Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[yovargas]

I feel very strange defending the Bible considering I am very much a non-believer and not at all in the book's fan club but stuff like that book really bugs me. I assumed that's the kind of stuff Prim was referring to in her last post as well. And it bugs me because...if you're gonna engage in criticism of another group's ideas, you should have at least a basic understanding of that group's ideas. And I'm pretty confident that the people in this thread, Christian or not, are knowledgeable enough to know that Christians are generally of the stance that Jesus' sacrifice made the Old Testament rules obsolete. And that even if that wasn't the case, it's clear that rules like "Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers" were intended for the Jews and not all of humanity.

So no, trying to live by the teachings of Jesus and Paul and crew isn't actually fraught with a ton of laughably impractical, outdated, and contradictory rules.

(And to be perfectly clear, in case it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of many of the teachings of Jesus and Paul, particularly when it comes to sex.)

[River]

Many years ago, I read about this fascinating study in the NYT Science section. They got together a group of men and women, asked them what their orientation was, put them in a fMRI, and showed them sexy pictures of either gender and watched for signs of arousal in the brain. With the men, there was very clean correlation between how they identified and how they lit up. I.e., the straight men got excited about the sexy female pictures and the gay men got excited about the sexy male pictures. With the women, though, it was all over the map. Women who identified as straight got excited about women. Women who identified as lesbian got excited about men. So the take home from that is this: women's sexuality is very complicated.

That said, I've never "chosen" to be straight. I just am. I know many a lesbian who'd say they never "chose" anything either. Which is either further evidence that this is complicated...or a sign that for some women, their standards for an acceptable mate of the non-preferred gender are so high that they're unlikely to meet anyone who can meet them.

[nerdanel]

So . . . being gay is a "lifestyle"? Is that what you're saying? A choice? For at least some?

I am saying that many people, including some who don't currently realize it, are bisexual in orientation and can be bisexual in behavior. For people who are bisexual, entering into a same-sex relationship is a choice. Of course, entering into a relationship is technically a choice for everyone, but bisexuals can choose relationships with either men or women rather than being in the "preferred gender or celibacy" dichotomy that gays and straights have.

When I say, "who don't currently realize it," this is because I know of several women who never dreamed of dating a woman until they met one whom they fell for. For these women, the sexual attraction followed the emotional and yes, they ended up in fully consummated lesbian relationships. As an example of the "choice" component: two of my previously "straight" friends met and fell for each other a few years ago. Both had only dated men, and both had been sexually involved with men. They had an incredibly intense, involved three year relationship (in-person for part of the time, at first, and then an LDR due to differences in citizenship). It ended, in part, because of the bigoted laws that would not allow my American friend to sponsor her non-American partner for US citizenship. When it ended, the American friend decided largely due to the social hardship and discrimination of dating a woman that she was going to return to dating men, even though she has repeatedly expressed that she finds relationships with men to be less emotionally fulfilling than what she had with her ex; she now has a boyfriend of a year's time. The non-American friend (with a solid decade of sexually-involved relationships with men to her name) decided that she didn't ever want to date another man and now has a new girlfriend. They both have said that they now understand they have a choice which gender(s) to date, and they both perceive themselves to be exercising that choice.

So yes, for some people it is a choice. I definitely feel that I have a choice to date men, women, or both.* And here's the bottom line: because opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are equal in validity and morality, whether or not it is a choice for any particular person should not in any way affect the civil rights debate. (If hypothetically those of us who are not white could somehow choose to be white, would that mean it was okay to discriminate against non-whites? No! The reason why it would not be acceptable is that whites, browns, and blacks are equal, not because the browns and blacks "can't help being non-white." White is not a superior, preferable default choice. Neither is straight: gays, bisexuals, and straights are equal; opposite and same-sex relationships are equal; so whether or not pursuing a same-sex relationship is a "choice" for any particular non-straight person is irrelevant.)

It warrants noting that for many gay, lesbian, and straight people, there is no component of choice involved.

I, speaking only for myself, can't imagine anything less likely than becoming involved in a relationship with another woman if that relationship was to mean "a sexual relationship".

Some people in my life who once felt that way decided differently when (much to their surprise!) they met "the right woman" for them. Others, of course, are so straight that there is no possibility they could ever meet the right woman. From your self-description, you seem likely to be in the latter category.

