Gay Relationships
- Thread starter Lilikins
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is very true. Also, sometimes gay people like to tell me I need to "pick a side" or that I'm just faking. However, those are usually gay people who don't KNOW me. I've gotten a lot of flack from both sides, with assumptions made about me because of my sexuality by all sorts of people. (Seriously, you totally hit the nail on the head. Straight people assume I'm a horny sex-addict who keeps a plethora of lovers, and gay people assume I'm either faking or, more often, that I'm just scared to come out as a lesbian.) For a while, I thought about adopting one of the newer, more ambiguous terms, but I came out as bisexual when I was fifteen, and if the jerks with the pickup truck in high school didn't make me change my mind on that, then the snippy homosexual isn't going to either.Vault101 said:
Though I'd say that there has been some great positive strides in representation made recently, especially this year, that have started some interesting discussions in both gay communities, and fan communities. Korrasami's bisexual women, including one who wasn't white (bigger deal than anybody realizes. I think the last time this happened was on The Wire.), building their relationship in a way that isn't overtly sexualized for straight male watchers- I'm looking at you, Joss Whedon and Willow and Tara- was a huge deal to me. And if Fitz turns out to be a bisexual male hero in Agents of SHIELD? Holy shit. I will dance in the streets.
It's weird, because bisexual men and bisexual women tend to get shoved into different camps. The women are generally assumed to be overly sexual, and their sexuality tends to be treated, usually by straight men from my experience, as something meant to titillate. Seriously, if a dude introduced his girlfriend to me and I started going, "oh my God, you're HET? That's SOOOO hot. I mean, what do you guys do in the bedroom? I bet you just get in there and POUND that. I bet you just WRECK it," I bet they'd get uncomfortable pretty fast.
Meanwhile, I've noticed that people tend to say that bisexual men are just horny losers who can't be picky because it's hard enough to get people to sleep with them. Such a weird shift. I get shamed for being sexual. They get shamed for not being sexual enough. A lot of bisexual men get treated as though they're just incapable of getting girls to sleep with them. I hate this treatment, but I think it's interesting how women and men tend to be shamed differently. Of course, both approaches apply to all genders, but from what I've noticed, guys tend to get the "you're just not man enough to get enough women," insults whereas girls get the, "you're just a slut who sleeps with too many people," insults.
Last, I noticed there are people in here who keep saying that churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages, to which I would say nobody is trying to force churches to perform gay marriages.
HOWEVER! Some christians and churches are trying to bully OTHER churches into not performing gay marriages. Despite what you might think, there are plenty of churches in my community that fly rainbow flags, or have an Ally triangle on their sign, and they find it offensive and troubling that people try to use their God as an excuse to be cruel. If a church doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, fine, don't. But don't try to hijack the legal definition of marriage and force Ally pastors who are acting as their personal relationship with God tells them to to follow YOUR reading of the scripture.
I know pastors of over forty years who get so sad every time someone tries to use them and their religion as an excuse to be homophobes because:
1. If we're not supposed to do what the bible says is bad then put down the shrimp and go stone your father for wearing fabric made of two different materials.
2. NOT EVERY CHRISTIAN, PASTOR, AND CHURCH COMMUNITY IS A BUNCH OF BIGOTED IDIOTS. All the pastors, Christians, and churches that I know of (not Christian myself, but there's several in town that fly the flag, and one in particular in town that always provides safe gathering space during protests, and they also do the end-of-the-day service during the Day of Silence where people choose not to speak for twenty-four hours to understand how difficult it can be for homosexuals who have been bullied into silence, and there's another that my friend is a pastor for.) are all PERFECTLY LOVELY PEOPLE. Not a one of them believes that gay people don't deserve the love and acceptance of their God, and not a one of them opposes gay marriage.
So, people who are saying that churches shouldn't be "forced" to perform gay marriage, they'd like to tell you that they don't want to be forced to be bigots just because the most vocal, annoying members of the flock think they should be. Stop using Christians as an excuse to oppose same-sex marriage. There are many who are all for it and they're tired of getting lumped in with the small-minded assholes.
Righto. But, many religious Churches want to carry out same-sex marriages, and wanted to even before legalisation-- Quakers and other moderate Christian Churches, among others.Trippy Turtle said:
If your consideration is for religious freedom, then surely the only rational position is to allow individual Churches (or other religious buildings) to choose for themselves, on an individual basis. When gay marriage is illegal, that isn't how it stands: those who want to perform the ceremony are forbade. That seems antithetical to religious freedom.
Literally nobody has suggested a law forcing churches to perform weddings that they object to, and yet I keep hearing this brought up as an argument. I truly don't understand why.kingthrall said:
Well, I have heard plenty of people arguing that churches should allow gay marriages, even that the priests should be required to... But the thing is, those people ARE members of those churches who have their faith and argue that their religion is in line with gay (or gender-neutral) marriage.FirstNameLastName said:
Religions have their own internal changes and debates, and why not?
This is also why even if there was a secular genderneutral marriage there will be people who will campaign for churches to perform these ceremonies, because (unsurprisingly) religious people disagree with these sort of things and there are non-heterosexual religious people.
(But there are people who like to pretend this is a matter of gays vs religion, for their own reasons...)
I've been realizing that whenever I take a stance on a social issue, I'm not really interested in equality or "social justice" rather than I'm more concerned about the reasoning behind people being against gay marriage or whatever(I have topics in mind, but I hate that I can't mention them anymore without it turning into the end of the world for the umpteenth time).
It saddens me when people take a stance on such backwards or even superstitious reasoning. People will come up with the craziest things, including conspiracies and what not, in order strengthen their stance on the issue.
So, yeah, I support gay marriage if only because there isn't a good reason not to.
It saddens me when people take a stance on such backwards or even superstitious reasoning. People will come up with the craziest things, including conspiracies and what not, in order strengthen their stance on the issue.
So, yeah, I support gay marriage if only because there isn't a good reason not to.
um, well because if you are wanting to get married you probably going to try more than likely and do it in a traditional isle/building style.JarinArenos said:
??? Most straight marriages I've been to have not been in a church??kingthrall said:
And anyway, religious people disagree on these matters. I mean, some think women should not have the same rights as men do or work as ministers while some disagree, some think interracial couples or divorced people should not get married etc.
Churches change as the society around them changes, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the kind of thing that's their business.
But let's not pretend all religious people are straight.
I guess my opinion would be that if it doesn't affect me in any way, why would I care? Its their business, not mine.
The fact that people care so much about what other people do in their personal lives, that literally has no effect on them personally, in my opinion, seems to be the biggest flaw in our culture. A flaw that permeates through almost every social issue, well that I can think of anyway. It revolves around the central premise that anyone has some kind of right that allows them to try and dictate to someone else how they should go about living their life. When can we stop, as a society, meddling in each others personal affairs?
The fact that people care so much about what other people do in their personal lives, that literally has no effect on them personally, in my opinion, seems to be the biggest flaw in our culture. A flaw that permeates through almost every social issue, well that I can think of anyway. It revolves around the central premise that anyone has some kind of right that allows them to try and dictate to someone else how they should go about living their life. When can we stop, as a society, meddling in each others personal affairs?
As most have said, I feel they should have the same rights as straight people. While I'm not "gay" (I don't find men sexually attractive) I have wondered what the sex is like, so yeah, I'm a little curious there... Anyway.
Fine with it. Have a friend who's parents are poly and that friend is bi and poly. Couldn't ask for a better friend. That being said...Sampler said:
This is where I draw the line. That isn't poly, that's cheating on your partner. The whole idea of a poly relationship is that everyone knows about, and is ok with, their other having multiple partners. I think knowledge and trust is the difference between poly and cheating.
I'm gay myself and I still don't understand it; I just do whatever I think is fun. A lot of the whole top and bottom thing is based on whole masculine=giver/feminine=receiver thing which makes a lot of gay guys call themselves versatile, which in a lot of cases is just code for bottom since they don't want to be seen as less or a man or some other stupid reason. It's ironic that while gay couples tend to be happier because there's no real pressure to abide by gender roles which makes a lot of the the work divided equally, that completely turns around when it comes to stuff in the bedroom.kurupt87 said:
Actually, at least up here, i think there's more marriage celebrated outside a religious building than inside one. In Canada the marriage laws are pretty loose, so you can get married anywhere, by anybody, as long as you follow the legal guide lines and fill the right forms.kingthrall said:
Our marriage laws provide coverage, that allows Church to refuse to marry anybody for whatever reason. i think it's fair to protect the churchs from law suits from extremist. but since a civil marriage between a man and a woman outside a Church is call a marriage, i dont see why a civil marriage between a man and a man outside a Church should be call something else.
That's more common than you would think, especially these days with the costs of a wedding. My sister just got married last summer, and it was way, way cheaper to rent out an entire vineyard for eight hours than it was to rent a church for three. Also, it meant our family friend who is a pastor could perform the ceremony. Some churches insist that their pastor performs the ceremony.cathou said:
It really depends. Just based on anecdotal experience, it seems most gay guys are versatile in that they prefer to top and bottom, depending on what they're in the mood for. You have some who have a preference for just one position - and I suppose everyone has their preference - but I think the majority like both to a degree. It isn't *that* common for one to have a total preference for one position.kurupt87 said:
It's also a question that gets asked very early on in a relationship, for obvious reasons. And finding out you both have the same preference can usually strain things or end a potential relationship outright pretty quickly.
It is still technically legal for a priest to refuse to perform interracial marriage, even if it would be societally frowned upon. Please quit inventing false objections.kingthrall said:
It was debated quite seriously for a while here in Australia. Unless I misunderstood it. It was a few years back.FirstNameLastName said:
I'm not too sure about the logistics of organized religion but yeah if it were up to me: Any relgion could allow gay marriage but shouldn't have to.Silvanus said:
There isn't enough love in the world. If it makes you happy and doesn't involve animal cruelty or anything nonconsensual, go for it.
Personally I'd want a straight, committed monogamous relationship. My family have all done quite well choosing single partners and sticking with them for life. My folks are 40+ years of marriage and still in love, my sister just passed 12 years, my extended family likewise (with the exception of one divorced uncle who is since happily remarried). Perhaps it's outdated, but I've seen it work.
Captcha: apple pie. "Apple pie and monogamy: support American tradition!"
Personally I'd want a straight, committed monogamous relationship. My family have all done quite well choosing single partners and sticking with them for life. My folks are 40+ years of marriage and still in love, my sister just passed 12 years, my extended family likewise (with the exception of one divorced uncle who is since happily remarried). Perhaps it's outdated, but I've seen it work.
Captcha: apple pie. "Apple pie and monogamy: support American tradition!"
Well morality doesn't work that way. I would quit calling people's subjective opinions objectively wrong. Not only are you not helping, your hindering. Look I disagree with people who say gay relationships are immoral, but this is just ham fisted ignorance. You can't expect to change an ignorant person's mind by being ignorant. It's just going to cause them to be more firm in there beliefs.Vivi22 said: