How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 03-05-2004 11:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Denise, there are theories to support that definition of promiscuity. It is supposed to be a fact supported by experts that a man thinks of sex (consciously or subconsciously) every 6 minutes and a woman twice per day. They point to that as a main reason for affairs and divorce. They also claim that that is a reason why gay or lesbian relationships last longer than heterosexual ones - because both partners are on the same wavelength with regards to sexual desires. I do know that I have seven gay-relationship customers...nicest guys in the world and very successful, too...and yet their houses are filled will sexual artifacts, from pictures to movies to devices to literature to statues, all openly displayed. Imagine a husband-wife marriage where the husband has Playboy pin-ups displayed and the wife pictures of hunks scattered around! No, I agree from what little I know that gays are very promiscuous and much more sexually active than heterosexuals.

By the way, if a father and son wanted to marry, would that be ok now in this "all you need is love" society?
Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 07-17-99
Posts 8273


26 posted 03-06-2004 12:02 AM       View Profile for Severn   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Severn

Hi 'deer....

Well. How's that for a loaded, rhetorical question. As you already know the answer to that one I have one small point to think on. No, it's not 'ok' in our society. But...for a tribe in papua new guinea (or so I believe, shaking out memory) it's a coming of age cultural ritual for uncles (and perhaps older brothers, and other older men within the tribe) to introduce young men to sex. They are not homosexuals, but they practice homosexual acts before the young men find a marriage partner. Has to do with the tribal perception of blood and other bodily fluids etc. Does this make these people 'savages'? 'Uncivilised?' Or is this practice merely a practice that we, here in the West, might find distasteful and socially degrading, yet is a core part of another's cultural system?

That last was my own rhetorical question heh.

K
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 03-06-2004 12:12 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL! and a good question it is, Severn. Perhaps those tribes would consider US the savages!
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 03-06-2004 01:08 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

People claim they are stable today and in "normal" sexualities and are able to "control"  themselves in the increasing freedoms granted their sexual twists and fantasies, but then you turn on the TV or radio and a tale of sexual woes, abuses, vices and violences are continually told about.  Those are only the things that "get caught"  Consider what people are doing privately.  The claim of people involved of a healthy "inner" government and moral control of these things, is a growing hypocricy.  Lechery is thicker than it is ever been.  It is too obvious.  Don't trust anyone that twists or obscures, or suggests pain is better than pleasure, or that it is wrong to have shame or be sensitive, or be a tender lady or gentle man.  An endless curse upon the decadence and hedonism that people decide to ignore, and on that vice that is the worst of all--not declining those vices.  
I think if if you keep one moral mind about it, you shall know what is right or wrong.  But if you have more than one mind and believe that everything ought to be increasingly tolerated you are the more in danger to be sucked into the mudpit that sexuality has jumped into today.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 03-06-2004 01:12 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No, I agree from what little I know that gays are very promiscuous and much more sexually active than heterosexuals.

Your argument seems to ignore the fact that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, come in two different genders. If gender determines promiscuity, and one assumes similar distributions, there can't be any statistical difference between the two groups.

Of course, assuming that gender determines promiscuity would also suggest that women never cheat. I don't think that's a position I'd personally feel real comfortable trying to defend, Mike.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 03-06-2004 01:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I certainly agree with much you said, Essorant, up to the point where you mentioned the "mudpit that sexuality has jumped into today." If you check the cultures before us, expecially going back to the glory of Rome, resplendant with orgies and debauchery, back to the wars, where rape and defloration were rewards of the spoils of victory, I doubt that anyone can call our society today a mudpit of sexuality. We are pretty tame. We would be considered neutered pansies by those civilizations.

We are not victims of our sexual depravity. We have unfortunately become a society where the rights of anyone supercede the rights of everyone else. A small percentage doesn't want God mentioned in schools? God is out. A small group doesn't like the way the Pledge of Allegiance is worded? It's changed. A small group doesn't like the definition of marriage? The rules are changed. Everyone is afraid to offend anyone at the risk of being called narrow-minded or prejudiced so all rules are thrown out the window. Sexuality is not the creator of our mudpit. Our acquiescence is...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 03-06-2004 01:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Of course, assuming that gender determines promiscuity would also suggest that women never cheat"

Doesn't mean that at all, Ron. I certainly can't speak for women or even from the viewpoint of women but but my opinion is this....

People cheat for different reasons. I believe that many men cheat for the sexual benefits of it. How many times have we seen men with wonderful wives, women who devote themselves to their husbands, support them in every way, and still the men have affairs. Why? To find a better mate? Nope..for the sexual thrill of it or the conquest or the feeding of their egos that they are machos that women want. I believe that many women cheat to find what does not exist in their marriage, perhaps some comfort, some attention, spending time with someone who treats them as if they are special and have worth - like their husbands had done at one time. I would go so far as to say that a small percentage of women cheat for the pure sexual pleasure of it whereas for men it is the major driving force.

If men treated women as well as women treat men, there would be a lot less cheating, I can assure you.

Your conclusions to my comments mystify me...but what's new?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


32 posted 03-06-2004 04:05 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Wow.

There's so much going on this thread now...lemme see...

First off, Brad? Excellent point.

I mean this:

"If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour?"

Exactly. If the argument is promiscuity, then why not encourage monogamy?

Chris?

" you want to discuss social stigmata regarding homosexual sex, I'll ask this - why is it more socially acceptable for women to have homosexual relationships than males? (And I draw this conclusion both from men AND women)."

I just wanted to offer that I have heard this argued through homosexual couples (you know how I love to eavesdrop) But one night, a lesbian couple sat at the next table, arguing with a male gay (?) couple about this very thing. The lesbians asserted that female homosexuality was more natural because of the nature of reproduction. Women give birth to women, so intimacy with women was more psychologically understandable than men seeking a "soul source connection" with other men. She argued that it is more natural for a woman to seek out a woman, whereas a man seeking out a man had to be a psychological rebellion. (For the record, I don't agree with this--I believe in the genetics theory--but she looked like she could kick me arse, so...smile, I just eavesdropped.)

Denise...

my gosh, lady, how I respect your intellect and caring, I truly do. But I am at a loss here. No civil disobedience? I thought my right to non-violent civil disobedience was written into the constitution. Am I wrong? If I'm mistaken, I thought that the very founding of the United States of America was an act of civil disobedience. Think about the Boston Tea Party. Think about Rosa Parks.

I state my opinion here humbly--the United States was intended to be a "melting pot", yes?

I think the dross of lack of foresight (understandably) is simply floating to the top.

Yes, homosexuals are condescendingly allowed "civil union"--they simply no longer wish that thier love--their vows--no longer be termed into some secondary status.

There are many good arguments as to what constitutes a marriage. I simply don't want that defined by my Federal Government.

The fine line is, though, I also do not wish for my government to define what marriage is not.

nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


33 posted 03-06-2004 07:13 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Balladeer

you have expressed it better than I could
(just the part about men/women and treatment of each other)
M
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


34 posted 03-06-2004 10:42 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If men treated women as well as women treat men, there would be a lot less cheating, I can assure you.

That's a different thread, and one I would most enjoy exploring with you, but you've entirely missed the point. Your contention that men are more promiscuous than women, therefore homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, is grossly illogical.

quote:
There are many good arguments as to what constitutes a marriage. I simply don't want that defined by my Federal Government.

But that's exactly its job, Karen. The fact it may have done its job poorly doesn't change the job. If we are to promote the separation of church and state that Mike laments, then someone in authority must be willing to define a church. If we are to give special benefits or considerations to people who marry, someone in authority has to define marriage.

The question I posed in my first post in the other thread, and one no one has been willing to explore, is why do we want to give special benefits and considerations to people who marry? I think if we looked at those 2,000 some odd benefits, we'd discover they fall into two very different buckets. I think any attempt to find a single answer to cover both buckets is likely to fail.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


35 posted 03-06-2004 01:25 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Balladeer

I don't think any ancestral cultures ever showed the kind of vicious frequencies that
people do today.  Something may be indulgent and lecherous, indecent or wrong, but a vicious frequence or continuosness, neglect of acknowledging, or ignorance or pretence that the vice is not wrong and should be declined, I believe makes it an even greater wrong and less worthy of being able to attribute to something that is rare enough not to greatly blamed.

Orgies were NOT what people for the most part think they were today:

From Dictionary.com

"Word History: The word orgy has become connected in the minds of many of us with unrestrained sexual activity, but its origins are much less licentious. We can trace the word as far back as the Indo-European root *werg-, meaning “to do,” also the source of our word work. Greek orgia, “secret rites, worship,” comes from *worg-, one form of this root. The Greek word was used with reference to the rites practiced in the worship of various deities, such as Orpheus and Dionysus. The word in Greek did not denote sexual activity, although this was a part of some rites. The rites of Dionysus, for example, included only music, dancing, drinking, and the eating of animal sacrifices. Having passed through Latin and Old French into English, the word orgy is first recorded in English with reference to the secret rites of the Greek and Roman religions in 1589. It is interesting to note that the word is first recorded with its modern sense in 18th-century English and perhaps in 17th-century French. Whether this speaks to a greater licentiousness in society or not must be left to the historian, but certainly the religious nature of the word has gone into eclipse."

Sexual activies were involved, but that orgies were excessively sexual or excessively frequent and perverse seems more like people trying to attribute modern debauchery and outrageousness and addictionmaking onto people of the past, where no such things were necessarily for the most part there, or frequent and almost casual as they are today.
It seems today's modernism again trying to attempt to avoid dealing directly with the present and acknowledging its vice and misdoing for many things we tolerate, by hanging on a belief about the past: that we are so much better than people were, and thereby trying to justify what people are doing now.  Even though what people are doing now is not even very private, broadly and extensively on the interenet, in arts, in languages, on TV, music, the way people dress; where anything sexual has a streak of coarsness and perversity, and often a pornographic influence because our cultures is fixed on daring to tolerate more and more. One may scarcely spend one minute with any form of media without finding at once something lecherous or bordering on being lecherous.
Once upon a time the opposite sex was turned on by trying to show off virtues, now a days in order to attract one has to dare to show off perversity, and dare to have a vice.  Sayings and meanings like "upon honour" "everything in moderation" "in faith" are replaced by sarcasm and anything rough and bordering on being shameless.  I think the growing notion that all former cultures were basically and for the most part inferior to what modern cultures are in behavior and wisdom, is a weakness of regard, and I think may be one of the reasons why people are more and more ignorant about history.  They believe despite the excess in almost everything today, at least we are higher than they were, and in many degrees I believe we are, but in many degrees we are lacking.  How stately is life now?  How sacred?  
When substance is abused that is foul, but when people are abused I believe that is the foulest.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-06-2004 02:41 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


36 posted 03-06-2004 01:57 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bal, every six minutes?! How do you guys have any time for anything else?

Karen, civil disobedience is not what is our 'right' laid out in the Constitution. That would be our right to peaceably assemble/demonstrate, for the redress of grievances, to my understanding anyway, and in no way allows in the slightest for disobeying any laws. Even the assembling and demonstrating are to be done within the confines of statutes on the books. But I'm not a legal authority, perhaps that can best be addressed by Jim.  And that some 'good' may have come from civil disobedience in the past, still in my view, that does not make it the correct thing to have been done. Perhaps an even greater good could have been realized if things had been done within the parameters of the law. At this point, it's all conjecture of course. I tend to believe that although it takes longer to work within the system, it's the right way to go in a society that is based on the rule of law.

Ron, I guess if you consider the mindset that the traditional family unit is the backbone of society, that which gives children the best possible chance of becoming stable well-adjusted productive members of society, (not that all married couples have children, but the majority do, and not that all married couples do the best they can by their children, but I think the majority at least try to) then perhaps that is at least part of the reason for the benefits, because it is seen as what is in the best interests, ultimately, of society?

But on the flip side, there is a decided and well known financial advantage for some not to marry, including 'single' mom's and senior citizens who lose financial benefits if they marry, as opposed to remaining "single", in the eyes of the law. But that's probably a topic for a different thread.

And what about the so-called federal "marriage penalty" tax? Has that been done away with yet? I heard something about Bush wanting to do away with it, but haven't heard anything more in the past few months.  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


37 posted 03-06-2004 02:52 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"The question I posed in my first post in the other thread, and one no one has been willing to explore, is why do we want to give special benefits and considerations to people who marry? I think if we looked at those 2,000 some odd benefits, we'd discover they fall into two very different buckets. I think any attempt to find a single answer to cover both buckets is likely to fail"

Actually, Ron, I thought I did address that (somewhat) in the previous thread.  

As a woman who lived as a "partner" in a state that does not recognize common law marriage, (Louisiana still recognizes and heeds Napoleonic Law) I understand, all too well, the incidental injuries of inconsistencies. (Just as an example--this house that I live in now was obtained by Federal Bond money--in my husband's name, he, could, and did, claim us as a family which entitled him to all the benefits of a family--that's a lot too--but yet he was faced with none of the responsibilities. He had all the tax benefits too. Until I married him, I was at his mercy. He had every legal right to evict me, after claiming me and the children for tax purposes and on federal forms for just over a decade. I felt forced to marry him, and you know what? THAT really sucked. Worse? I still have no claim to this house, (even though I was so active a partner that I had power of attorney during its acquisition) and should my husband decide to relinquish all responsibility, it would cost me more in attorney fees than the house is worth for me to keep.

So yes, perhaps my statement was tempered with bitters. But even with all of my personal slants on the issue, I understand that for the Federal Government to issue the standard that would protect me, that is when the government would begin to impinge on the individual rights of the states to govern themselves.

That's where we get to the fine line that I was talking about.

Because honestly? I'm with you on that marriage issue. (YOU know I didn't wanna do it... ) Living in Louisiana, this Napoleonic code to which we've adhered has rendered me in the same place as a bachelor.
It once acted admirably, in favor of women's rights, as La. was among, if not the first state in the union to recognize women with the rights of property, and to claim "head of household."  

The reality of those ramifications pisses me off too.

I devoted fourteen years of my life to a partnership, and the Federal Government conceded that I was a contributing partner, as indicated by our tax returns and yet?

Should this man decide to sell everything and smoke the proceeds in crack, I have no say in the matter.

There's a lot wrong with the system already.

I only hope that we can survive the treatment for the disease.

where's my wall? OH--  

there it is!
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


38 posted 03-06-2004 03:09 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

And Denise? I thought this link might more properly explain my meaning of non-violent civil disobedience:
http://www.activism.net/peace/nvcdh/history.shtml


and this:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Who said it?

Thomas Jefferson

sea_of_okc
Senior Member
since 06-15-99
Posts 595
Oklahoma City, OK, USA


39 posted 03-06-2004 03:15 PM       View Profile for sea_of_okc   Email sea_of_okc   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for sea_of_okc

Wow there are a lot of issues discussed here...

I think I will start with Ron's 2000 benefits. I think those benefits relate directly to the fact that our nation was founded by men of the Christian persuasion. Since biblical traditionalists (especially back at that time) viewed any sexual activity outside the 'sacred' bond of marriage to be immoral they naturally did all they could to promote the idea of marriage thus all the benefits attached to being married. Not to mantion the perception that "healthy" families are more likely to produce the kind of citizens our government desires.

Promiscuity... hmmm... I imagine no one will argue that men are far more likely to be promiscuous than women therefore gay males are far more likely to be promiscuous than gay females. I don't know that this crosses the lines of sexual orientation though. I would imagine approxiamately the same percentage of hetero males are promiscuous to the degree that partners are available. Perhaps it is easier as a gay male to find partners since the male sexual appetite is greater. The rise of promiscuity in general (both male and female) I believe is due to the greater availability and frequency of stimulants to our human sexuality.

As to creating laws governing sexuality my problem would be where do you draw the line and who decides where the lines are drawn?

Ess - you would love Oklahoma... believe it or not there is still a law which has never been repealed which prohibits oral sex... even between married partners... I will be in jail forever if they penalize for each count

Now for a question of my own. Why are certain people homosexual? I have heard the genetic argument but I don't buy it. If there is a "gay" gene where is it? Is it present in the majority (or all) homosexuals? And it would also have to exist in bisexuals... If it exists does it exist in some people who are heterosexual as well?
I don't really expect answers to the genetic ?s because no such gene exists.
I have had a number of gay friends (not aquaintances...friends) and of thos who were willing to discuss their childhood every one of them had some kind of emotional\pschological\physical abuse occur. It seems far more likely to me that homo\bisexuality stems from emotional\psychological issues rather than anything genetic. I'll give one example... I had a very good friend growing up who is now homosexual. His father left his mother on his 12th birthday... no card, no present, nothing... just gone. He also had 2 older brothers who treated him very poorly. He never had the male bonding or acceptance during his childhood so now he finds it in his partners. Now was he "born gay" or is it his deep seated need for male acceptance and bonding that was not given him in his youth that is at the root of his "preference"?

Just my thoughts. This is an extremely interesting thread...

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


40 posted 03-06-2004 04:38 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I understand completely where you are coming from Karen. I just don't agree that breaking the law is the way to go when we see the need for or have the desire for change. Voicing our opinions, yes, demonstrating, yes, working within the system to change policy, yes, voting, yes, but breaking the law, especially by those sworn to uphold the law? Absolutely not. And I don't see that Jefferson is advocating civil disobedience. Advocating change or seeing the need for change is in no way synonymous with breaking the law to advance change.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 03-06-2004 04:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, it would be more appreciated if you would add "to me" to your comment that my remarks are grossly illogical. Being that way to you does not necessarily mean they are to me or others. I have a logic that I believe I'm entitled to, as is anyone, and I would not presume to tell anyone that my logic is the only logic and condemning another's, which I seem to be reading here.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


42 posted 03-06-2004 05:24 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Statistically, I believe that gay male couples are the most prone to adultery, with heterosexual couples next, and female lesbain couples being the most monogamus.

