(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am surprised that you actually believe that two consenting adults may only achieve deeply rewarding romantic love and intimacy through receipt of the social imprimatur of marriage. I am so surprised that I don't believe you actually think that.

It is a bit ironic, in that proponents of non-traditional relationships want the stamp of approval of traditional devices.

Or is it more an interest in financial benefits? Usually it's about the money.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe anybody chooses his or her sexuality. A person who may have divergent sexual feelings may engage in conduct that impacts those feelings, but I've read very little which suggests otherwise, and most of what I prefer to read on the subject is of a more clinical variety even though as you point out, I'm just a dumb lawyer.

Show me some clinical data that supports the thesis that some chose their sexuality.

I never said you were a dumb lawyer. I implied that we're both out of our field here and personal anecdotes don't mean a lot.

I guess it depends on your definition of "choose". I realize my one-liner was sloppy, but I think my earlier post illustrated what I mean fairly well. IMO, people don't choose where they sit on the straight-gay continuum. There are people in the middle who do indeed choose which type of relationship they would like to be involved in, as they could be reasonably gratified in either.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I never said you were a dumb lawyer. I implied that we're both out of our field here and personal anecdotes don't mean a lot.

I guess it depends on your definition of "choose". I realize my one-liner was sloppy, but I think my earlier post illustrated what I mean fairly well. IMO, people don't choose where they sit on the straight-gay continuum. There are people in the middle who do indeed choose which type of relationship they would like to be involved in, as they could be reasonably gratified in either.

I don't purport to understand bi-sexuality, so as to those I must simply throw up my hands and say, I have no idea.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't purport to understand bi-sexuality, so as to those I must simply throw up my hands and say, I have no idea.

I don't either. My only experience is with two friends, one of whom I'm close enough with to believe that her lesbian time was more than just experimentation and that her current hetero relationship is genuine. I've never personally seen it happen with men, although there are stories out there. Because of these stories, I just have to assume that we're all on a continuum, most of us at the ends, but a few somewhere in the middle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am surprised that you actually believe that two consenting adults may only achieve deeply rewarding romantic love and intimacy through receipt of the social imprimatur of marriage. I am so surprised that I don't believe you actually think that.

The social imprimiture of marriage helps to legitimatize and destigmatize their lifestyle. I believe legalization of marriage would have that effect. I was only making the case why, in my view, the choice issue is outcome determinative on the question of whether they deserve to be legitimatized and destigmatized.

If you accept that being gay is not a choice and my premise of the importance of romantic love and assoiated sexual intimacy to human happiness and well being, and still oppose gay marriage, you are making a value judgment that their form of romantic love ought to be stigmatized, treated as illegitimate and inferior. Indeed, that they as people don't desrve the same status and dignity that you, a heterosexual, deserve.

Cardiac's point is that of course if your religion tells you being gay is a sin and people will be punished in the hereafter for it, you will want gays to be stigmatized and treated publically as inferior people. I understand that.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is a bit ironic, in that proponents of non-traditional relationships want the stamp of approval of traditional devices.

Or is it more an interest in financial benefits? Usually it's about the money.

It only need be "non-traditional" because you and people like you say so. That's what they want an end to.

Did you get married for tax savings? Your suggestion is pretty ugly. I don't know what else to call it other than hateful or bigoted.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The social imprimiture of marriage helps to legitimatize and destigmatize their lifestyle. I believe legalization of marriage would have that effect. I was only making the case why, in my view, the choice issue is outcome determinative on the question of whether they deserve to be legitimatized and destigmatized.

If you accept that being gay is not a choice and my premise of the importance of romantic love and assoiated sexual intimacy to human happiness and well being, and still oppose gay marriage, you are making a value judgment that their form of romantic love ought to be stigmatized, treated as illegitimate and inferior. Indeed, that they as people don't desrve the same status and dignity that you, a heterosexual, deserve.

Cardiac's point is that of course if your religion tells you being gay is a sin and people will be punished in the hereafter for it, you will want gays to be stigmatized and treated publically as inferior people. I understand that.

Actually SU you don't understand it, and if you weren't such a condescending prick most people would be picking up what you are putting down.

As it is I keep trying to put you on ignore but there doesn't seem to be a way to accomplish this.

Maybe this issue for some of us bigots has nothing to do with religion and just the fact that the homosexual act makes most normal human beings sickened. And the thoughts of not only just ignoring it but embracing it makes allot of us bigots yearn for the old days when they just kept it out of sight out of mind, and we didn't have to feel as thought the disgusting act needs legitimization.

Hate the sin brother not the sinner.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Actually SU you don't understand it, and if you weren't such a condescending prick most people would be picking up what you are putting down.

As it is I keep trying to put you on ignore but there doesn't seem to be a way to accomplish this.

Maybe this issue for some of us bigots has nothing to do with religion and just the fact that the homosexual act makes most normal human beings sickened. And the thoughts of not only just ignoring it but embracing it makes allot of us bigots yearn for the old days when they just kept it out of sight out of mind, and we didn't have to feel as thought the disgusting act needs legitimization.

Hate the sin brother not the sinner.

That argument is no more persuasive than SU's.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It only need be "non-traditional" because you and people like you say so. That's what they want an end to.

Did you get married for tax savings? Your suggestion is pretty ugly. I don't know what else to call it other than hateful or bigoted.

Before 1990, in the annals of history, when did gays get married?

Unless the Dutch law started before then, never.

So it was not a tradition and it's still not tradition elsewhere. Go look up the definition of tradition. And what the f.. is marriage any how? We like to make it this end all be all, but it is the Church's at one time and finally the state's sanctioning of a relationship for certain inheritances and other governmental benefits.

In reality, if we Christians really believed in God, we wouldn't need marriage at all.

Your bait no longer works, go play with exUte.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The social imprimiture of marriage helps to legitimatize and destigmatize their lifestyle. I believe legalization of marriage would have that effect. I was only making the case why, in my view, the choice issue is outcome determinative on the question of whether they deserve to be legitimatized and destigmatized.

If you accept that being gay is not a choice and my premise of the importance of romantic love and assoiated sexual intimacy to human happiness and well being, and still oppose gay marriage, you are making a value judgment that their form of romantic love ought to be stigmatized, treated as illegitimate and inferior. Indeed, that they as people don't desrve the same status and dignity that you, a heterosexual, deserve.

Cardiac's point is that of course if your religion tells you being gay is a sin and people will be punished in the hereafter for it, you will want gays to be stigmatized and treated publically as inferior people. I understand that.

I have no interest in doing anything to their intimate relationships. Perhpas they feel stigmatized by the inability to be married (as opposed to be a civil union, or to have most finaicial benefits of marriage, all of which they can already do in California). Their interst is to require full equivalence in all respects by law. I do not agree with that notion, as you correctly but hyperbolically point out. I suspect we understadn each other fully, but that you insist on pumping out so many wild-eyed statemnts that are not supported by your own beleifs (e.g. the ONLY way to have an intimate relationship) suggest you are only trying to amuse yourself or trying to mislead with rhetoric, neither of which seems very helpful to the matter.