*FWIW, I don't identify as anything anymore. I got tired of the endless discussions, especially in the LGBT community, about different labels and characterizations du jour. My dating history is completely not a secret; everyone in my life knows it; and people can consider me whatever makes them happy.

[Frelga]

With the women, though, it was all over the map. Women who identified as straight got excited about women. Women who identified as lesbian got excited about men. So the take home from that is this: women's sexuality is very complicated.

Or possibly that we don't know as much about brain workings as we think.

I just read an article in SciAm that talked about severe limitations of fMRI technology.

[vison]

Some years ago a friend (an internet friend, but I've met her in real life) told me she was getting married: to another woman. To say I was shocked is an understatement, since I had no clue at all. None. But mutual friends were not surprised, I guess they picked up clues that escaped me.

But here's what she said, "I'm not a lesbian, I just happened to fall in love with a woman." I never knew what to say about that, so I never said anything. She had never had a date with a man and was a virgin when this relationship began.

After 8 years, they're still not married and I am beginning to think they never will be. It's a strange relationship, and I think it's lasted this long because for much of the time the Atlantic ocean is between them.

[nerdanel]

After 8 years, they're still not married and I am beginning to think they never will be. It's a strange relationship, and I think it's lasted this long because for much of the time the Atlantic ocean is between them.

I think that what society is learning is that there are many ways to form meaningful romantic relationships, not all of which include marriage or cohabitation. As long as the two of them have been happy for the past eight years, it sounds good to me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Woman Becomes First Openly Gay General

WASHINGTON — An Army officer being promoted to brigadier general openly acknowledged her homosexuality on Friday by having her wife pin her star to her uniform, thus becoming the first openly gay officer of flag rank in the United States military.

The officer, Brig. Gen. Tammy S. Smith, 49, a 26-year veteran of the Army, was promoted in a ceremony at the women’s memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. The star was affixed by Tracey Hepner, who was a co-founder last year of the Military Partners and Families Coalition, which “provides support, resources, education and advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender military partners and their families,” according to its Web site.

The couple married in March 2011 in the District of Columbia.

The military dropped its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gay service members on Sept. 20, 2011, after a change in federal law.

[yovargas]

[JewelSong]

"I'm not a lesbian, I just happened to fall in love with a woman."

I can imagine having this happen. I am almost definitely "straight" as in, attracted to men. But I can imagine becoming very close to another woman and having that relationship morphing into something physical. For me, emotional closeness is often followed by physical attraction.

My mother used to say that if she was on an island with all women, she would definitely take a female lover before a year was out, as she couldn't imagine being without physical affection for very long.

It would have to be situation specific. I wouldn't go seeking it...but I can imagine a scenario where it could happen.

[nerdanel]

This actually underscores my viewpoint that on an issue where there are only two possible outcomes, both diametrically opposed (e.g., either homosexuality is moral or it is not), for people who (a) are experienced with the issue and (b) hold opposing viewpoints, sitting down and chatting cordially will be totally unproductive.

These sorts of conversations are constructive where someone lacks experience with the issue. In that case, allowing them to meet and come to know gay couples and their children (and, I suppose, proponents of hetero-exclusive marriage* and their children) may have an effect on their views. But for those of us who have engaged with the issue, long and hard, and have reached a firm, principled view, dialoguing with our equivalents on the other side is not likely to be productive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/garde ... table.html

*Traditional marriage simply does not make sense to describe the status quo, for obvious reasons, and I am no longer going to use that term.

[Holbytla]

nerdanel wrote:

moral

I'm not sure that anyone can truly define what moral is, and it seems to me that the definition has a different meaning for every person.

Morality has nothing to do with homosexuality or gay marriage for me.

My utter disdain for people who claim to know right and wrong and want to force their beliefs on others, and the fact that I know I don't have all the answers, are the only things that drive me to support ideals that I couldn't possibly understand.

Is that morality or me questioning authority and being rebellious?

[yovargas]

Respect to Savage for trying but I suspect he's not coming at this from the right approach. At least, I think I'd have a better shot at a useful discussion than he did (haven't watched the video yet, to be fair). I'd actually love a shot to try something like this.

[Túrin Turambar]

A fair bit of gay marriage-related news here:

Last week, Tasmania’s House of Assembly became the first house of any Australian Parliament to pass a gay marriage bill. It is a big symbolic victory for the gay rights movement, but has some huge practical hurdles.

The Australian Constitution gives the power to regulate marriage to the Federal Government. In 2004, the Howard Government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Five years of Labor Government post-2007 has not changed that, and Prime Minister Julia Gillard has affirmed that she is not a supporter of gay marriage. The Greens and at least one left-wing Labor MP have moved private members’ bills to change the act, but supporters of gay marriage are now recognising that a) there is unlikely to be any change before the next election, due by late 2013, b) the Labor Government is (almost certainly) going to lose, perhaps badly and c) a Coalition Government led by the conservative Catholic Tony Abbott will (almost certainly) never legalise gay marriage.

As a result, Australia’s last surviving State Labor Governments in South Australia and Tasmania have begun to move to legalise gay marriage in their jurisdictions. Their argument is an ingenious one – the Federal Government has power over marriage, but it has defined marriage as an institution of one man and one woman. Ergo gay marriage is not marriage for constitutional purposes, and the States retain their power to recognise it. In other words, in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Commonwealth has stripped itself of the power to prevent gay marriage. I suspect that their chances of surviving a court challenge are slim.

Tasmania is an interesting case because it long had a reputation as the most homophobic state in the Commonwealth. Homosexual sex was still illegal there until 1997, and repeat offences carried a maximum sentence of 25 years’ gaol. Robert Hughes suggested that this was a relic of the state’s history – Tasmania was, like many Australian States, a penal colony, and it was by the far most institutionalised and dominated by the convict system. As a result, by the mid-19th century the entire colony had gained a reputation as the world’s worst prison, known worldwide for endemic homosexual rape. Tasmanians apparently spent the next century and a half trying to assure everyone that was no longer the case.

The Bill passed 13-11, showing another problem the supporters of gay marriage face. The Labor Party, contrary to its usual position of solidarity, is allowing its members a conscience vote on the issue. The conservatives are not. The national platforms of the Liberal and National Parties oppose gay marriage, and so far their MPs on every level of government have voted lock-step in favour of their national position. When the LNP carried Queensland in a landslide in the Autumn, they immediately repealed the state’s civil union provisions, despite the fact that new Premier Campbell Newman said that he personally supported gay marriage. So socially conservative Labor MPs (or Labor MPs representing electorates with large numbers of working-class Catholics or socially-conservative immigrants) are free to vote ‘no’, but progressive inner-city Liberals are not free to vote ‘yes’. The numbers are stacked against gay marriage in almost every Parliament in the country.

I have to say that I’m deeply disappointed with the Liberal position. A number of Liberal MPs have called for a conscience vote, and some may cross the floor in defiance of their party’s platform (unlike Labor, the Liberals do not expel MPs who vote against the party line). But the leadership is not budging.

In other news, the Prime Minister has boycotted an event of the Australian Christian Lobby she was meant to be speaking at after its leader said that homosexuality is more hazardous than smoking. I have to wonder why she, an atheist, agreed to speak there in the first place. And it isn’t like they haven’t made their position perfectly clear in the past. Eg. The same guy saying on Anzac Day last year that Australians had not given their lives in war so that gay marriage could be legalised. Honestly it doesn’t give me any reason to change my fairly dim view of her political judgement.

[Nobody]

In Brazil

Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, a notary from Tupa in Sao Paulo state, says "What we considered a family before isn't necessarily what we would consider a family today."

She was describing the first 'polyfidelitous union' sanctioned in Brazil of the civil partnership between one man and two women, who have lived together (sharing bills and having joint bank accounts) for three years.

Isn't it time Brazil rejected such archaism, and designated such union "marriage"?

[yovargas]

I usually don't post this kinda thing and round here it's preaching to the choir anyway so it's kinda pointless....but this made me laugh so I thought I'd share:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[nerdanel]

I refuse to tolerate either of those two breakfast eaters on the grounds that they SHOULD be eating steel-cut oatmeal with an apple and yogurt for breakfast. Sinners!

With that said, I accept the first eater's use of bacon, which is its own food-group and a vital part of a balanced diet (religious diet-followers excused, of course ).

[Primula Baggins]

Just whut are you sayin?

Bacon is somethin you got to accept?



San Francisco values. . . .

[nerdanel]

Just whut are you sayin?

Bacon is somethin you got to accept?



San Francisco values. . . .

...require strict consumption of only vegan tofurky bacon, with any leftovers composted.

[Primula Baggins]

Do not.

I've eaten some incredibly incorrect (and utterly delicious) food in San Francisco.