Makes sense within the ocntext of balladeer's earlier comments.

BTW, Essorant- did you know Alexander the Great was bisexual?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


43 posted 03-06-2004 06:08 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Mike,

Huh? I suppose logic is like the anthropic principle then? We have the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), and the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle . . . .  

But -- and I want to blame this on Chris -- but I guess it's my fault. My original point had nothing to do with a comparison between gay and straight relationships, it had to do with a comparison between monogamy and promiscuity.

Which is better for both individuals involved? Which is better for society as a whole?

Today, at least, the answer to both questions, I think, is monogamy. If it's not better for both individuals, don't get married or get out of it. If it's not better for society, why are we having this discussion?

Note: Rewrote that last part.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


44 posted 03-06-2004 06:28 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"BTW, Essorant- did you know Alexander the Great was bisexual?"

Yes. A man showing affection and having a love affair with another man back in Alexander's time and place was normal and the sexual part agreeably fell with that: it didn't seem turned to for a sexual endeavour or a lifestyle; nor to simultaneously have males and females as sex partners swinging back and forth like many bisexuals do today.  Sex naturally seemed to come within the stages of love, and in that way there is more naturalness.  But today there is so much sexual-centeredness and deviance on purpose about sexuality, that there is little agreeable with love or nature, or society's wellbeing.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


45 posted 03-06-2004 07:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Brad.... That was smooth...

I majored in the third one
sea_of_okc
Senior Member
since 06-15-99
Posts 595
Oklahoma City, OK, USA


46 posted 03-06-2004 07:51 PM       View Profile for sea_of_okc   Email sea_of_okc   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for sea_of_okc

Okay Brad now I am confused... your original post

"I don't know, I think I'm pretty traditionalist on this one. One criticism of the homosexual community has been its blatant and flippant promiscuity. Promiscuity, these days, is a dangerous course of action for anybody.

If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour?"

I don't understand your connection between recognizing gay marriage and promiscuity. Are you suggesting that recognizing these marriages would create monogamy??? If a person is promiscuous anyway getting married will only make them more discreet not less promiscuous.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


47 posted 03-06-2004 08:21 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

sea_of_okc

The 'gay' gene in males is located somewhere in the Xq28 region.  This was discovered in the work of Dr. Dean Hamer in 1993.  Although the specific marker isn't known (to my knowledge -- it may be now that the human genome map is complete)  the existence of such a gene became evident as Dr. Hamer was conducting research on Kaposi's Sarcoma.  He repeated the tests in 1995 with similar results.

Female homosexuality would be caused by different factors.  Dennis  McFadden discovered a correlation in cochlea properties in that gay and bisexual women's strength of otoacoustic emissions was somewhere between that of straight men and women.

Another study by Bailey and Pillard showed that about half of female lesbians and bisexuals showed strong inclinations toward hereditary factors while the other half were based on unshared environmental conditions.  

In 1991 Simon Levay found that the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus was two times bigger in straight men than in gay men and straight women.

My information is dated.  Someone should search for more current studies -- but -- I sincerely hope that there is in fact no better data than this for one simple reason -- eugenics.

hush

It's important to remember that the last time the Republican machine wanted to amend the Constitution was during Gingrich's revolution back in 1995.  They wanted to put in a balanced budget amendment (which would have put George 43's butt in a pretty sizeable sling had it passed.)  What they found out was that it was unconstitutional.

Republicans now want an amendment to try to circumvent the courts from deciding that gay marriage is permissible -- but -- do you see the fallacy of that thinking based on what happened in 1995?

This is an election year pander to base.

We have bigger issues facing the country right now....

Ultimately I favor gay marriage over civil unions -- the separate but equal / don't ask don't tell measures -- they may be necessary steps along the way.

The people of the United States are very Traditional -- but -- one of our traditions is tolerance.

Patience... study Lyndon B. Johnson  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 03-06-2004 08:27 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

hush and ess...

It's important to note that in ancient Greek culture men were expected to be married and have families.

Their homosexual endeavors were extra-marital -- so it's hard to say that someone in that culture was actually bi, straight, or gay.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


49 posted 03-06-2004 08:58 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

What, at bottom, do people think marriage is?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors