J.D. Hayworth: Could gay marriage lead to people marrying horses?
posted at 10:19 pm on March 15, 2010 by Allahpundit
The media’s outrageously outraged, but he’s getting a bad rap here — sort of. He’s not saying that gay marriage is the moral equivalent of bestiality; in fact, he repeatedly emphasizes that the horse example is “absurd.” He’s arguing that courts have done such a piss-poor job of defining marriage that it could lead to unintended ridiculous results, which is why the public needs to step in and enact a Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m not sure where he’s getting the idea that the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as the “establishment of intimacy,” though. Laying aside the fact that animals are incapable of “intimacy” as we understand it, that phrase doesn’t appear in the court’s gay-marriage opinion. The word “intimacy” does appear, but in a broader context. Here’s the key passage:
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
That’s the original decision from 2004; if he has another one in mind, I’m not sure which it is.
But never mind that. If a court really did go bonkers and find a constitutional right to marry an animal based on “intimacy,” does anyone doubt that voters in any state in America could and would overrule it with a constitutional amendment? California’s electorate, as liberal as it is, wouldn’t even abide same-sex marriage between people; Massachusetts, I hasten to remind you, is still sufficiently center-left to elect a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Why do we need a Federal Marriage Amendment to deal with this?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
Wow. Backing away slowly and smiling.
Go ahead and ignore me.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Which is pure fiction.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Nah. Worked myself into a phobia of my own sex back in high school.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
You need to be more open minded if you really want to understand these things. Otherwise, you are just rattling off somebody else’s talking points.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM
You’ve been messing with me haven’t you? Pulling my leg, aye?
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM
The revamped Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation is on Obama’s and Congress’ agenda.
On legalizing and catering to illegal aliens alone, vote against McCain.
All this other crap is just Allahpundit’s neoconservative fuming fodder.
maverick muse on March 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Which is pure dogma.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Have you read the reports about how the committee in the psychology community charged with determining whether homosexuality should be listed as a mental disorder was stacked with people that had a vested interest in normalizing homosexual behavior?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Fair enough. Frankly, this issue makes me tired all over. I have a number of folks that I love that live homosexual lifestyles. They are all very dear to me. I don’t talk to them about this, because they don’t want to hear what I have to say. I just tell them that I love them, but I will not condone their behavior. There really isn’t any resolution to it, nor can there be. I cannot change the underlying reality of the wrongness, and they do not want to accept that reality, so we just have to live with the dissonance.
Regarding bible verses, Romans 1 is sufficient to present my perspective on homosexuality.
Homosexuality is the consequent, not the antecedent. The antecedent is a societal rejection of the Creator.
I don’t like talking about this. I wish I didn’t have to. I wish everyone could find a wife or husband that made them happy, so they could have kids and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. So every home could have a mom and a dad who loved each other and took care of their children. So no children had to grow up without a mom or without a dad. So no children had to grow up in a loveless home. I wish we lived in a world that was God-fearing and God-honoring.
We don’t. So we get to deal with the complications.
spmat on March 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM
No no, this is pure dogma.
And I think, in his darker moment, Ben Affleck suspects that it was his best film. And then he weeps silently, drying his tears on a large, pink, fuzzy bathrobe.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM
+1
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 12:37 PM
The dogma that you which to indoctrinate people with is that people choose their sexual orientation, they don’t. As an experiment would you like to be reprogrammed to be homosexual as an experiment? Surely you can change back when you will it.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Oh it’s not that. I don’t particularly care how homosexuality is classified. Previous editions of the DSM did indeed include it as a disorder but I can see why it was removed given that people can function and hold down jobs just fine while being gay. Not so much with say, advanced schizophrenia.
This. This means you’re screwing with me. It has to. Because I haven’t heard Rod Serling mention anything about unlocking the door of imagination, so I’m going to assume we’re not in the Twilight Zone.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Why all this talk of constitutional amendments?
The courts are not the place to look for a definition of marriage, but neither is it necessary to amend the constitution in order to create a definition.
