Help Me Understand: Why is Same-Sex Marriage a Threat to My Marriage?

HELP ME UNDERSTAND – This is a series of posts where I invite those who disagree with me about a great many things political, theological and social to speak their minds. My aim is not to incite comment wars, but to encourage genuine interaction between those who truly want to understand from where the other is coming. Please pass these posts onto folks who might be willing to engage and if you have a good question for the series, feel free to fill out this brief survey.

In light of the recent New York State decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the first question in the series will be on same-sex marriage.   I have been clear where I stand on the question of same-sex marriage, I currently sit on the Board of CA Faith for Equality and I have blessed same-sex commitments in the past. My question has to do with one of the major arguments that is raised against legal recognition of same-sex marriage namely that, “Same sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage.” I do not assume that everyone who is against same-sex marriage uses this argument, but I think it is fair to say that this is one of the mostly widely used arguments heard in the public discourse.

So if you hold this position about same-sex marriage, and feel up to putting your words out there for interaction, please answer me this question,

How is same-sex marriage a threat to my traditional “one man and one women” 20+ year marriage or to the possible traditional marriage that any of my daughters may choose to enter into in the future?

So there you have it. I know that there is likely to be some feisty interaction about this here, but I hope I have laid down an invitation that will encourage passionate, yet gracious responses.

A Generation Asks: WTF?
10 Tips for Being a Good Ally
FREE DOWNLOAD and My Interview with Leslie Rodriguez of Humming House
Cebu City, My Lost Wallet and the Kindness of Humanity
  • Laura Garwood Meehan

    All I can say is that we often laugh about how our own marriage is clearly so “endangered” by gay people getting married. Huh? How in the world could it affect our marriage? Sorry, doesn’t really help you in terms of helpful comments, but…

  • Anonymous

    Then how come you haven’t been able to show any?

  • Frank

    kloomis the discourse is already open. So let’s discourse. It’s illogical to move forward and then say lets discuss it after the fact.

    Discuss, research, study and then decide. Right now there is ample evidence to not change marriage and zero evidence telling us why its a good idea for our society and culture at large.

  • kloomis

    Another way of looking at this societal problem (our 50% divorce rate) could be that we HAVE to change something about marriage, and soon. Get rid of no-fault divorce? Maybe, but you’ll find lots of people who will give you earfuls about the problems of the old system–which were many. Tinker with it? Maybe. I suggested somewhere up above a government tax credit for people who do couples counseling. Maybe we can come up with other ideas. And as far as affecting all society–my sense is that allowing g/l marriage can open up a discourse about what is ethical marriage, why we need it, and how to accomplish it. This country NEEDS that discussion given the Britney Spears, bridezillas, and, most recently, the 3-marines-faking-heterosexual-marriages scandal.

  • Anonymous

    So, same-sex couples you don’t even know — who want to make a public, legal commitment — are poisonous?  How is this not bigotry, again?

  • Frank

    I am trying to do just that. Thankfully there are a couple people like yourself and all who are doing just that. Unfortunately there are many that are so biased that they are unable to do that intelligently.

  • Keloomis

    But to the issue of small changes having large effects: absolutely. But change happens. Allowing servicepeople to bring home war brides after WWII affected their children, the baby boomer generation — we as a society did it anyhow, and we dealt with it. (And I cite that because I personally dealt with it, and now I observe children of non-English-speaking moms dealing with it the same way I did–makes me smile, and sometimes feel sorry for them). But if there are specific problems that you (or others) anticipate, we should start talking about them!

  • Frank

    Thanks Kloomis that is a better analogy although no analogy is perfect. My point was that a low percentage does not correlate to a minimum effect, at least in this case. Therefore even a small percentage can affect the whole greatly. Nothing more was meant by my imperfect analogy.

  • kloomis

    The water/cyanide analogy really isn’t apt if you subscribe to the idea that sexuality is fluid (Ceci n’est pas un pun), because water cannot become cyanide and vice-versa. Maybe more a large pen of 100 puppies, with 3-5 of them being wolf pups, and maybe some dog-wolf mix puppies? Then the question is more to the point, I think–do we allow the wolf pups to continue to be wolf pups, or do we consider them a danger to the dog pups and train all of the pups to make sure they don’t act wild?

    Besides, water doesn’t drink itself, so the cyanide doesn’t endanger the water. Are you thinking of people figuratively being a “drink” for God?

  • Frank

    I know that SSM will affect everyone in some way. Poison is not what I would say although I understand why you might say that based on my imperfect analogy above.

    It not fear of homosexuals, its legitimate concern for culture, society, our families and our children.

  • Allforfunnplay

    so to be clear, you believe that SSM that would probably account for something like less that 3% of the population could poison the rest of society?  well, you answered my question, I’ll give you that….it sounds completely absurd to me….you must really fear homosexuals.  but you answered my question so I will end this part of the discussion.  

  • Frank

    This is becoming pointless but I’ll try to say it again another way…

    Changing marriage changes culture and society which affects everyone. This statement is clear and straightforward and if you don’t get it I give up. Now if you simply don’t agree that’s another matter.

    Your percentage argument is flawed.

    Try drinking a mixture of 99% water and 1% cyanide and see what happens. Of course don’t do it because it will kill you!

  • Allforfunnplay

    are you deliberately avoiding the population % part of the question?  I already stated DIVORCE DATA COMPARISON IS IRRELEVANT  because it effects almost all of society.  SSM only effects 1%-2% of the population.  

    If you agree that such a small percentage of the population will have little impact on society (if they gain the right to marry) then why bother fighting against it?

    If you do not agree that such a small percentage of population will have an impact on the rest of society….why or how do you believe that?

  • Frank

    My point is that changing marriage and the family structure affects all of society! Divorce certainly has!

  • Allforfunnplay

    what is your point in context to my post?  my post was that divorce effects most of the population.  SSM effects a minute fraction of the population.  

  • Frank

    When it comes to the divorce even though the parents want out of the marriage, it’s usually the children who experience the greatest loss. 
    I am sure there were those that argued that its better for two people to perceive themselves as happy than care about the consequences to those around them.

  • kloomis

    If we are at 50+% now, and we were at 20-25% (or 37-40% — I’m not sure how to interpret the sttistic you quote) before, we were still in trouble. And the pre-no-fault history (early 20th century) of divorce still looks pretty awful. We should have a goal of less than 5% maybe?, but forbidding g/l marriages is not going to get us there. Allowing g/l marriages, and re-focussing our efforts as a society to strengthen ALL marriage, will get us there.

  • Fiona64

    Frank, this is officially the most ridiculous thing I have seen you write — and that’s saying something.

  • Allforfunnplay

    in the context of my post, that doesn’t make sense. my point is that heteros marry which account for 95%+ of the population so of course it effects everyone in society.  HOW DOES THAT APPLY TO SSM (which would probably account for less that 3% of the population?).  in your other post you drew a comparison of cyanide and 1% being poisonous in a 99% water solution.  so HOW does such a small minute percentage of homosexuals getting married effect everyone else?

  • Frank

    No the point is that divorce affects everyone even if you are not married. As will SSM.

  • Allforfunnplay

    you missed my point that DIVORCE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EFFECT 95%+ OF THE POPULATION.  So of course it had the potential to grow.  

    Do you WORRY that if we legalize SSM that SSM could grow beyond the TOTAL % of homosexual people (which is less than 10%….one official report had it at 2%).  
    I’d say it’s logical to assume SSM is a fraction of the total homosexual population (just as married couples do not represent the entire hetero population).  So it’s safe to assume it’s a fraction of 2%?  or 5%? even 10%???  

    Do you FEAR the homosexual population will grow beyond it’s current population % if SSM is legalized? and if so….so why do you fear the homosexual population growing (which I think is mostly absurd)? 

  • Frank

    Before no-fault divorce there were far fewer divorces (20-25% fewer). Making divorce easier made divorce easier.

    So divorce used to be a tiny percentage too and look what happened!

  • Allforfunnplay

    reply to frank from post below (because we were running out of room)

    my myopia?  you’ve used divorce rates to back up your opinion that SSM will have an adverse effect on society.  I’ve stated that divorce effects 95%-100% so of course it effects the greater society.  I stated the homosexuals make up a small minority fraction of the population (less than 10%) to which you agree.   SO HOW DOES SUCH A TINY FRACTION OF THE SOCIETY EFFECT THE GREATER SOCIETY?  Your divorce examples are not relevant to the example of less conservative social values effecting society IN THE CONTEXT OF A SMALL MINORITY FACTION.  and to further back my point, I’ll restate that SS families already exist so it’s not like it’s the great unknown being introduced into society. Again, you have not provided any answers to my questions that question the reasoning for some of your statements.  

  • Anonymous

    You keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night, Frankie.  Congratulations on being so entrenched in dogma, though; that takes some doing in today’s better educated populace.  You’re a rare and vanishing (thank god) breed.

    The good news is that discerning people with critical thinking skills — who may be reading but not commenting — can see your fearmongering for just what it is.

  • Frank

    Fiona I love you because its people like you that actually help my position. Good job! 

  • Anonymous

    Frank, let me give you a clue or two here, from LifeSiteNews’ own “about” page;  2. LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional
    Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic
    religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of
    morality.

    There’s the evidence of bias, right there.  The minute you have an organization saying that one particular set of ethics (which does not represent the entire population, BTW) constitutes “universal norms of morality,” you’re looking at a problematic source. 

    You can pretend to yourself that this is not an indication of bias if it makes you feel better, Frank.  However, I would look at the number of times in these comments that you’ve waved your hand and said “Pfft” at actual, peer-reviewed, verifiable science  before you accuse me of discrediting things that disagree with my position. 

    Your homophobia is palpable, Frank — as is the religious zealotry by which you excuse it.  I genuinely pity you.

  • Frank

    Funny how that anyone who has information against what you believe is right is immediately discredited. Thanks again for showing us all who you are.

  • Fiona64

    You really have no idea how to evaluate sites for bias, do you?  Why don’t you just get a citation from the National Enquirer?  LifeSiteNews is on about the same par.

  • Frank

    Opinion: The APA’s Biased Paper on Same-Sex Attraction and Therapy
    by LifeSiteNews.com
    Wed Aug 04 11:15 AM EST
    Dale O’LearyAugust 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The debate over therapy for same-sex attraction (SSA) and gender identity disorder (GID) has been going on for years. Recently, the APA put out a paper designed to resolve the issue. However, the introduction of the APA’s Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation defines the parameters for the discussion in such a way that the defenders of therapy for SSA and GID are positioned in the worst possible light. The issue is essentially decided in favor of gay-affirming therapy before the evidence is heard.According to the introduction of the paper: “We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in an acceptance of the following scientific facts.”This is followed by five supposedly scientific facts that are presented for acceptance as the foundation for discussion. However, the five points are not universally accepted facts based on uncontroverted scientific evidence, but biased statements that obscure the facts. Here are the five so-called facts and the concerns they raise.1) Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.The use the term “per se” confuses the issue. It is true that same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations are not in and of themselves (per se) indicative of anything. Given the variety of human behavior and attractions in different cultures, throughout history, and among the variety of mankind, nothing can be said about all persons with same-sex attraction, everyone who engages in same-sex behavior, or claims a particular sexual orientation. However, there is substantial evidence that same-sex attraction is a sequel of disturbed early childhood, in particular a failure to achieve a secure attachment to the mother1 and a failure to identify with the same sex parent and peers2. There is also evidence that persons with SSA are more likely to have been victims of childhood abuse,3 including sexual abuse,4 or other exposure to age inappropriate experiences. A number of well designed large sample studies have found that persons with SSA are more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, substance abuse problems,5 and suicidal ideation.6 Men who have sex with men are at high risk for contracting an STD, including HIV.7 While not every persons with SSA falls into these categories, a significant percentage do. There is on the other hand no replicated evidence that SSA is genetically or congenitally predetermined and therefore a natural and unchangeable variant.8 Therefore, it can be argued that there is evidence that SSA in some cases (or some might argue in most cases) is associated with a psychological or developmental disorder.2) Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout the life span.Sexual acts between two persons of the same sex, along with adultery, fornication, and sexual paraphilias, are condemned by a number of religions as always contrary to God’s law. Since these religions are based on unchangeable revelation, these doctrines cannot be altered. Therefore, engaging in same-sex relations will always be considered by some as unacceptable. Love and compassion for those who struggle with temptation does not require acceptance of these behaviors. Freedom of religion protects the right of persons, who believe that homosexual acts are always wrong, to state their belief publicly and teach this conviction to their children without fear of discrimination. Such convictions are not bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic, or hate speech.It is true that the realization that a significant portion of the community believes that a person’s behavior is not acceptable may make that person feel bad. Persons engaging in homosexual behavior may wish to silence those who disapprove. They may wish to have their behavior universally accepted; but so long as people have freedom of religion this situation will not change.3) Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.Gay activists would have us believe that SSA is a normal, and unchangeable variant, but numerous studies have found that SSA is fluid.9 If as the evidence shows it is possible for SSA and behavior to change spontaneously, then why can’t a person seek psychological therapy or spiritual counseling to affect a change in SSA or behavior?104) Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.Same sex relationships differ in many essential aspects from a marriage between a man and a woman. Two persons of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage – the one and only act that joins a man and a woman as one flesh. They cannot conceive a child that is the fruit of their union and their joint biological offspring. Every child acquired by a same-sex couple has been separated from one or both biological parents. Such a separation is perceived by the child as a loss. Every child raised by a same-sex couple lacks a parent of one or the other sex. Two persons of the same sex lack the psychological and emotional complementarity that is part of a husband and wife union. Finally, it is interesting to note that exclusivity is not considered essential for male couples.115) Some individuals choose to live their lives in accordance with personal or religious values (e.g., telic congruence).Some individuals not only choose to live their lives according to God’s revealed law, but also believe that since truths of revelation and the truths discovered by science come from the same source, when both are properly understood they will agree. The term “values” degrades this belief into mere personal opinion; one person “values” one thing, another “values” something else. Those who believe in the congruence of revelation and science, reject this kind of relativism. They hold that it is possible through revelation and science to approach truth and that certain opinions are simply wrong. However, they respect the right of those who oppose them to be wrong and to defend their beliefs. While gay activists demand universal acceptance and affirmation for themselves, they use every method within their grasp to silence and marginalize those who disagree with them.Those who defend therapy for adults with unwanted SSA and children with GID must make it clear that they do not accept the pseudo scientific facts proposed by the Task Force.For references click here.

  • Anonymous

    Translation:   You can’t answer the question.  I didn’t think you could. 

  • Frank

    Fiona I could care less what you do. You have no credibility. You were dismissed long ago when you started the infantile name calling.

    So have at and enjoy yourself!

  • Anonymous

    Frank, I asked you to cite one specific way that you or I are affected.  You haven’t.  Nor have you cited one general way in which the general populace will be affected.  You just keep on with your fearmongering, though — which is the very definition of emotionalism.

    I’ve posted logic and science and you’ve ignored it in favor of religious bigotry.  My challenge stands.  Name ONE way in which ‘all of society’ is affected by the marriage of some couple they don’t even know, Frank.  Just one.

    I will not leave this alone until you do it, Frank — or admit that you can’t.

  • Frank

    Fiona I don’t know if you are being dense on purpose, just being disagreeable, truly ignorant or just so ensconced that you are unable to see the forest through the trees.

    The point is that this issue goes beyond any one person or any one couple. I am not so selfish as to frame this issue to make it about me, unlike most of the SSM supporters who only think about an individuals “happiness”, “acceptance” and “approval.” 

    Using emotionalism as a tactic works on a short term level with the populace but thankfully emotionalism does not trump logic and science.

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps you can explain how you, personally, are affected, Frank.  Or how I am affected. If it affects everyone, surely you can cite specifics of how this is so, instead of using fearmongering bumpersticker slogans lifted straight from NOM …

  • Frank

    That depends on which way they are evolving. The point of the post is that SSM does affect everyone even though one side keeps trying to convince everyone it will not. I mean even the question that started this discussion assumes this false premise.

  • kloomis

    Are you saying that moral norms should not evolve? Then we would still have slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, bearbaiting, gifting smallpox-infected blankets to people we don’t like, or watching syphilitic men die while researchers make medical notes and lie to them, lynchings (which used to be civil picnic days), torturing people to death by boiling them in oil, or tearing them into 4 pieces, or stretching them on a rack, or throwing a supposed witch in the water to see if she drowned, etc.

    Of course moral norms evolve–often due, in the West, to concerned Christians who said, enough!

  • Frank

    How Moral Norms EvolveUpdated July 3, 2011, 07:00 PMRalph Richard Banks, the Jackson Eli Reynolds professor of law at Stanford Law School, teaches employment discrimination law and is the author of the forthcoming book, “Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone.”Not long ago, the prohibition of same-sex marriage, like the prohibition of interracial marriage before it, was so deeply ingrained in our social fabric and legal understandings that the recent turnabout by the New York State Legislature might have seemed unimaginable. As recently as 1986, the United States Supreme Court rejected a gay man’s argument for constitutional protection of his sexual relationship, declaring the argument as “at best, facetious.” In 2001, the court overturned that ruling and accorded same-sex partners the same constitutional protection as heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage may soon become legal in even more states.What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy?What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex and interracial relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest or polygamy.The cases against polygamy and incest are not nearly as strong as most people imagine. Yet they will not become legal anytime soon. To see why, it helps to understand the evolution of moral assessments of interracial and same-sex marriage.Courts and legislatures began to invalidate laws against interracial marriage after Hitler gave racism a bad name. Prohibitions of interracial marriage were premised on the inferiority of African-Americans, a position that seemed less tenable in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Opposition to same-sex marriage diminished as gays and lesbians became more visible in society and developed an identity, both individually and collectively, apart from the sexual acts in which they engage.The categorical prohibitions of incest and polygamy persist in part because people who commit either act are commonly reduced to that act (which is viewed as morally reprehensible) and, in turn, are not viewed as worthy of respect as people. More than a century ago, when the Supreme Court upheld the prohibition of polygamy the court reasoned that it was inimical to American values and identity, in part, the court stated, because polygamy was “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” Historically, both polygamy and incest have been more widely practiced, and accepted, than the Supreme Court, and most Americans, seem to believe.Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/03/marriage-the-next-chapter/marriage-how-moral-norms-evolve

  • Allforfunnplay

    you missed his point.  like you missed my point below.  

  • Frank

    Erik I assume you are not a Christian but correct me if I am wrong. I assume this because what you wrote about sin and heaven and hell is not biblical. Gay people don’t automatically “go to hell” because they are gay. Christians don’t stop sinning even though they are “going to heaven.” So the whole premise of your argument is flawed and so it all falls apart.

  • Allforfunnplay

    I asked a somewhat similar question back near the beginning of this blog discussion.   

    I actually positioned it that there are far more grievous sins in Christianity.  #1 is not believing in Jesus Yahweh.  That’s number one on the ole 10 Commandment list.  And while Christians get wishy-washy with their interpretations of the Old Testament and the old Jewish rules (mostly thanks to Saul/Paul)they do still take the 10 Commandments seriously.  And if that’s the case, they should be far more outraged about Atheists and believers of other religions than homosexuals (I mean come on…homosexuals probably make up a whopping 5% of the population).  Also, some more recent academic study of the Bible even questions if homosexuality was that big a deal in the Bible (yeah, it was unclean….but it happened)…oddly enough Sodom and Gomorrah may have fallen for the unpardonable act of being a bad host (a big deal in ancient Middle Eastern cultures….and is still one today).  But many Christians can be tolerant because the nation was founded on the premise of the Separation of Church and State.  

    So if the conservative’s issue with homosexuals (and SSM) isn’t really religious (despite their claims to the contrary).  What is it?  Simply put, it’s natural fear of the unfamiliar.  Homosexuals scare conservatives more than Atheists.  

    To the simple Christian conservatives 
    Homosexuals = Bad.  Fear Homosexual Bad so Fight/Prevent Bad 
    Atheists = Bad.  But No Fear.  No Fear = No Fight

    More rational conservatives start dancing around the semantics of Marriage.

    Tolerance OK = OK Civil Unions (even ones that could be equal in rights to Marriages).

    But Acceptance of Same Sex Marriage = Bad.  
    Acceptance of SSM = Not living to perceived ideals of the Bible/Scripture.  (and maybe shake their faith a little bit)

  • Erik

    Getting back to the main topic (and because I feel the need to make this point), the original question of this blog is:

    “How is same-sex marriage a threat to my traditional “one man and one women” 20+ year marriage or to the possible traditional marriage that any of my daughters may choose to enter into in the future?”

    Let’s assume that in this case, the person asking this question is a strict Christian, who believes that homosexuality is a sin, and is morally wrong. Okay. So in that case this person is NOT homosexual, and is currently in a HETEROSEXUAL marriage. According to the laws of his/her religious institution he/she is, in that regard, a good Christian, and will ascend to heaven in the afterlife.

    Now lets assume that living down the street from this person is a gay couple that just got legally married. According to the laws of this persons religious institution, this gay couple are sinners and immoral for being homosexuals in the first place, and are going to hell because of their sexual orientation (regardless of if they married or not). 

    So, the person is going to heaven.  The gay couple is going to hell. How does that threaten this persons life or afterlife? How does it threaten his daughters lives or afterlife (if they are heterosexual as well)? IT DOESN’T, because the person or his daughters, sons, etc., didn’t commit his religious institution’s sin! They are all going to heaven anyway!

    So the real question to all the opponents of SSM that site their religious beliefs, is if you are going to heaven anyway (as you are not committing your so-called “sin” of homosexuality yourselves), why do you care so much about the afterlife of the gay couple down the street? According to your beliefs, they are going to hell whether they are just partners, in a civil union, or married anyway, so what is the difference? Oh wait… that’s right, it’s your “Christian Duty” to “save” them and make them “see the light!”

    This is my biggest problem with Christianity in general. It’s a religion that refuses to MIND IT’S OWN DAMN BUSINESS!” It’s always trying to “save the sinners” and “convert the damned” and in doing so, forces and shoves its morals and beliefs down everyones throats. Christianity, please do the rest of us non-Christians a favor: MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!” Worry about yourselves, personally! As long as you go to heaven, that should be enough for you to be content with! Let the rest of us choose our own path. If the rest of us choose to “burn in your hell” , then let us! We don’t want or need your help, thank-you-very-much (and if at some point we do, we’ll come TO YOU)! 

  • kloomis

    I think allfor has brought up a very important point: if our divorce rate is over 50%, and the number of LGBT who hope to marry is 1.5% (so little! I feel more insignificant by the minute!) the divorce rate is by far the bigger threat to heterosexual marriages, and the problem that we need to attack first. In fact, as I think allfor is saying, the 1.5% getting married is really just a gnat compared to the elephant in the room… Another point that I would like to make: lesbians are FAMOUS for doing therapy and couples counseling. If our marriages are longer lasting, more personally fulfilling, and produce healthier (measured in whatever ways) and more successful children (you’re all thinking of Garrison Keillor now, aren’t you)– societally, it would make sense to let us do it, and study why we’re so good at it.

  • Frank

    Homosexual popualtionis small yes I agree!

    Whenwe legislate/sanction something it affects our entiresociety.

    Your myopia is showing!

  • Allforfunnplay

    So let’s go over my “opinions”.  

    so you disagree that the homosexual population is  small (less than 10%) portion of the population? 
    So you believe that such a small % of the population will have an adverse effect on the rest of the population (if we accept less than your/christian “ideal”)?
    (and that’s even assuming that your/christian “ideal” is even true….but I’m not debating that in this line of questions and reasoning).

    You have not addressed these questions.  I  have sound reasoning behind my questions…so they’re not unreasonable questions.  

  • Frank

    You have not addressed anything substantially only responded with your opinion.

  • Allforfunnplay

    repeating yourself? you didn’t answer the question(s).  I’ve addressed your responses and you’re not willing to go any further.  So who’s wearing the blinders?

  • Frank

    I have no desire to keep repeating myself. If you chose to see the issue with blinders on then it’s pointless to continue.

  • Allforfunnplay

    How is it you completely miss the question or skate around my question?

    let me try again.  HOW DOES INTRODUCING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT RADICAL (BECAUSE IT CURRENTLY EXISTS) INTO SOCIETY THAT IS NOT TO THE CHRISTIAN IDEAL, BAD FOR SOCIETY WHEN IT WOULD ONLY EFFECT SOMETHING LIKE 1.5% OF THE POPULATION????  How is that going to be so horrible for society?  

    (I guestimated 1.5% based on 5% of the population maybe being homosexual and 25% of them getting married, staying married and raising families). 

    put simply, I’ve tried to nullify your arguments.

    1. We should promote the (christian) “Ideal”.  A.  You have no proof that the (christian) “ideal” is ideal.  But even more to the point you have no proof that it isn’t ideal.  

    2. More studies need to be done because it could be bad for society. 

    A. It already exists and society hasn’t crumbled as a result (it has because of reality TV IMO).

    3. More relaxed attitudes and acceptance/tolerance of Divorce damaged society.  

    A. Divorce effects everybody (95%-100%).  Same Sex Marriage effects less than 5% of the population.  Wow…big risk there….

    and there are acknowledged benefits for children who have the option of living with their same sex parents (natural or adopted).  

    Please explain your position in regards to my answers to your issues.  

  • Frank

    Yes SS couples and SS couples who have children exist.   No one denies that. The question is whether it’s something that should be promoted and sanctioned.

    As far as adoptions are concerned yes if a child cannot find a good home with a mother and father permanently or with relatives or with good foster parents and the only option is keeping them in a state facility under awful conditions where they are suffering then yes a loving, stable SS couple is a better choice. 

    Divorce is no doubt a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed! And while the ideal has become an exception all efforts should be focused on raising the ideal and discouraging the less than ideal, not supporting yet another less than ideal.

    If anyone here is trying to rationalize their point of view its the person who claims that SSM won’t adversely affect culture and society. Its the person who says that even though we don’t really know what the mid and long term affects of changing marriage and changing the family unit are, to hell with that lets move forward because “gosh darnit its the right thing to do” (even though they have no idea if its the right thing.) Its the person who believes that their personal “happiness” is more important than the greater good.

  • Allforfunnplay

    Frank, I’ve mentioned this before but haven’t heard a direct reply from you.

    You worry about introducing a radical new element into society.  YET SS FAMILIES ALREADY EXIST.  So it’s not like we’re talking about introducing a genetically cloned slave race into society for the first time.  Not like much is going to change other than the legal recognition.  

    But wait…what about the “ideal” as you’ve mentioned in previous posts.  We as a society should support the “ideal” which you’ve tried to scientifically prove (with some rather piecemeal data and studies…yes two parents good.  one parent not as good.) but those studies and you’ve agreed that adopted children and children of homosexuals are probably better off in their SS families/extended Kin than in foster care or with single parents.  

    But wait!….shouldn’t we still strive for the ideal?  Introducing more widely accepted divorce into society has helped to destabilize it. Well yeah, social acceptance of Divorce effects like 95% of the population (the heterosexuals….actually probably even the homosexuals too).  SSM would probably effect a whopping 1.5% of the population.  So how does such a tiny percentage of the population that goes against your “ideal” gravely effect society when even you agree that SS family structures have their benefits?

    Your acknowledgment of the benefits of SS Families and of the legal equality needed from Civil Unions, yet your stubbornness against Same Sex MARRIAGE smacks of you clinging to your conservative ideals and trying to rationalize your point of view.  

  • kloomis

    Thanks for the Current Antropology article; haven’t finished it yet, but it is fascinating. Better than a rich dessert.

  • kloomis

    It seems to me any ethical researcher will give caveats in presenting their theories in a field which is so poorly documented at this point (and she discusses these problems). What we are given is an array of possible alternative explanations to the traditional ones which we have been beating LGBT people up with — sin!, mental illness!, negative impact on the wellbeing of society! And these explanations, though not ready to cement down yet, nonetheless explain the data that we have.

  • Frank

    You see your arguement is based on falalcy. This isn’t aboutrestricting rights, the rightswere neverthereso they cannot be restricted.We area talking aboutexpandingrights.

    And so we have to look at why should we expand rightsand what will be the effects.

  • Allforfunnplay

    If you could rationally prove your point and it was backed up with unbiased research, I’d be fine with restricting the rights of others if it’s for the better of society over all. besides homosexual rights don’t directly effect me at all…which puts me as a more objective person in the discussion.  I don’t blame homosexualsfor being upset because their rights are being restricted.  I’d be upset too if I were in their place…heck, I’d probably be militant.  But I think when reasoning with others with differing opinions, you have to remain civil because I don’t care how right you may be, if you’re not civil you’ve already lost the argument and you’re probably not going to get your way (if you’re not the one with authority or power).

  • Frank

    True enough and I appreciate that. However you are just as entrenched, biased and myopic as fiona. 

  • Allforfunnplay

    i have not crossed any lines of civility.  I have used no derogatory terms or said anything personal about you.  I have attacked your stance on this issue and logic…which I thought was the purpose of our online debate.  I have used caps to emphasize my point because sometimes I’m not sure if you understand the point of my posts (or I’m not writing them clearly…a distinct possibility).  

  • Frank

    Oops I realize that I responded to Fiona when it was alls post.

    All sadly you have become or maybe always were just like Fiona.

  • Frank

    Oh Fiona for a brief moment it seemed like you might have matured a little. Oh well!

  • Fiona64

    I’ll tag on to answer the other question he ignored (emphasis added):

    ho·mo·pho·bia

    “irrational fear of,  aversion  to  or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”

    Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

  • Allforfunnplay

    wow, 3X you missed the point.  

    I do not mean to be rude but:

    simple logic:

    if purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation.  Then bio arguments for against homosexual relationships is irrelevant.  

    If the sole purpose of Marriage is FOR PROCREATION, then WHY SINGLE OUT HOMOSEXUALS WHEN THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT OR DO NOT BREED?  

    okay, so outside those basic questions, as to your support or non-support of the evolutionary evidence for homosexual behavior and/or behavior.  You’re choosing to interpret the information as want to.  I posted a much more recent study (with a cool chart) that listed many evolutionary reasons for the development of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.  

  • Frank

    No I responded. I will re-respond:

    The papers authors concludes with this (caps my emphasis):

    In the end, I BELIEVE that my arguments are more modest than the commentators suspect. In the article, I clearly say that I find adaptive explanations to be INCOMPLETE. Implicit in the article is MY SENSE that homosexualbehavior MAY be subject to “cultural evolution” (sensu Boyd and Richerson 1985) as much as “biological evolution.”

  • Anonymous

    Frank, I cited this before but I’m relatively confident that you missed it (given your denial that I posted it — although I did so twice).  Anyway, not all evolutionary fitness is reproductive.  There is a concept of environmental fitness called “reciprocal altruism,” and that’s where homosexuality’s evolutionary purpose fits in.  The peer-reviewed journal, “Current Anthropology,” has an article about the matter at this link:  http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf

    That said, if you are really hanging your hat on the premise that the purpose of marriage is procreation, I must ask whether you are out campaigning against the right of the infertile, postfertile or childfree (like me) to marry?  Otherwise, I see no consistency in your statement about marriage supporting procreation for the survival of the species.

    We can agree to disagree about whether denial of equality under the law for gay and lesbian couples constitutes homophobia, but I’ll look for a clear explanation of why it ISN’T homophobia from you.  I’m open to your thoughts.

  • kloomis

    Absolutely, we have to do better than “icky”. 

    Another possible study–prurience vs. the “mental curtain” that we all draw for at least some things. Might elucidate some of our behavior.

  • Anonymous

    What it gets down to, really, is one group of people thinking the other group is ‘icky’ — which is no basis for law.  You can think whatever you want, but your personal distaste is not a compelling state reason to deny equal rights.  (Frankly, I am puzzled by people who seem to think that a relationship is reduced to nothing but what a given couple does in the bedroom … and why those same people are so prurient as to care.  It’s the furthest thing from *my* mind, to say nothing of it being none of my business.)

  • kloomis

    Frank and Fiona–that is what I am curious about — the possibility of an “innate revulsion”. I think it merits more study. Some gay men have quite a revulsion of women, too, you know; which is one reason I wonder if it is biochemical somehow and happening “on both sides”. I have heard some very “dykey” women be pretty uncharitable about men as well, but I found it hard to separate their affect from, say, feminist anger.

    Anyhow, more studies!–but after the marriage.   :-)

  • Frank

    Well based on the current knowledge of evolution it certainly is in the best interest to support procreation for survival of the species. I suppose that within that could come an inate “revulsion” of homosexual behavior that is “built in”. That’s not homophobia though. 

    Homophobia not an offensive term when its used appropriately, for example bullying and crimes against LGBT’s simply because of their self-claimed identity. Using homophobia as a buzz word to label anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is also not offensive just dumb and inaccurate!

  • kloomis

    Thanks for a much better exposition…

  • Allforfunnplay

    I somewhat disagree.  I think humans are naturally designed to be fearful of the unfamiliar.  If people are not exposed to a variety of cultures and experiences, they grow to be naturally distrustful of what is outside of their realm of experience.  It’s why isolated areas/rural areas etc.. tend to be more bigoted than the more cosmopolitan areas.  Why? exposure to lots of cultures.  And people tend to stick together with their like kind.  that’s why you have conservative churches and groups among more liberal mixed cultured areas.  

    60 years ago it was a big deal for Willie Mays to try and live in the Sherwood Forest area of St. Francis Woods.  He was rejected because of racism.  African Americans had to struggle to integrate.  But it did get better as America got comfortable with the African American culture. 1st in TV shows like the Jeffersons (remember George Jefferson started out trying to move his family into the same neighborhood as Archie Bunker) and then the very white washed Cosby Show to Arsenio Hall and In Living Color.  Michael Jordan became the biggest sports star…then Tiger Woods…etc…. My point is American Society mostly became comfortable with African American culture (I said mostly…there’s obviously socio-economic issues and some outstanding equality issues).  And eventually maybe the majority of American society will become comfortable with the LGBT  culture.

    On an unrelated note, have you read about “The Reinterpretation of Paul”?  Basically it says that Paul wasn’t preaching that faith alone will save a person (which is in direct contrast to what James says in his epistle).  Paul’s comments against certain “works” were specifically aimed at Jews and Jewish Christians and their strict adherence to Mosaic Law and customs (like eating Kosher)…(I think Paul just really liked bacon). He’s saying that holding Kosher, being circumcised etc… does not make you a good Christian or Jew…that you have to have true faith. The word in question that Paul used is the Greek word “Pistis” which has been translated to mean “trust” or “faith” in god etc… but more recent academic interpretation has said that it means “faithfulness” or “obedience” . Another word in question is “charis” which had been translated into “grace” but more recent interpretations believe that “charis” means “favor”.  and in ancient societies favors were specific in that there is an expectation of repayment.  So when Paul rights that God has GRACED us with his son Jesus.  He really means God has FAVORED us with his son Jesus (and you’d better start paying him back…is the implication).  This reinterpretation of Paul would put him in closer harmony with the other “real” Apostles in the issue of being saved through works vs. faith.  This would put a major monkey wrench in 500 years of Lutheran Doctrine   But Paul still be considered a radical in his breaking with Jewish customs compared with the other/real Apostles.  

  • kloomis

    Yes, I think bigotry is learned, but I wonder if there is a biological base that it can be formed on, to “take” either well or badly. I love that you know that song — I sang along to all my parents’ Broadway records as a kid. And the sad thing of course, is, I’m still racist at some levels.

    The about.com piece to me “feels” stale — like there are some assumptions being made here that we need to look at again. More research!

    But the nih thing is….priceless. Oh these poor guys. And the researchers ruled out aggression. Well, more research!

  • kloomis

    Frank, I tend to agree with Fiona. I think NARTH has been pretty much discredited.

  • Fiona64

     You are such a tool, Frank.  You wouldn’t know science if it slapped you in the face.

  • Frank

    Oh poor Fiona!

  • Fiona64

     And a few more:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

    The biggie  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof3.htm (Citations from every reputable psychiatric and psychological assocation, indicating that NARTH and its ilk are unethical and that being GLBT does not reuire ‘curing” as it is normal)

    You’re welcome, Frank.

  • Fiona64

     NARTH has been repeatedly cited by the authors of the studies and told to STOP — because of misuse of the data.  They are indeed irrelevant and false.  NARTH has never changed anyone’s sexual orientation, BTW — including that of its founder, George Reker, who was caught on vacation with a male prostitute.

    So-called reparative therapy is both unethical and dangerous.  All reputable psychiatric organizations *refuse to accept it.*

    Several sources on the matter for you to ignore (if your past behavior is anything to go on, that is):

    http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/02/debunking-narth.html

    http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/03/debunking-narth-part-ii.html

    http://jgford.homestead.com/ (A site maintained by one of NARTH’s victims, with a plethora of resources)

    Just for starters.

  • Frank

    And btw simply because you strongly disagree with NARTH does not make their independent studies that are cited irrelevant or false.

    Grow out of your bias and open your eyes!

  • kloomis

    Not useless; I would call it majorly heuristic, but indeed too small a study group. Need another similar study with beaucoup more straight guys, and women, and, to bring in another topic (NARTH), some ex-gays, and ex-ex-gays. Trans, asexuals (hmm, I feel my spiteful imp stirring), bi-sexuals (we’re assuming we know how THEY would react, but what if the results turned out differently!).

  • Fiona64

    *know.*  Egad.

  • Fiona64

    You will never get it.  I should no by now not to try to have an actual scientific dialogue with someone who is most likely an Ussherite.

  • Frank

    fiona the study is useless with only 64 people. Its a joke! I am not saying that some people who are rampantly homophobic is not due to their own sexual struggles but really anyone suggesting that homophobia is tied to SS attraction based on this data is no scientist!

  • Anonymous

    You can’t argue with a plethysmograph, Frank.  It’s not pseudoscience; it’s a controlled study. 

    ::snickering at anyone who quotes NARTH calling a controlled laboratory study “pseudoscience”::

  • Fiona64

     Translation:  Frank wants to make sure his homophobia is normalized, as opposed to irrational.

  • Frank

    Me too! I think that an expansion of this study along with a study on the possibility of an evolutionary “revulsion” may be very revealing. Although the interpretation of this data will be contested. If each of these premises are true than the “revulsion” would be absolutely normal and should not be fought against. The “revulsion” would be a necessary thing evolutionally (not sure if this is a word).

  • kloomis

    I would support larger studeis of this phenomenon.

  • Frank

    More pseudo science.

    Just a thought…. you might want to have more than 64 people in a study so that you might actually have a result that is even remotely substantial.

  • Anonymous

    Being GLBT is no more a choice for my friends than being straight was for me.  Bigotry, though, is a choice.  Remember what they sang in South Pacific:  “You’ve got to be  carefully taught to hate … by the time you’re six or seven or eight.”  Bigotry (regardless of type) does not happen in a vacuum; it’s learned.

  • kloomis

    Frank–somewhere here I said I would think about what issues would be worth a “stall” on enacting marriage equality. Something that I do think should be done ASAP, is a research project to study whether there is a biological basis for “homophobia” (I am putting this in quotes because I realize it is an offensive term for some people). If, for example, if there is a pheromone difference between gay and (some) straight people, it seems to me we should have some compassion and take that into account in legislating social change.

    Yes, I am serious about this, and no I don’t want to put off marriage equality for it.

  • Erik

    So let me see if I understand the reason why you posted this article Frank. Because one homosexual male happens to not believe in monogamy, are you insinuating that you believe ALL homosexuals are anti-monogamy?! Please tell me you’re not stereotyping an entire group of people based on one of their peers actions!

    How about the hundreds (if not thousands) of HETEROSEXUALS out there who don’t “believe” in monogamy and cheat on their spouses?! Savages views on monogamy have absolutely nothing to do with his homosexuality. They are two completely separate issues. I think, Frank, that you are intelligent enough to see that, which means that I am saddened by your attempts to blur the lines between two separate issues and that you are using this article as propaganda to demonize homosexuals in general, and further fuel your agenda.

    Also, what exactly do you mean by “changing the family structure.” I seriously hope that you are not implying that the sole purpose of marriage is to raise a family. There are many heterosexual married couples that do not, and will not have children (either because of health issues or because they just decide not to). Using your logic, I guess that means they are a threat to the sanctity of marriage as well then, right?! My wife and I have decided not to have children. We use contraceptives and my wife just got a 10-year IUD. I guess that means my marriage should have been a civil union, since I’m not doing my duty to procreate the species right?! Your argument has more holes in it than a screen door on a submarine, Frank! 

  • kloomis

    Frank–I have been reading Dan Savage for a couple of years now. My take: Dan Savage is indeed savagely honest, to the point of rudeness, on relationship issues. I see him as a modern re-hash of the O’Neill’s “Open Marriage” book that had its fad decades ago. That book worked for some people, not for others. Ditto Dan.

    He advocates talking about stuff that many people suppress; suppressing stuff for some people causes emotional self-isolation, which can poison a marriage. Some therapists’ response to this situation I imagine would be “suck it up” or “think of Britain”, but Savage doesn’t advocate that.

    Will sexual honesty between spouses change marriage and the family structure? Only if they’ve started with bad values (e.g., my comment about the “bridezillas”, above). One thing Dan does is encourage people to get out of relationships that don’t fit them well BEFORE they get married, and find relationships that do. That’s pretty good advice for everybody. Another of his basic tenets is that if your spouse has a (reasonable) sexual “kink”, be “GGG” — good, giving and game –about it; don’t go breaking up your marriage either actively OR passive-aggressively. This is also good advice.

    Re family structure: Dan and his husband have a child; I don’t know where he would stand on the issue, say, of a threesome with children in the house. I think he would say, do that sort of thing off-site; your child shouldn’t have to deal with it.

    And remember, Savage IS speaking from a male point of view; the whole moaning about how monogamy is so difficult could be, ahem, a reflection of the fact that he is not the same gender as Ann Landers.  😉

     

  • Fiona64

    Facts are preferable to “truth.”  Facts are objective; truth is subjective.  I have emerged into truth because I started applying facts.  You may wish to try it yourself one day.  Critical thinking is not your enemy, no matter what your church tells you …

  • Frank

    You’re welcome and maybe just maybe one day you will emerge into the truth!

  • Anonymous

    It may be because a number of people from this site clicked on it before I got to it; some websites have what amounts to DRM on their articles.  I appreciate the effort, truly.

  • Frank

    That’s odd as I can see it and I don’t have an account. I’d post the whole thing but its too long for the comment section.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, the link requires a log-in.  So, I cannot see the article.  C’est la guerre.

  • Anonymous

    I did get out of a biased bubble to see the issue from a broader, more truthful perspective, Frank; I looked at the Constitution instead of the Bible. 

    Thank you for the link.

  • Frank

    Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html

    At least you recognize the extreme position instead of offering biased ranting like Erik. There may be hope for you yet to actually get outside your biased bubble and see the issue from a broader more truthful perspective. 

  • Anonymous

    I’ll tell you what I’d like in order to respond, Frank: a link to the article so I can read what it actually says.

    That said, monogamy is NOT the best state from a strictly genetic perspective.  Nor is it necessarily natural for all people (again, we are just high-functioning primates).  I think you are trying to legislate your own personal view of morality onto people whom you don’t know, will likely never know — and seem to think you know more than regardless.

    Savage is an extremist in any event.  Should I cite Jim Bob Duggar whenever we want to talk about straight male attitudes?

    It IS about equal rights, despite your complete and total inability to comprehend that. 

  • Frank

    If anyone still believes that this issue is simply about equal rights and not about changing marriage and the family structure then I am curious about your response to this:

    Mark Oppenheimer recently profiled Don Savage in a lengthy piece for The New York Times Magazine.

    Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality, rather than the romantic ideal, of marriage. In Savage Love, his weekly column, he inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity. In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community’s tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness.Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, … others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.“I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy,” Savage told me, “when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”

  • kloomis

    oops–sent without proofreading…”does not have TO replicate…marriage HABITS…”

  • kloomis

    Sean–I’m a lesbian and I want the word “marriage”. the San Francisco and California marriages that were performed I believe were almost 70% lesbian–there is clearly a difference between the gay and lesbian communities on the value and character of this institution. go with us on this issue–you can have the legal rights and still know that your relationship does not have the replicate any of the heterosexual marriage habita that you consider toxic.

  • Sean middleton

    As a gay male, I ask what is marriage, To me it is a heterosexual religious commitment that has been around for thousands of years. And i’m quit happy for it to stay that way. Myself would just like to know that when I die my partner can have what is rightfully his. So i really dont care what you call it as long as i am given the same opportunity the heterosexual community is given, please call it a union ceremony, leave the marriage where it belongs with the hetro community.

  • kloomis

    Funny story– Kathy and I were on a cruise when the word came through (May 2008) that we were going to be allowed to get married. We went nuts of course, and took the topic to that afternoon’s “Friends of Dorothy” cocktail hour meeting in one of the ship’s bars. So excited! and we barely got five sentences out of our mouths when ALL of the male couples kinda of went harrumpf, it’s getting late, we have to dress for dinner, and disappeared! I talked to a few of the men later, and basically, they were content with the legal arrangements they had already made and had no interest in marriage, total non-issue with them (or maybe more than non-, considering how they fled).

    On the other hand, 70% of the San Francisco City Hall “misfire” marriages were lesbian. Says something to me.

  • kloomis

    Fiona–yes, maybe, but for this discussion we probably shouldn’t go there. And I have met g/l folks who just didn’t care, or who didn’t want to lose their cultural identity by mainstreaming into straight marriage mores. Pat Bond, a lesbian stand-up comic in the 70s, used to say that while she fully supported the g/l rights movement–and she was out–she still had a little nostalgia for the “Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring” society that was gay life in the 50s.

  • Anonymous

    Why do I suspect “Joshua” and “Sean” of being alter egos of some of the antis here??

  • Joshua Brooker

     
    I’m a gay fella in the search of genuine love Nationwide.
    I have experienced challenging relationships in the past due to partners being dishonest. I have been cheated on, exposed to a life threatening disease (All good thank Feck) & hurt big time.
    My outlook on gay life is shattered at this current time.  I feel that a lot of the gay community are free for all into threesomes, open relationships, hanging around toilet blocks to get their rocks off, users & abusers with minimal to no substance at all.
    All I can say is I’m gay & don’t identify with this at all so there must be a man out there with the same ideals as myself.
    I’m an honest bloke looking for love, transparency & the ultimate man wherever he may be & I need your assistance. I’m looking Mr Right not just Mr Right now!
    I work in the Welfare field in a Crisis environment. I’m a fun loving honest bloke ready & willing to give a massive amount of love to the right bloke.
    I have started up a Facebook group titled “Help Josh find the MAN of his dreams & win a hug from the Big J!”
    I am that serious, genuine & passionate in finding the man of my dreams.
     
    I don’t agree with the Mardi Gras at all. Why does the Gay community need giant floats of genitalier going up & down the street? I’m gay & don’t identify at all with this. The only thing I have in common is I like blokes.
    It brings me to the next question. Does the gay community deserve the right to marry? I say NOT at this current time. If the majority of the gay community stop being animalistic then I might just change my mind. :-0


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X