do however maintain that being a practicing addict (emphasis on the "practicing") is a choice.

This started out being a much longer post but I trimmed a lot of the fat leaving only the gist of it. But again, I'd be happy to discuss either topic in detail in a different arena.