Are people really so fearful of leftist shenanigans that the only answer they can think of is to create a definition that cannot be deemed unconstitutional by some leftist judge because it is part of the constitution itself?
leereyno on March 16, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Which is pure fantasy. The mental health professionals had a lot to lose when they removed it as a disorder. They lost a lot of prospective patients/income. I am sure that mental health professionals would not act in way that would do harm to those they are charged with helping. But you are stuck on the idea that one’s sexual orientation is just a habit. I just have to shake my head in disbelief.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM
CAn straight marriage lead to people marrying horses. The logic isn’t anymore ridiculous…
Obviously a horse can’t consent to marriage and isn’t a human being.
Norvell on March 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM
We need a Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent States from redefining marriage to tap into Federal benefits and Federal law which was written and created for the fixed concept of marriage being a single male and a single female.
This should not be a problem except for the incompetence of Federal judges, who may accept the concept that a State may change the definition of a legal term to thwart the intentions of original Federal law
Furthermore, in our brave new unpleasant world of thought police, a Federal law is very necessary now to protect people from the forced rehabilitation imposed in the name of equal rights. Can Federal money granted to local schools be used to produce propaganda to normalize these newley defined units to children against the wishes of their parents? It already is, but the lawsuits to force even more indoctrination are just beginning.
The ‘public service’ announcement, the public service poster, will be expanded under lawsuit to include one of every type of unit defined as ‘norm’ under threat of discrimination. Dept of Agriculture posters on the three food groups will expand to show mommy and mommy, or daddy+mommy times 4, serving the three food groups to healthy kids
There is no limit to the expansion of benefit entitlment, and to forced indoctrination as the creative units hire their lawyers for showdowns in federal courts.
We need a Federal law to stop the insanity now
I am liking Hayworth more all the time. I heard him on radio the other night talking about the Healthcare Bill. He said last December there was a moment of truth, when unanimous consent was called for in the Senate. He said if he had been Senator, he would have voted Nay, and they would have been forced to read the entire bill, but instead unanimous consent was given. We need more of these outspoken types and less mealy mouths in DC
entagor on March 16, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Someone has probably already pointed this out, but I think the issue here is whether marrying the horse would represent a same-sex or opposite sex nuptial situation.
J.E. Dyer on March 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Wouldn’t that depend on the gender of the horse?
Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Doubt you’ll get that law. In fact, what’s likely to happen is you’re going to get federal recognition of these gay marriages after “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is overturned. Yeah – that’s right. Two gay servicemembers will marry in a state where it’s allowed – they will then petition the military to “recognize” the marriage. Which means they can move into military housing, get survivor benefits, and be “detailed” (receive transfer orders) iaw their service’s policity for assigning married military couples.
A lot of people think that repealing DADT won’t have any ramifications other than allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military … nay! nay! sweet toad! ‘Tis not the case. Marriage will become an issue between gay servicemembers and the federal government will eventually have to recognize these marriages. Which means – there will be NO federal marriage law unless it’s passed soon.
HondaV65 on March 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM
What was “NORMAL” in 1950?
What was “NORMAL in 1970?
What was “NORMAL” in 1990?
What was “NORMAL” yesterday?
What will be “NORMAL” in 2030?
This country (and the West generally) are in a freefall morally and culturally. What we think as “odd” or “couldn’t happen in a million years” is only a few years or decades away at the most.
If you don’t say MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman then what gives anyone the right to inflic their belief system or “morality” on someone else? If a person is in love with their dog or their garden hose why can’t they be happy and be married? If everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HAPPINESS then who decides what makes someone happy? Ultimately the individual is the only one that can do that.
So taking that to it’s logical extreme (in our politically correct world where no one can be offended) people should be able to wear t-shirts with the most VILE pictures on them you can imagine. They should be able to perform any type of street “art” that they like. They should be able to have relationships and partnerships with anyone of any age and any species they want.
THESE are the logical next steps for our collapsing Western society.
PappyD61 on March 16, 2010 at 1:26 PM
CAn straight marriage lead to people marrying horses. The logic isn’t anymore ridiculous…
Obviously a horse can’t consent to marriage and isn’t a human being.
Norvell on March 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Nationwide the Swiss voted it down in a referendum, but the city of Zurich has had a “lawyers for Animals” type situation in place since the 1990′s.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/07/world/main6275813.shtml
Can’t happen here you say? Check out this group in Michigan
http://attorneysforanimals.org/
If Animals can have legal counsel then what types of “unintended consequences” do we see that certainly will follow?
PappyD61 on March 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM
The government can’t protect speech or religious worship unequally. I think Scientology is kinda dumb but it gets the same government treatment as other religions when it behaves like a religion–no matter how dubious the belief system. People often believe that every religion but their own leads a soul down a false path–perhaps to eternal damnation. However, the government sanctions all of their religions via courts and the tax code.
With speech the government provides the same protection to the NY Times and Fox News–neither organization can prove a genetic basis for their opinions, but we see their rights as important.
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 1:39 PM
I agree that it should be handled by the states and that there should be a separation between civil unions and marriage for everyone. Let the government have unions and the churches have marriage. No church need recognize the marriage of another.
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Probably not, but it could lead to someone trying to bring idiotic cases to court. Why bother? Make civil unions legally binding for tax and benefit purposes and get over yourselves already. Move on. Why not stop bitterly clinging to persecution complexes of the past? No.One.Cares.If.You’re.Gay.
Itchee Dryback on March 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM
And because the churches are separate, nongovernmental entities, any argument with about FF&C is void. Perfect!
Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Which is obviously a bad thing, people need to be told how to exercise their liberty.
/s
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM
I’m confident that the free market can handle the beastiality issue. Most people find sex with animals unappealing without government laws telling them what to be aroused by.
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 1:49 PM
You miss my point. Learning is easy. Unlearning is hard. I could presumably learn homosexual behavior, but first I would have to unlearn my aversion to men. Then I would have to learn an aversion to women. To get back, I would have to unlearn the homosexual behavior, unlearn the aversion to women, and relearn the aversion to men. Not trivial, and by no means without consequences.
We are not talking about just flipping a switch — but we are also not talking about something that is set in stone.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Nope, if you listen to some people man is vile and fated to have all sorts of sex with all sorts of vile things like horses, Pagans and vaccuum cleaners and do all sorts of bad things like engage in a pursuit of happiness unless there is some form of big govmint there to protect and control them.
Sexual Deviancy is not the Norm. Homosexuals comprise less than one percent of the population. But these idiots think the only thing preventing people from having all the gay sex, or all the sex with vaccuum cleaners or all the sex with children or all the sex with goats they can handle is Law and not people’s own inclinations; That man is little more than a dog that needs to be muzzled and leashed else it will bark and go crap in the neighbors flower bed.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM
I have relatives that live a homosexual lifestyle. I don’t actually disprove of the sex they have, but of the actions they have taken to reaffirm their choices and solidify their identity as “gay”.
Oddly as it might seem to many here, I view the concept of “gay marriage” as more of a problem than homosexual sex. It’s about the way that people twist the monogamous ideal around to cut themselves off entirely from having a family.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:02 PM
That’s a bit of a straw man, don’t you think?
Besides, how many people here are actually advocating for anti-sodomy laws?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM
From what I can tell, this is basically your position.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Obviously you’ve never met AsianGirlInTights!
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Then you are projecting far too much into what I have been writing.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Gay marriage will lead to polyamory. For example, if two gay men get a woman to have a child for them for which one of them is the biological father why shouldn’t the woman be allowed, as the mother, to join the team? Some liberal judge will find this argument compelling leading eventually to Muslim happiness and a new LDS revelation.
Annar on March 16, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Are you sure AsianGirlInTights is a girl? Or Asian?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Pretty sure
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 2:19 PM
You’ve checked?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:21 PM
blockquote>You’ve checked?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Well, not technically. I could get a DNA sample for testing I suppose.
Looks can be deceiving.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Well, if you’ve checked everything up to the DNA, then (if it is still an issue at all) it would be down to the hazy question of what actually defines male and female.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 2:37 PM
But possibly with mild schizophrenia or depression or ADD or so many other things that are still in the book but don’t prevent people from carrying on relatively normal lives.
One could even argue that declaring oneself homosexual is more of a barrier to a “normal” life than a multitude of things in the book.
I’m not saying it deserves to be in there, but that’s just a completely illogical reason for its removal.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I don’t believe Scientology has ever received public recognition as a religion. Just because you conduct yourself as one, it doesn’t mean the government has to recognize you as such. But once it does, then, yes, it can’t protect you unequally.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Seeing an unambiguous double XX result would be reassuring, before probing further.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 2:43 PM
And, how did you learn your attraction to women? I agree that as you say, “We are not talking about just flipping a switch”. Some homosexuals that are so ashamed of their sexual orientation go to charlatans that claim that they can help them become “normal”. Some become married to the opposite sex to “cure” themselves.
I do think that it is deeming to people who are homosexual to say that you must change and that you only lack will and moral fortitude.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I’m pretty sure Scientology is in fact on the United States’ official list of publicly recognized religions.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Isn’t that already an issue with surrogate mothers or adoption?
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 2:54 PM
David Crosby of Crosby, Stills and Nash was the sperm donor for Melissa Etheridge’s child. Frankly, I think they could have picked a better donor.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 3:00 PM
My understanding is that Scientology has a complex corporate structure with hundreds of entities that receive 501(C)(3) treatment by the IRS. The issue for the IRS isn’t how nutty the doctrine might be, but whether the money raised by a church is for purposes of worship (as opposed to, say, real estate or stock market speculation)
The IRS would apply criteria along these lines, rather than evaluate the content of the religious ideas.
* Distinct Legal Existence
* Recognized form of worship and creed
* Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
* Distinct religious history
* Formal code of doctrine and discipline
* Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
* Organization of ordained ministers
* Literature of its own
* Established place of worship
* Regular Congregations
* Regularly scheduled religious services
* Sunday schools for religious instruction of youth
* Schools for preparation of its ministers
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Yes, though the guy is certainly as durable as he is irresponsible.
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 3:07 PM
My take is that the main problem with “treatment” is that it has been focused on the hard part — unlearning the attraction to the same sex, or worse, trying to cover it up directly with a learned aversion. I don’t see any religious organization or “reputable” shrink focusing on teaching the patient heterosexual behavior/attraction (which would probably involve sessions of masturbation if not flat out sex), but that would probably work better. And that doesn’t even touch on those who would have to un-learn an aversion to the opposite sex.
Look, willpower only matters if a) know what you are doing and have a workable path to your goal, and b) really want to change your behavior.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Most of that is kind of lost to my memory, but I do remember knowing that it was what I was supposed to do. I was probably trying to learn it right long before I was physically developed enough to have a sexual attraction.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM
I was caught stealing some of my grandpa’s Playboy’s when I was 4 or 5. I remember I really liked them, and that I knew taking them was wrong. Just a random anecdote, neither here nor there.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 3:32 PM
It’s utterly logical. Mental health diseases like depression interfere with your ability to live. Being gay just means you’ve got a particular sexual preference.
Those are demonstrably different kinds of things.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 3:40 PM
What was that thread the other day? Isn’t that supposed to turn you into some kind of serial killer?
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM
I had a friend that showed me his dad’s collection at about the same age. Are you sure it wasn’t the fact that you knew you weren’t supposed to be looking at them?
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM
My son has shown a preference for good looking blonde women since he was a toddler. People tend to gravitate to what they see as attractive.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM
But I would argue that the sexual attraction follows from the more nebulous social attraction in many cases, and those social attractions are not based on any sexual preference when we are talking about children before puberty.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 3:56 PM
No, that wasn’t it. I can distinctly remember liking the naked women a lot. Still do.
I tend to think sexual preference is determined very early, if not at conception, but that’s just based on my own experience.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Porn creates serial killers. I am still waiting for Ron Jeremy to start picking up prostitutes, killing them and dumping them on the side of the road.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM
This would be what I am referring to. For instance, Jedis still seek recognition as a religion and yet are unable to get it. I don’t care that it’s a nutty religion. That’s not the point. There are plenty of organizations out there currently classified as cults that would otherwise fit every other criteria on your list.
Though, having looked it up, I am wrong. The U.S. recognizes it as a religion (and has since 1993). Other countries such as Belgium, Canada, the U.K., France, Denmark, etc. do not.
That’s arguable. Many would say that being manic has actually given them creativity they would ordinarily be lacking, essentially directly contributing to their livelihood.
Of course they are, but that’s not at all my point. The book in question is very large and has many things in it that do not whatsoever interfere with one’s ability to have a normal and happy life, even if untreated.
Can you tell me that there is nothing in it which does not have less of an impact on a person’s life than deviating from the norm in sexual preferences?
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Ditto. I was girl crazy around kindergarten, haven’t looked back.
I cannot for the life of my fathom why someone would make the conscious decision to be a pedophile, or a homosexual (except lesb!ans) or into animals.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 4:04 PM
My son has always been crazy about girls, even in preschool. As a matter of fact, he’s already “lining them up” (his words) for when he’s in home on leave from the Air Force.
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Just curious. Are you a blonde? I am, and when I baby-sat, the kids with blonde mothers always liked me better than other kids.
I even creeped myself out a bit when I saw a picture of my father at a young age and saw how closely it resembled my then boyfriend (now husband). He used to wear Old Spice deodorant, but I made him stop, since it’s the cologne my father uses.
For my own “sexual” history, I remember specifically not being attracted specifically to men or women. I experienced arousal but just didn’t connect it specifically to sexual activity and thus made up my own concepts of what it should be until I was old enough to have a boyfriend.
Obviously this is just my own anecdote and can’t really add anything to the discussion of whether or not it’s innate. I don’t feel that it was for me, but I’m not an objective observer. Plus, women may be different anyway when it comes to sexual attraction. Studies have shown that we react positively to all forms of porn, from gay men and straights to gay women.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM
There should be NO Federal “marriage” definition. That simply grows “The Government” yet again. (I remember when “The Government” elicited the response, “Which one?” Now, there is only one. The state governments are such pathetic wusses in comparison that one automatically says “The State Government” as a distinction.)
This Is Not For The Federal Government To Define. It is also probably not for the State governments to define. It’s a city government issue. And cities should be free to accept or deny special city benefits for its citizens within odd marriages.
Yes, you may get strange results. But, you also help keep the frickin’ government out of our bedrooms and lives.
I don’t care if it’s Commies or Religious Fascists who want to entangle my hair, I despise both.
{^_^}
herself on March 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM
I think we make a mistake when we assume it’s either a conscious choice or something innate. I can’t imagine why someone would choose any of it either, but I’ll be honest in saying I’m not completely sold on the idea that our preferences can be that locked in at such an early age.
Nature vs. Nurture is always interesting, but I’ve long believed the answer is somewhere in between.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM
I’m just an apparently normal guy, originally from Seattle
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 4:19 PM
You need to review Masters and Johnson’s research in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They claimed a success rate of I believe of over 70%…………which turned out to be bogus. I understand that religious organizations that today claim to do conversion therapy will not publish their results.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Plenty of things have an “impact” on a person’s life that aren’t evidence that something has gone badly wrong in their head.
Real mania isn’t a net gain when it results in all kinds of risky behavior.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I know little about the Jedis. It sounds like a joke. However I looked at one of their church websites and they state that they have 501(c)(3) status and can accept tax-deductible donations.
The probably don’t get many donations but the government gives them the same tax tool that it gives to more serious religions.
dedalus on March 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM
I was mostly curious and fascinated by the differences. I didn’t develop any kind of sexual connection to it until my teens.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Typical male heterosexual, accepting of female homosexuality. Even finding it a bit erotic?
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM
I had crushes on girls from kindergarten onward, but that was really separate from having sexual desires for them.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Well, duh…
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Everyone is curious, but then there is puberty at about the age of 13 and the hormones kick-in. I thought it would change until I was 16 and then realized that it was not going to change.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Two women displaying obvious sexual arousal, with no other man to spoil the picture. What’s not to like?
…
Seriously, though, it isn’t surprising. Men in our are definitely conditioned in some ways to be repelled by sexual images of other men, while women are conditioned to be repelled by sex (usually). Homosexual men usually have something in their past that breaks that conditioning (sometimes because they something else gave them such a large aversion to women that they avoid hetero sex).
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Huh?
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Well, if you just sat around expecting it to change, of course it won’t. And, if you keep testing it, retreating at the first sign of resistance on one end and diving into it every chance you get on the other, all you are doing is reinforcing the behaviors you already learned.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM
The ones who aren’t are usually referred to as sluts.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:06 PM
I am just making sure I got you here..women who aren’t repelled by sex are sluts?
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM
I guess that we agree that females are allowed more sexual latitude than males in our society? I remember the first time I went to Rome and many of the women walked arm-in-arm and the Italian newspapers were openly speculating on whether Pope VI was homosexual. Neither you would see or read about in the United States at the time.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Attractive women are allowed more latitude, anyway.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:12 PM
You really gotta ask that question?
One reason I can understand Lesb!ans is the simple fact that you’d have to be blind not to find women attractive. the only way if you could not find women attractive is if you hated women.
For the second reason:
Agreed.
I admit to being a perv, a heterosexual perv but still a perv.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:12 PM
I don’t find that particularly interesting. Actually it sounds a little boring. Worth watching though I suppose.
DarkCurrent on March 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Friend, I am still a virgin in every since of the word. Yeah, I retreated. Up until 3 years ago I had only told four people that I was gay. My parents and a psychiatrist at the age of 18 and another psychiatrist at the age of 44.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Surprised again.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:17 PM
So you like seeing grown men naked and aroused?
Can you say homosexual tendencies kids? Sure, I knew you could.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM
I wouldn’t call them that, but others generally would. Though I should probable recant a bit — it probably isn’t so hard a line, and I am being fairly broad in what counts as “repelled by sex”.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM
I’d say he likes women just fine.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Healthy women in loving relationships are as into sex as men. What is to be repelled by if you are with someone you find attractive and who loves you?
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM
Who decides how much risky behavior is required before there’s no net gain? I mean you’re really just reaching here and doing so, solely based on one disorder I brought up even though there are plenty more in there than have even less adverse side effects.
There are plenty of things in that book that describe behavior that is harmful to no one, and yet they’re there.
So very clearly that alone is not a reason to remove something from the book.
OK, so the U.S. also gives this status to Jedism, but my point still stands that there are spiritual beliefs people hold that are not considered religions. Branch Davidians for example were listed as a cult as have many other religious organizations in the past.
Until 1993 Scientology was among those. And until getting rid of polygamy, so were Mormons.
All I mean is that religious recognition isn’t automatic.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 5:28 PM
If you are a virgin, then you aren’t practicing heterosexual or homosexual behavior. If you aren’t even masturbating, I’m hard pressed to understand why you think you are gay. Ditto if you just prefer the presence of members of your own sex.
I can only take shots in the dark at this, but one way or another, I think it is a mistake to take up an identity like “gay” when it has no apparent functionality in your life.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:29 PM
I’m not talking about the married women. I’m talking about the kids in K-12. You know, the under-aged?
I personally don’t think women should be taught to be repelled by sex — I’m just describing what I see going on now.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM
That’s an understatement. Repelled implies that every sexual experience is rape.
Women may not be seeking it out as often as men, but that doesn’t mean we’re repelled by it or find it particularly unpleasant.
Esthier on March 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM
So, the fact that two men together disgusts me and makes me physically ill means I am a closet lesbian?
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM
To Count to 10 ……………. any further remarks about “learned behavior”? You’re corresponding with a homosexual virgin, who has had great difficulty in accepting the fact that I am gay.
SC.Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Oh, and by “retreated”, I mean pulling back from heterosexual activities when they don’t give you the same reward as homosexual ones.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Amen, Sister.
TXMomof3 on March 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM
I was being facetious.
Holger on March 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM
What are you talking about? From a very young age little girls are “sexed up”. They look like a Brittany-Spears Mini-me!
ladyingray on March 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »