Same-sex couples begin marrying

A celibate person would have no use for a sexual definition. Not a mistake religious celibates were often eunuchs.
A woman who has longings for other women (or even one woman) but never acts upon it (i.e. meets whatever criteria society sets for the definition to apply to her) should be seen as straight , imo, though perhaps with a curiosity or lingering doubts. We have no knowledge whether its attraction on the basal level or mere 'what if' curiosity.

For instance, when I first started driving I learned the stick. It was hard and I only had 2 weeks to do it (if I wanted to keep my job and lifestyle). While driving I often had the realization the yellow lines weren't barriers and I was tempted to crash my car head-on into another 'for the sake of seeing its effects'. Was I sociopsychopathic or really a danger if I didn't act?

Bad example, even in my head. What about (and I'm not trying to inflame anyone. I just read the 'The Dude' thread and above) a pedophile? What about a man with an attraction to, let's say 13yr old girls. Historically girls got married that young to guys as old and older than 30. Today females mature faster than back then. Is this man a pedophile if he finds them titillating, but doesn't act?

Or the man who wants to cheat on his wife with another but doesn't and chronically longs for it, is that cheating? Not in my eyes at least, although he's certainly flirting with the line a bit.

I see the appeal of the arguement, but ultimately we need a clear line drawn somewhere, and I think behavior is that line.

According to Mirriam-Webster, homosexuality is "Sexual interest in and attraction to members of one's own sex.".

Interest and attraction being the operative words. Behavior is simply the outward manifestation of thos desires or attractions.

If a gay man denies it and maintains his homosexuality as a secret, he is not a straight man. He is a gay man in the closet.
 
I personally believe that there are those that are strictly homosexual and those that are strictly heterosexual by birth. I also believe that there is then a large group in the middle who may have an inclination one way or the other but who can be dramatically affected by environment.

Having said that... I also believe that government should stay out of the bedroom altogether. "Marriage" should not be a governmental consideration at all. Domestic Partnerships should be a contractual situation that can occur between ANY two legally competent adults who chose to enter that contractual arrangement.
 
According to Mirriam-Webster, homosexuality is "Sexual interest in and attraction to members of one's own sex.".

Interest and attraction being the operative words. Behavior is simply the outward manifestation of thos desires or attractions.

If a gay man denies it and maintains his homosexuality as a secret, he is not a straight man. He is a gay man in the closet.

I would respectfully challenge that definition. I would even imply it is adding to the confusion. Unfortunately at this time I don't think I can outright dismiss it, excepting to say it is an easy-to-understand and non-threatening defintion. Too tired to look and not feeling creative enough to brainstorm. Something about living language or pc or something. Or christian definition of the word, which flows along my logic. Or personal responsibiliy and indeterminism, which also flows.

Perhaps I'll have something when I log in on a laptop again, but for now I'd simply have to say he identifies himself with gay culture? by choosing to come out or indeed choosing to 'go into the closet' in the first place he demonstrates my idea. If he feels society can force one into an action then he makes the choice to follow its morays. After whatever analysis he did he decided it was safer or more convienient. He exercises free choice to do so.
 
I personally believe that there are those that are strictly homosexual and those that are strictly heterosexual by birth. I also believe that there is then a large group in the middle who may have an inclination one way or the other but who can be dramatically affected by environment.

Having said that... I also believe that government should stay out of the bedroom altogether. "Marriage" should not be a governmental consideration at all. Domestic Partnerships should be a contractual situation that can occur between ANY two legally competent adults who chose to enter that contractual arrangement.

Prison is an enviromental situation that affects sexual behavior, but I was addressing those strictly homosexuals, and strictly hetro persons.
 
I personally believe that there are those that are strictly homosexual and those that are strictly heterosexual by birth. I also believe that there is then a large group in the middle who may have an inclination one way or the other but who can be dramatically affected by environment.

Having said that... I also believe that government should stay out of the bedroom altogether. "Marriage" should not be a governmental consideration at all. Domestic Partnerships should be a contractual situation that can occur between ANY two legally competent adults who chose to enter that contractual arrangement.

Well, I've had to give this alot of thought lately. It is true I'd want a smaller governement. It is also true I find homosexuality at the least an inefficient biological function and at most an expression of over-individualism. Its also true that once given, a right or freedom will be hard pressed to take back. Which is why I think people like Obama are so eager to set something out on the table. Take Obamacare for instance. Once its there, the public will cry outrage if somebody tries to take it back; much moreso than if it was only a theory. I think thats why he doesn't give two shits about balancing budgets or the future. Once instituted, they will be hard to take back, so the future will have to deal with it. After all, it won't be his mess to clean up any longer and he can leave it to more financially competent politians.

So, for better or worse, gay marriage is here, and its not going away. Same with increased aid for the poor.

EDIT: Also Obama understands if not supports Cloven-Piven.

PEDIT: I can't refute the definition any more than I already have, I mean to say.
 
Last edited:
First of all, it's Merriam Webster, dumbass. And they say its a behavior.

I am not the one "not letting" queers marry. I was one of millions who voted against having my state license the activity. Queers can move to your state and you can marry them.
 
The very act of defining these terms draws at least a loose line in the sand. These terms are typically described in terms of actions comitted, and all action is a choice. While I suppose one can argue one has no control over their genes and environment we all have control over what we do with it.

Aside from the old 'predestiny' arguement I find little to base the idea of not having control over whether you indulge in sexual activities with males or females (or at all).

Usually I get a retort along the lines of 'the ancient Greeks had no conception of homosexuality'; but then again they didn't even have a firm grasp of time either. . .

While a person can certainly choose to have sex with either male or female, in most cases one of the two goes against our nature. I could have sex with a man if I chose to, but it is not something that I desire to do. I am not attracted to men. The reverse would be the case for a gay male. Gay men can certainly choose to have sex with a woman, but it is not something they desire and thus they would be going against their nature in doing so.
 
Most studies have shown, and I belive that people are born with sexual identity that fits on a scale.. say from 1 to 10.

A person who is a 1 is purely and unquestionalbly attracted only to the opposit sex.
A person who is a 10 is purely and unquestionably attracted only to the same sex.

Most humans, regardless of if they will admit it or not, are between a 7 and a 3. VERY few are 10's or 1's.

Because of the social stigma of being anything other than a 1, many will not even admit it to themselves if they are not a 1.

____

Above is how they are born... then there is how they have chosen to express that natural inclination and how they view sex. For some people sexuality is all about pleasing the other person. These types "get off" on providing sexual pleasure to the other person, they have very little regard for there own pure sexual pleasure. A person who does not care about his/her own orgasm, unless they belive that it adds to the others enjoyment (thus the fake orgasm and oral sex).



So this gets complicated. If you do not care about your own personal gratification but do care about gratifying others... it adds a different layer onto sexual identity. Your desire is not based on what physically "gets you off", your desire depends on what gender you desire to give pleasure to. This could easily be "bisexuality", because it the mechanics of it are out the window.

You could also be the type to only care about your own physical pleasure... in that case whatever the best way of getting off physically would be your sexual identity... masterbation, sex with sheep, sex with men, sex with women... sex with whoever whatever is available...

And people fit into these "types" to varying degrees. Most people are not a pure type but in reality are a mix of the "types" to some degree or another.

Sexuality and sexual desire has been so subject to judgement by others and harsh penalty for not fitting the "norm" for so many years, our psyche, conshously or not, often choose a catagory and steadfastly denies any possability of deviation from that catagory.
 
While a person can certainly choose to have sex with either male or female, in most cases one of the two goes against our nature. I could have sex with a man if I chose to, but it is not something that I desire to do. I am not attracted to men. The reverse would be the case for a gay male. Gay men can certainly choose to have sex with a woman, but it is not something they desire and thus they would be going against their nature in doing so.

I suppose you believe you could just get any man too huh?
 
Tasteless, guy. Also perhaps a bit too creative? Maybe some personal experience in that?

It's a proven fact that virulent homophobes such as you and ILA have latent homosexual desires.

You both need to go out and find a nice big fat dick to suck on. At the very least, it'll shut you up.
 
So the fact that numerous animals practice homosexuality does not make it "natural", but the fact that it is condemned by your book makes hating homosexuality "natural"? lol


The thing is, your faith is fine for you. But it is not to be used for making laws for everyone.

We have a higher brain function than animals, well some of anyway, please be serious!
 
Rather than spouting your religious beliefs, give us a reason the US Gov't should not recognize same sex marriages and give them the same benefits that straight marriages enjoy.

That is not a religious issue.

Because they will not offer the same to Normal, Natural, Man, Woman relationships, where they live together
 
Back
Top