Married to the Wrong Sex
February 15, 2006 8:31 AM Subscribe
Married to the Wrong Sex. A short, poignant article on a gay man's decision to marry heterosexually, because it's what his family and society expect.
Infinitely saddening..he bought all the "family" concept hook, line and sinker. Hard to blame him for being very confused , he probably stepped into a ton of prejudice and hate, preconceived not reasoned notion of right and wrong.
Yet I am sure that if he will be outed , he'll be also treated as a misleading liar.
On a side note: who extablished gay "threaten" anything ? Hint hint : religious agitators and they political acolytes.
posted by elpapacito at 8:49 AM on February 15, 2006
Yet I am sure that if he will be outed , he'll be also treated as a misleading liar.
On a side note: who extablished gay "threaten" anything ? Hint hint : religious agitators and they political acolytes.
posted by elpapacito at 8:49 AM on February 15, 2006
From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality seems to be nonsensical. If everyone were gay, would the species not die out?
That said, I'll never marry as long as segments of the citizenry are excluded.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:55 AM on February 15, 2006
That said, I'll never marry as long as segments of the citizenry are excluded.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:55 AM on February 15, 2006
The poor schmuck. My armchair psych degree says he needs therapy, probably anti-depressants, and very likely a good rogering.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:59 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:59 AM on February 15, 2006
That said, I'll never marry as long as segments of the citizenry are excluded.
That'll show 'em.
posted by Witty at 9:01 AM on February 15, 2006
That'll show 'em.
posted by Witty at 9:01 AM on February 15, 2006
Jesse, you need to brush up a bit on evolutionary theory -- your statement is a little bit like, "If the planet Earth really exerts a mysterious force called 'gravity,' wouldn't everything be crushed?" You can start by reading Biological Exuberance and Evolution's Rainbow, two books that address your oversimplification of how evolution works, and talk specifically about how homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom, and how it enhances the overall survivability of a social species, even if it doesn't fit into a narrow view of individuals as single-minded reproduction machines.
posted by digaman at 9:05 AM on February 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by digaman at 9:05 AM on February 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
From an evolutionary standpoint if everyone were straight, the species may also die out. There seems to be a genetic component to gayness, and it may be that gay people, married or not, provide an extra benefit to the tribe. It could be the extra care afforded by uncles & aunts who do not have to hunt or gather for their own offspring, or some other unknown factor. They may share a gene with their straight brethren & sistren which is only expressed occasionally for some reason.
The worry that homosexuality threatens the tribe seems so unlikely to me, and perhaps inspired by fear. There is almost zero chance that a majority, let alone a totality, of a population would be gay. For the reasons Jesse Helms cites.
FWIW, I am also a gay dad.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:06 AM on February 15, 2006
The worry that homosexuality threatens the tribe seems so unlikely to me, and perhaps inspired by fear. There is almost zero chance that a majority, let alone a totality, of a population would be gay. For the reasons Jesse Helms cites.
FWIW, I am also a gay dad.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:06 AM on February 15, 2006
Imagine this tragedy repeated millions of times over thousands of years, and you start to get a picture of the unforgivable damage done and suffering caused by religious dogma and superstitious ignorance.
posted by slatternus at 9:12 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by slatternus at 9:12 AM on February 15, 2006
From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality seems to be nonsensical. If everyone were gay, would the species not die out?
Another arrow in the quiver of pseudo-science. Intelligent designers rejoicers! Do you think that people will be saying stuff like that in the next century? Sometimes I wonder.
Back to the topic discussed in the artcle... Did anyone read Dan Savage's editorial in the New York Times recently? It was basically, "If you're a person who wants to turn gays straight, would you be willing to let your daughter marry a 'former gay'?" It was interesting.
posted by billysumday at 9:14 AM on February 15, 2006
Another arrow in the quiver of pseudo-science. Intelligent designers rejoicers! Do you think that people will be saying stuff like that in the next century? Sometimes I wonder.
Back to the topic discussed in the artcle... Did anyone read Dan Savage's editorial in the New York Times recently? It was basically, "If you're a person who wants to turn gays straight, would you be willing to let your daughter marry a 'former gay'?" It was interesting.
posted by billysumday at 9:14 AM on February 15, 2006
I am a cool dad.
posted by leftoverboy at 9:18 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by leftoverboy at 9:18 AM on February 15, 2006
That said, I'll never marry as long as segments of the citizenry are excluded.
Are you serious? I am asking because I want to know, not because I am ridiculing you. If you are serious, you are cool like whoa, dude.
This reminded me of a Mormon guy I used to know. We were classmates and he sought me out specifically to be friends with because of the fact that I am gay. After several months and lots of loaded questions, he told me that the reason he was so interested was because he had "gay urges." It was completely his fault, he explained, because he had had these urges as a child and had not repressed them enough. He had indulged in gay fantasies and that firmly implanted the gay. Everyone has these urges, but good people choose not to indulge, that made him bad. He told me that keeping it a secret from his parents and bishop were the most important thing he could possibly do. He had plans to go live in a cabin in the woods where he would never be tempted. I asked him if this wasn't denying and lying about an prominent part of him and he said, sure, but lying is better than breaking my family's heart.
I didn't see the guy for about a year, and then I bumped into a mutual friend. My Mormon friend got married to a woman and is starting to try for kids. I hope he's happy.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:19 AM on February 15, 2006
Are you serious? I am asking because I want to know, not because I am ridiculing you. If you are serious, you are cool like whoa, dude.
This reminded me of a Mormon guy I used to know. We were classmates and he sought me out specifically to be friends with because of the fact that I am gay. After several months and lots of loaded questions, he told me that the reason he was so interested was because he had "gay urges." It was completely his fault, he explained, because he had had these urges as a child and had not repressed them enough. He had indulged in gay fantasies and that firmly implanted the gay. Everyone has these urges, but good people choose not to indulge, that made him bad. He told me that keeping it a secret from his parents and bishop were the most important thing he could possibly do. He had plans to go live in a cabin in the woods where he would never be tempted. I asked him if this wasn't denying and lying about an prominent part of him and he said, sure, but lying is better than breaking my family's heart.
I didn't see the guy for about a year, and then I bumped into a mutual friend. My Mormon friend got married to a woman and is starting to try for kids. I hope he's happy.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:19 AM on February 15, 2006
My father was a gay man who married. He lived with his secret for 30 years before aids finally forced him out of the clost. For a long time I had mixed reactions, anger, etc... Finally I realized he just deserved my pity.
Full Story Here
posted by sourbrew at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2006
Full Story Here
posted by sourbrew at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2006
ericb: that was killer funny.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:48 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by arcticwoman at 9:48 AM on February 15, 2006
sourbrew: thanks for sharing your story.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:56 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by arcticwoman at 9:56 AM on February 15, 2006
I asked him if this wasn't denying and lying about an prominent part of him and he said, sure, but lying is better than breaking my family's heart.
That's what got me about the story I linked: the personal sacrifice, putting his love for family ahead of his own desires. It's a very parental role.
He seems to be fully-informed and capable of making his own decisions, so the story doesn't make me angry, just sad. Sad that the world in which the people he loves the most is a world that is too fragile to handle the truth.
I don't know that I could make the same sacrifices and, indeed, this factors into my decision to not have kids. I'm far too selfish for it.
I think this guy is going to make one great parent.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:59 AM on February 15, 2006
That's what got me about the story I linked: the personal sacrifice, putting his love for family ahead of his own desires. It's a very parental role.
He seems to be fully-informed and capable of making his own decisions, so the story doesn't make me angry, just sad. Sad that the world in which the people he loves the most is a world that is too fragile to handle the truth.
I don't know that I could make the same sacrifices and, indeed, this factors into my decision to not have kids. I'm far too selfish for it.
I think this guy is going to make one great parent.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:59 AM on February 15, 2006
If everyone were gay, would the species not die out?
This claim always makes me chuckle. First off, as has been demonstrated already in this thread, homosexuality != sterility.
Secondly, this claim belies a true depth of ignorance about homosexuality. It presumes that if we didn't somehow quash homosexual expression at every and all levels of our society, it would become so overwhelmingly popular that it would lead to the extinction of the species. It makes me wonder what I'm missing in gay sex/life/whatever ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:00 AM on February 15, 2006
This claim always makes me chuckle. First off, as has been demonstrated already in this thread, homosexuality != sterility.
Secondly, this claim belies a true depth of ignorance about homosexuality. It presumes that if we didn't somehow quash homosexual expression at every and all levels of our society, it would become so overwhelmingly popular that it would lead to the extinction of the species. It makes me wonder what I'm missing in gay sex/life/whatever ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:00 AM on February 15, 2006
You know, it's ALL a lot more complicated than it seems, and there are a myriad shades of sublimation/denial/compromising/being out/getting what you want. It's not one thing or another. Or, as they say, there are two kinds of people, those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't.
My husband thinks he's probably gay, but he's really happy being married and he loves women. Since I'm a really butch woman and we love each other, we've ended up being married & faithful to one another for thirty years . . . it's complicated. Ask our lesbian daughter if you don't believe me. :)
posted by Peach at 10:06 AM on February 15, 2006
My husband thinks he's probably gay, but he's really happy being married and he loves women. Since I'm a really butch woman and we love each other, we've ended up being married & faithful to one another for thirty years . . . it's complicated. Ask our lesbian daughter if you don't believe me. :)
posted by Peach at 10:06 AM on February 15, 2006
fff: Really nothing much more to say. I found it touching and saddening.
How about the short, poignant article about a straight man's decision to marry, because it's what his family and society expect? That one can be pretty damned touching and saddening too. But it happens so often no one notices.
posted by three blind mice at 10:06 AM on February 15, 2006
How about the short, poignant article about a straight man's decision to marry, because it's what his family and society expect? That one can be pretty damned touching and saddening too. But it happens so often no one notices.
posted by three blind mice at 10:06 AM on February 15, 2006
From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality seems to be nonsensical. If everyone were gay, would the species not die out?
Everyone is not gay, so it's irrelevant. You might as well say, "Accountants seem nonsensical. If everyone was an accountant, wouldn't the species die out since no one was producing food?" Yes, maybe it would, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be accountants.
Oh, and 99% of bees are sterile workers, yet bees seem to be doing just fine from an evolutionary standpoint.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:09 AM on February 15, 2006
Everyone is not gay, so it's irrelevant. You might as well say, "Accountants seem nonsensical. If everyone was an accountant, wouldn't the species die out since no one was producing food?" Yes, maybe it would, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be accountants.
Oh, and 99% of bees are sterile workers, yet bees seem to be doing just fine from an evolutionary standpoint.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:09 AM on February 15, 2006
"Everyone has these urges, but good people choose not to indulge, that made him bad".
I've heard this line from heavily religious folks before. It seems that, in order to transform homosexuality into the threat that certain people would like it to be, it's necessary to universalize it. That way it can be framed as a personal demon against which the faithful must battle. "Hey George, feeling The Gay? Well, everyone feels it; the good folk just don't act on it!" Then George goes on his way, feeling The Gay but pushing it back down, looking out on a world that (he's convinced) is full to bursting with The Gay but repressing it, just like him. And all the while beating himself up for allowing the Seeds of Gay to sprout Gay Tendrils in his soul.
I think if the world were that full of people stuck in psychotic reaction to repressed homosexuality, then we'd have to deal with huge populations of unhappy, repressed, sexually dysfunctional Bible-thumping - oh yeah. Never mind.
posted by palinode at 10:12 AM on February 15, 2006
I've heard this line from heavily religious folks before. It seems that, in order to transform homosexuality into the threat that certain people would like it to be, it's necessary to universalize it. That way it can be framed as a personal demon against which the faithful must battle. "Hey George, feeling The Gay? Well, everyone feels it; the good folk just don't act on it!" Then George goes on his way, feeling The Gay but pushing it back down, looking out on a world that (he's convinced) is full to bursting with The Gay but repressing it, just like him. And all the while beating himself up for allowing the Seeds of Gay to sprout Gay Tendrils in his soul.
I think if the world were that full of people stuck in psychotic reaction to repressed homosexuality, then we'd have to deal with huge populations of unhappy, repressed, sexually dysfunctional Bible-thumping - oh yeah. Never mind.
posted by palinode at 10:12 AM on February 15, 2006
First off, as has been demonstrated already in this thread, homosexuality != sterility.
Procreation is the dynamism of life - my concern, or possibly what I can't gather, is the cultural mechanism(s) that would continue life if, for example, everyone were homosexual. I'm aware of homosexuality in nature - but its seems like an evolutionary aberration, despite the true love that it may engender. Maybe when women bud asexually will make sense to me.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2006
Procreation is the dynamism of life - my concern, or possibly what I can't gather, is the cultural mechanism(s) that would continue life if, for example, everyone were homosexual. I'm aware of homosexuality in nature - but its seems like an evolutionary aberration, despite the true love that it may engender. Maybe when women bud asexually will make sense to me.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2006
I wanted to throw in a Brave New World allusion, but my time has past.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:15 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:15 AM on February 15, 2006
homosexuality in nature
Gay flamingos celebrate fifth anniversary with their children.
Researchers find 'gay penguins'.
Zoo tempts gay penguins to go straight.
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
Gay flamingos celebrate fifth anniversary with their children.
Researchers find 'gay penguins'.
Zoo tempts gay penguins to go straight.
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
That way it can be framed as a personal demon against which the faithful must battle.
If a person earnestly believes that some particular conduct is immoral, and they have a strong and persistent desire to engage in that conduct, then it is a "personal demon against which they must battle."
What's important, I think, is that people live their lives in accordance with what they, themselves, earnestly believe is right. To do otherwise inevitably harms them (and usually harms others, too).
posted by JekPorkins at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
If a person earnestly believes that some particular conduct is immoral, and they have a strong and persistent desire to engage in that conduct, then it is a "personal demon against which they must battle."
What's important, I think, is that people live their lives in accordance with what they, themselves, earnestly believe is right. To do otherwise inevitably harms them (and usually harms others, too).
posted by JekPorkins at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
Far from Heaven is another beautiful movie in this regard.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:19 AM on February 15, 2006
Procreation is the dynamism of life - my concern, or possibly what I can't gather, is the cultural mechanism(s) that would continue life if, for example, everyone were homosexual. I'm aware of homosexuality in nature - but its seems like an evolutionary aberration, despite the true love that it may engender. Maybe when women bud asexually will make sense to me.
Huh? The Jesse Helms, a large population of straight people produce a smaller population of homosexual children in ratios that are statistically sustainable generation after generation. Ain't no evolutionary aberration, and it ain't no aberration neither. it's the way the species evolved (or, perhaps, one might say, it's the way God Intelligenty Designed the species.)
posted by three blind mice at 10:22 AM on February 15, 2006
Huh? The Jesse Helms, a large population of straight people produce a smaller population of homosexual children in ratios that are statistically sustainable generation after generation. Ain't no evolutionary aberration, and it ain't no aberration neither. it's the way the species evolved (or, perhaps, one might say, it's the way God Intelligenty Designed the species.)
posted by three blind mice at 10:22 AM on February 15, 2006
ridiculous. what everyone "earnestly believes is right" is 99% crap.
i'll tell you what right is: don't hit the other kids, tell the truth, and share when you can.
posted by ewkpates at 10:25 AM on February 15, 2006
i'll tell you what right is: don't hit the other kids, tell the truth, and share when you can.
posted by ewkpates at 10:25 AM on February 15, 2006
i'll tell you what right is: don't hit the other kids, tell the truth, and share when you can.
no hitting, no lying, and no bogarting.
words to live by, ewkpates.
posted by three blind mice at 10:29 AM on February 15, 2006
no hitting, no lying, and no bogarting.
words to live by, ewkpates.
posted by three blind mice at 10:29 AM on February 15, 2006
ridiculous. what everyone "earnestly believes is right" is 99% crap.
So you believe that people should do things they believe are morally wrong, and that in acting against their own moral and ethical beliefs, they will somehow avoid negative personal consequences? Or are you just expressing your personal disagreement with the unidentified beliefs of others, on the basis that they must, a priori, be incorrect?
Some people believe that it is morally or ethically wrong to fail to satisfy one's own sexual desires completely, whatever they may be. Others believe that certain sexual desires should not be entertained or satisfied, because the satisfaction of them is morally wrong. What does either side have to gain by violating what they strongly believe is a universal moral code?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:31 AM on February 15, 2006
So you believe that people should do things they believe are morally wrong, and that in acting against their own moral and ethical beliefs, they will somehow avoid negative personal consequences? Or are you just expressing your personal disagreement with the unidentified beliefs of others, on the basis that they must, a priori, be incorrect?
Some people believe that it is morally or ethically wrong to fail to satisfy one's own sexual desires completely, whatever they may be. Others believe that certain sexual desires should not be entertained or satisfied, because the satisfaction of them is morally wrong. What does either side have to gain by violating what they strongly believe is a universal moral code?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:31 AM on February 15, 2006
a large population of straight people produce a smaller population of homosexual children in ratios that are statistically sustainable generation after generation.
Then I have learned something, and would love some links to solidify my biosavvy.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:31 AM on February 15, 2006
Then I have learned something, and would love some links to solidify my biosavvy.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:31 AM on February 15, 2006
I finally broke up with my boyfriend.
It just wasn’t working.
For starters neither one of us are gay.
Seriously tho, I try to put myself in this position - I can’t imagine having sex with a man to conform to society and expectations etc.But I’m so frikkin’ straight I don’t think it would be possible.
That’s not the usual “I’m just soooo not gay” hyperbole.
I’m thinking that - a person opposite me would be someone so gay that it wouldn’t be possible to be with a woman.
Boy George comes to mind. Not in terms of any outward characteristics, but I saw an interview with him and he said he’d never penetrated a woman and was (visibly) revulsed by the idea of it. So I can relate. Men are competition to be eliminated (classic Freudians love me).
- I’m not judging anyone, I wholeheartedly echo slatternus’ sentiments above.
But I don’t believe a person should get married and have kids with someone if they are not true to themselves in doing so.
I recognize that’s not always possible for people. Everyone has the crosses they can bear and those they collapse under.
But to my mind some damage is being done to someone else’s life (that is - the woman in the marriage) whether they know it or not. As much as if that person was carrying on a love affair with another - perhaps even a chaste or online - love affair. But duplicity is duplicity.
And while I commend the guy in the peice for being a good father to his kids and taking all the other hits he needs to take, there is that inexcusable fact. Inexcusable because he continues the charade. Not to mention his own suffering.
Which of course pales in comparison to the wrongs done by the parents, church, society, etc.
I would rather see pain and conflict visited upon those people and institutions than the - albeit perhaps never discovered - lie forced on some woman.
My family is old school city folks. So when I dated a black woman for a bit, they got on me for it. I had a bit of a fight with my mom in which I loudly shouted and smashed various things.
In some ways this made things better, in some ways worse. It was pretty shitty for a while.
But I took visible ownership of my fate.
I’m reminded of that line from Unforgiven - “Deserves’ got nothin’ to do with it”
I think folks (in the general sense) in this situation need support to take that ownership, whatever their motives, strengths or flaws.
I think the front line in this particular war is at home, not in the government.
Not that the laws don’t need to be rectified, but the fight is against the dogmatic fear and ingrained hatred of homosexuality.
I suppose I’m echoing the Steven Biko - confrontation not necessarialy conflict thing.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:34 AM on February 15, 2006
It just wasn’t working.
For starters neither one of us are gay.
Seriously tho, I try to put myself in this position - I can’t imagine having sex with a man to conform to society and expectations etc.But I’m so frikkin’ straight I don’t think it would be possible.
That’s not the usual “I’m just soooo not gay” hyperbole.
I’m thinking that - a person opposite me would be someone so gay that it wouldn’t be possible to be with a woman.
Boy George comes to mind. Not in terms of any outward characteristics, but I saw an interview with him and he said he’d never penetrated a woman and was (visibly) revulsed by the idea of it. So I can relate. Men are competition to be eliminated (classic Freudians love me).
- I’m not judging anyone, I wholeheartedly echo slatternus’ sentiments above.
But I don’t believe a person should get married and have kids with someone if they are not true to themselves in doing so.
I recognize that’s not always possible for people. Everyone has the crosses they can bear and those they collapse under.
But to my mind some damage is being done to someone else’s life (that is - the woman in the marriage) whether they know it or not. As much as if that person was carrying on a love affair with another - perhaps even a chaste or online - love affair. But duplicity is duplicity.
And while I commend the guy in the peice for being a good father to his kids and taking all the other hits he needs to take, there is that inexcusable fact. Inexcusable because he continues the charade. Not to mention his own suffering.
Which of course pales in comparison to the wrongs done by the parents, church, society, etc.
I would rather see pain and conflict visited upon those people and institutions than the - albeit perhaps never discovered - lie forced on some woman.
My family is old school city folks. So when I dated a black woman for a bit, they got on me for it. I had a bit of a fight with my mom in which I loudly shouted and smashed various things.
In some ways this made things better, in some ways worse. It was pretty shitty for a while.
But I took visible ownership of my fate.
I’m reminded of that line from Unforgiven - “Deserves’ got nothin’ to do with it”
I think folks (in the general sense) in this situation need support to take that ownership, whatever their motives, strengths or flaws.
I think the front line in this particular war is at home, not in the government.
Not that the laws don’t need to be rectified, but the fight is against the dogmatic fear and ingrained hatred of homosexuality.
I suppose I’m echoing the Steven Biko - confrontation not necessarialy conflict thing.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:34 AM on February 15, 2006
I got something a little bit different from that story.
That aside, it was a moving article and I see the self-denial, guilt, and sense of obligation that I and so many of my friends have struggled with.
But, this isn't a sustainable life. And I don't think there is nobility in living a lie or founding all your familial relations on a facade. I can't think of anything that would make his wife and child feel more betrayed.
I have nothing but sympathy for him, but in some ways it makes me mad. It's hard to be who you are, to face your loved ones and say it and be ready for rejection. It's hard to rebuild those familial relationships over many years. It's lying that is the easy thing to do.
I know that sounds overly harsh and unfair, but that's how I feel. Men who do this leave a destructive trail behind them that I have seen too many times.
I don't know why people think it's easy to come out; to have to explain at every new job that you have a partner, not a wife; to lose friends and family; to always be ready for social rejection; to tell yourself every day there is nothing wrong with you until you believe it; to confront strangers about their ignorant gay jokes they felt compelled to share with you; to refuse to be used as a tool for right-wing demagoguery; to not even be able to play an online video game in peace.
Putting up with these indignities gets really fucking old really fast, but that's the price for being truthful about yourself and for not leading a false life.
This came across angrier than I intended, but it's more of a response to the sentiment int his thread that he is some kind of martyr. He deserves sympathy and compassion, but not praise.
posted by eisbaer at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2006
At the table, we drink coffee and share a salad. "You're not wearing your wedding ring."Not wearing your wedding ring while away from your spouse has a smell to it. And there is a subtext to that first part that bothers me. Marriage is "tough." Tough to stay faithful?
He looks down at his hand, then back at me. "Well, you know, marriage is tough."
-----big snip------
He heads back to Victoria. In a few days, he'll fly home to his wife and child, where his public life presides, his inner life remains a secret.
That aside, it was a moving article and I see the self-denial, guilt, and sense of obligation that I and so many of my friends have struggled with.
But, this isn't a sustainable life. And I don't think there is nobility in living a lie or founding all your familial relations on a facade. I can't think of anything that would make his wife and child feel more betrayed.
I have nothing but sympathy for him, but in some ways it makes me mad. It's hard to be who you are, to face your loved ones and say it and be ready for rejection. It's hard to rebuild those familial relationships over many years. It's lying that is the easy thing to do.
I know that sounds overly harsh and unfair, but that's how I feel. Men who do this leave a destructive trail behind them that I have seen too many times.
I don't know why people think it's easy to come out; to have to explain at every new job that you have a partner, not a wife; to lose friends and family; to always be ready for social rejection; to tell yourself every day there is nothing wrong with you until you believe it; to confront strangers about their ignorant gay jokes they felt compelled to share with you; to refuse to be used as a tool for right-wing demagoguery; to not even be able to play an online video game in peace.
Putting up with these indignities gets really fucking old really fast, but that's the price for being truthful about yourself and for not leading a false life.
This came across angrier than I intended, but it's more of a response to the sentiment int his thread that he is some kind of martyr. He deserves sympathy and compassion, but not praise.
posted by eisbaer at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2006
a person opposite me would be someone so gay that it wouldn’t be possible to be with a woman
Raises hand! As a gay man, I've never had sex with a woman; never will. Absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
posted by ericb at 10:54 AM on February 15, 2006
Raises hand! As a gay man, I've never had sex with a woman; never will. Absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
posted by ericb at 10:54 AM on February 15, 2006
And never had a girl friend (in that sense of the word) either.
posted by ericb at 10:56 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by ericb at 10:56 AM on February 15, 2006
A solid 6 on the Kinsey scale -- exclusively homosexual.
posted by ericb at 10:57 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by ericb at 10:57 AM on February 15, 2006
“Everyone has these urges...”
Wow. I didn’t see that.
AHA HA HA HA HAAAA!!
Christianity has always had blended masculine/feminine elements tho.
It’s funny how religious modes of thought often overlap sexuality.
There are purely masculine expressions of heterosexuality which are rooted in religeous thought.
S´iva linga in the Hindu religion comes to mind.
It’s odd how pure expressions of masculinity in the U.S. are somewhat suspect or considered fair game to attack (the whole ‘thou dost protest too much’, et. al) when in other cultures you have for example Latin machismo or the Indian Hindu expressions of masculinity which have no pretenses.
I grant it can cause other problems. I’m not concerned with the chest beating trappings, more the straightforward metaphysics of just having a dick sorta thing.*
But I wonder at the roots of this “everyone has these homosexual urges” thing.
Certainly there are psychological streams and at it’s core sexual energy is just energy, but I’m wondering if the diluted heterosexuality is linked to diluted homosexualty.
I agree with eisbaer the guy doesn’t deserve praise - but it is a quality of “manhood” in U.S. culture to be a good father to your children and make sacrifices.
Perhaps it’s deeper - perhaps we’re having a cultural identity crisis.
*everyone who is alive is here as the result of male arousal and orgasm. For starters.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:04 AM on February 15, 2006
“A solid 6 on the Kinsey scale -- exclusively homosexual.” -posted by ericb
That makes me a solid 0.
So if we shook hands would the universe implode?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:06 AM on February 15, 2006
That makes me a solid 0.
So if we shook hands would the universe implode?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:06 AM on February 15, 2006
Well, I've read most of the arguments for homosexuality as an evolutionary trait and I find them to be very weak. The honest answer is that none of these hypotheses are much better than pure speculation, given that we really don't understand human sexuality on a behavioral level.
My own speculation is that it has more to do with the statistical distribution of genes for social behavior than altruistic uncles and aunts. But that's also speculation. Not everything in human nature must be linked to an adaptive purpose.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:08 AM on February 15, 2006
My own speculation is that it has more to do with the statistical distribution of genes for social behavior than altruistic uncles and aunts. But that's also speculation. Not everything in human nature must be linked to an adaptive purpose.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:08 AM on February 15, 2006
What's important, I think, is that people live their lives in accordance with what they, themselves, earnestly believe is right.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:19 AM PST on February 15
Yeah, it's pretty awesome when gay dudes marry unsuspecting women just to keep up appearances. That is both fair to the women involved and totally not morally reprehensible.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:09 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 10:19 AM PST on February 15
Yeah, it's pretty awesome when gay dudes marry unsuspecting women just to keep up appearances. That is both fair to the women involved and totally not morally reprehensible.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:09 AM on February 15, 2006
It is pretty hard for me to feel sorry for him. He has entangled another person in his problems and had children with her, all because he couldn't stand to face being cast out of his community.
He had to have thought to himself before the marriage, "Gee, this might not really work forever, I could still be cast out and in the process have deeply hurt even more people."
It's just selfish. He wants certain things for himself and he takes from his family to get them.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2006
He had to have thought to himself before the marriage, "Gee, this might not really work forever, I could still be cast out and in the process have deeply hurt even more people."
It's just selfish. He wants certain things for himself and he takes from his family to get them.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2006
Yeah, it's pretty awesome when gay dudes marry unsuspecting women just to keep up appearances. That is both fair to the women involved and totally not morally reprehensible.
I've never heard of someone having an earnest belief that they should be dishonest with the person who they are planning on marrying, but if such a person exists, then they will, no doubt, experience negative results if they violate their own closely held moral code. They will, I believe, suffer negative consequences from following that particular moral code, too, but that's just my own belief.
Obviously, Optimus, you and I wholly agree in our belief that dishonesty in marriage is morally reprehensible. I suggest that you and I live our lives in accordance with that earnest belief. I'm glad you and I agree on so many things.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:16 AM on February 15, 2006
I've never heard of someone having an earnest belief that they should be dishonest with the person who they are planning on marrying, but if such a person exists, then they will, no doubt, experience negative results if they violate their own closely held moral code. They will, I believe, suffer negative consequences from following that particular moral code, too, but that's just my own belief.
Obviously, Optimus, you and I wholly agree in our belief that dishonesty in marriage is morally reprehensible. I suggest that you and I live our lives in accordance with that earnest belief. I'm glad you and I agree on so many things.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:16 AM on February 15, 2006
I've never heard of someone having an earnest belief that they should be dishonest with the person who they are planning on marrying, but if such a person exists, then they will, no doubt, experience negative results if they violate their own closely held moral code. They will, I believe, suffer negative consequences from following that particular moral code, too, but that's just my own belief.
What about when they have two mutually exclusive moral beliefs?
(a) I should not marry someone to whom I am not truly in love.
(b) I should get married so I won't be gay and then Jesus will be happy.
A rational person picks (a). Many gay Christians, obviously, will pick (b). So much for the morality of those earnest beliefs.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:21 AM on February 15, 2006
What about when they have two mutually exclusive moral beliefs?
(a) I should not marry someone to whom I am not truly in love.
(b) I should get married so I won't be gay and then Jesus will be happy.
A rational person picks (a). Many gay Christians, obviously, will pick (b). So much for the morality of those earnest beliefs.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:21 AM on February 15, 2006
Well, OC, he is accepting the consequences of that decision (at least so far.)
IF a gay man marries and has kids, he has put himself in a place of responsibility to that family. I admire a man who is committed to his family ESPECIALLY as it comes as a cost to him. I think he is more of a man than most. Having said that it is sad in the extreme he feels he cannot confide in his wife. I personally think she has the right to know what is going on with him.
I also personally think (even though I do believe that acts of homosexuality along with fornication and adultery are sins against God AND against one's own body) that a gay person should not marry unless his or her prospective partner is aware of it-and personally I think it is a very bad idea even then if the person still selfidentifies as homosexual.
In the case of the linked article, if he truly does plan to stay with his family it would very much be to his benefit to seek help to get in touch with any heterosexual side of himself (I phrase it that way to protect the delicate sensibilities of most Mefites.) Mostly because I believe if he doesn't that eventually he probably will break up his marriage.
And I am sure this scenario is a common one. When I worked third shift at the Waffle House, many of the employees and customers of the surrounding gay bars told me story after story of all the married men who went cruising in said establishments. Now that is just plain not cool.
posted by konolia at 11:24 AM on February 15, 2006
IF a gay man marries and has kids, he has put himself in a place of responsibility to that family. I admire a man who is committed to his family ESPECIALLY as it comes as a cost to him. I think he is more of a man than most. Having said that it is sad in the extreme he feels he cannot confide in his wife. I personally think she has the right to know what is going on with him.
I also personally think (even though I do believe that acts of homosexuality along with fornication and adultery are sins against God AND against one's own body) that a gay person should not marry unless his or her prospective partner is aware of it-and personally I think it is a very bad idea even then if the person still selfidentifies as homosexual.
In the case of the linked article, if he truly does plan to stay with his family it would very much be to his benefit to seek help to get in touch with any heterosexual side of himself (I phrase it that way to protect the delicate sensibilities of most Mefites.) Mostly because I believe if he doesn't that eventually he probably will break up his marriage.
And I am sure this scenario is a common one. When I worked third shift at the Waffle House, many of the employees and customers of the surrounding gay bars told me story after story of all the married men who went cruising in said establishments. Now that is just plain not cool.
posted by konolia at 11:24 AM on February 15, 2006
Some of the gay men I've met who came out after a heterosexual marriage claim that they honestly believed they were "in love" with their spouses at the time. So in some cases at least, it's about more than "keeping up appearances."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:32 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:32 AM on February 15, 2006
Optimus, you're still applying the moral code that you and I agree on in your judgment of the morality of the presumed earnest beliefs of a hypothetical other person. I'm not saying that's not useful, but it's not all that relevant to what I said above.
But it seems to me that the two sample beliefs that you've provided are not mutually exclusive. One can be truly in love with someone and still not be sexually attracted to them. Allow me to provide what I think is a better statement of 'mutually exclusive moral beliefs:'
(a) I should not marry someone to whom I am not sexually attracted.
(b) I should get married to someone of the opposite sex.
Someone not sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex would be in a bind if those were his/her closely held beliefs. For whatever it's worth, I think that anyone who believes (a) is wrong, but you'll probably fixate on (b) instead.
Let's get back to my point, though: Regardless of how strongly you or I believe that another person's beliefs are incorrect, that person will suffer if they violate their own closely held moral code -- even if that moral code seems contradictory. People who have strong desires that are contradicted by their moral beliefs have a decision to make regarding which one is more important to them: their beliefs or their desires. But when those are the two things between which the choice must be made, it is just as stupid to say that their beliefs are the problem as it is to say that their desires are the problem.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:33 AM on February 15, 2006
But it seems to me that the two sample beliefs that you've provided are not mutually exclusive. One can be truly in love with someone and still not be sexually attracted to them. Allow me to provide what I think is a better statement of 'mutually exclusive moral beliefs:'
(a) I should not marry someone to whom I am not sexually attracted.
(b) I should get married to someone of the opposite sex.
Someone not sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex would be in a bind if those were his/her closely held beliefs. For whatever it's worth, I think that anyone who believes (a) is wrong, but you'll probably fixate on (b) instead.
Let's get back to my point, though: Regardless of how strongly you or I believe that another person's beliefs are incorrect, that person will suffer if they violate their own closely held moral code -- even if that moral code seems contradictory. People who have strong desires that are contradicted by their moral beliefs have a decision to make regarding which one is more important to them: their beliefs or their desires. But when those are the two things between which the choice must be made, it is just as stupid to say that their beliefs are the problem as it is to say that their desires are the problem.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:33 AM on February 15, 2006
Well, OC, he is accepting the consequences of that decision (at least so far.) IF a gay man marries and has kids, he has put himself in a place of responsibility to that family. I admire a man who is committed to his family ESPECIALLY as it comes as a cost to him.
Let's see, his wife doesn't know and he's not wearing his wedding ring in public. Sanctity of marriage ahoy!
In the case of the linked article, if he truly does plan to stay with his family it would very much be to his benefit to seek help to get in touch with any heterosexual side of himself (I phrase it that way to protect the delicate sensibilities of most Mefites.)
Yeah, we can all just decide who to be attracted to! Are all Christians bisexual or something? Do y'all not understand that most homosexual men are just as likely to start liking pussy as most heterosexual men are to start craving cock?
Mostly because I believe if he doesn't that eventually he probably will break up his marriage.
Yeah, it'd be a shame to end that pathetic little charade, wouldn't it?
And I am sure this scenario is a common one. When I worked third shift at the Waffle House, many of the employees and customers of the surrounding gay bars told me story after story of all the married men who went cruising in said establishments. Now that is just plain not cool.
Keeping gay men in the closet? Shaming them into faux heterosexuality? Now who on earth could be behind that? Friends of yours?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:35 AM on February 15, 2006
Let's see, his wife doesn't know and he's not wearing his wedding ring in public. Sanctity of marriage ahoy!
In the case of the linked article, if he truly does plan to stay with his family it would very much be to his benefit to seek help to get in touch with any heterosexual side of himself (I phrase it that way to protect the delicate sensibilities of most Mefites.)
Yeah, we can all just decide who to be attracted to! Are all Christians bisexual or something? Do y'all not understand that most homosexual men are just as likely to start liking pussy as most heterosexual men are to start craving cock?
Mostly because I believe if he doesn't that eventually he probably will break up his marriage.
Yeah, it'd be a shame to end that pathetic little charade, wouldn't it?
And I am sure this scenario is a common one. When I worked third shift at the Waffle House, many of the employees and customers of the surrounding gay bars told me story after story of all the married men who went cruising in said establishments. Now that is just plain not cool.
Keeping gay men in the closet? Shaming them into faux heterosexuality? Now who on earth could be behind that? Friends of yours?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:35 AM on February 15, 2006
Are all Christians bisexual or something?
Would be nice.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:38 AM on February 15, 2006
Would be nice.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:38 AM on February 15, 2006
In the case of the linked article, if he truly does plan to stay with his family it would very much be to his benefit to seek help to get in touch with any heterosexual side of himself (I phrase it that way to protect the delicate sensibilities of most Mefites.)
Given that most MeFites (in particular, the ones this advice applies to) would probably be more than willing to tell you that "get[ting] in touch with any heterosexual side of himself" is complete and utter bullshit, I don't think you need to protect anyone's sensibilities.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:39 AM on February 15, 2006
Given that most MeFites (in particular, the ones this advice applies to) would probably be more than willing to tell you that "get[ting] in touch with any heterosexual side of himself" is complete and utter bullshit, I don't think you need to protect anyone's sensibilities.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:39 AM on February 15, 2006
More men than you might think marry out of confusion, cowardice, or simply out of a belief that once in a happy marriage ( and many such marriages ARE happy) their homosexual feelings will go away. Some of those marriages continue happily even after the guy's come out to his wife and his family. It depends on the circumstance. Some women will continue to accept a gay man as their life partner. Other's can't live with the "sham". I know plenty of gay middle aged men who only came out recently, but who maintain loving home lives with the women they married. The problem lies in fact that social norms re: "masculinity" make it extremely difficult for men to understand themselves.
posted by slatternus at 11:43 AM on February 15, 2006
posted by slatternus at 11:43 AM on February 15, 2006
Are all Christians bisexual or something?
I'm leaning towards the "or something" hypothesis...
posted by slatternus at 11:46 AM on February 15, 2006
I'm leaning towards the "or something" hypothesis...
posted by slatternus at 11:46 AM on February 15, 2006
People who have strong desires that are contradicted by their moral beliefs have a decision to make regarding which one is more important to them: their beliefs or their desires. But when those are the two things between which the choice must be made, it is just as stupid to say that their beliefs are the problem as it is to say that their desires are the problem.I believe people who wear white shoes/pants after labor day should be bludgeoned with payphone handsets. But, I can't do it because murder is wrong. The belief isn't the problem?
-JekPorkins
The entire point of this article is that his, his parents, and his community's beliefs have made him decide to live this lie. The belief is the problem.
Desire ALWAYS wins, and it doesn't care who gets hurt. Ask indicted Catholic priests, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, or anyone else who has tried to repress their sexuality with belief.
It's much better to face it, and develop it in a healthy way than do what he is doing: ignoring it and making the eventual damage so much more.
posted by eisbaer at 11:58 AM on February 15, 2006
So if we shook hands would the universe implode?
No, but you I might be able to recruit you to the homosexual agenda. After all:
No, but you I might be able to recruit you to the homosexual agenda. After all:
"The lure of unwanted same-sex desires is much like the sirens’ song once heard by Odysseus. It is strong in its call, and works strongly against the will....Those who hear the sirens’ song of same-sex desires must be warned to resist with every fiber of their being. They must hear the story of Odysseus. They must understand that to choose to surrender is to choose to dash the ship of one's life on the sharp, jagged rocks of the homosexual lifestyle."posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on February 15, 2006
-- Ken Ervin, Concerned Women For America (CWFA), "Personal Responsibility, Temptation and Homosexual Desires"
Procreation is the dynamism of life - my concern, or possibly what I can't gather, is the cultural mechanism(s) that would continue life if, for example, everyone were homosexual.
There is no Platonic human form, and we humans are no less "finished" than we will be in a trillion years. Evolution is a long, pointless story told by your crazy uncle.
Under your reasoning, any human that did not engage in reproduction non-stop, 24 hours a day, without impotence or miscarriage, would be an aberration. We are not a machine. We are just a system that holds certain properties.
posted by deadfather at 12:02 PM on February 15, 2006
There is no Platonic human form, and we humans are no less "finished" than we will be in a trillion years. Evolution is a long, pointless story told by your crazy uncle.
Under your reasoning, any human that did not engage in reproduction non-stop, 24 hours a day, without impotence or miscarriage, would be an aberration. We are not a machine. We are just a system that holds certain properties.
posted by deadfather at 12:02 PM on February 15, 2006
"The lure of unwanted same-sex desires is much like the sirens’ song once heard by Odysseus. It is strong in its call, and works strongly against the will....Those who hear the sirens’ song of same-sex desires must be warned to resist with every fiber of their being."
-- Ken Ervin, Concerned Women For America
Someone should tell that guy that he is gay.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:34 PM on February 15, 2006
-- Ken Ervin, Concerned Women For America
Someone should tell that guy that he is gay.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:34 PM on February 15, 2006
Nutjob Paul Cameron:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.” So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. “I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers,” says Cameron. “People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical,” he adds, sounding evangelical himself. “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.” He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Martial sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” [source]posted by ericb at 12:39 PM on February 15, 2006
IF a gay man marries and has kids, he has put himself in a place of responsibility to that family.
That's one lucky family, boy.
posted by docpops at 12:40 PM on February 15, 2006
That's one lucky family, boy.
posted by docpops at 12:40 PM on February 15, 2006
Anti-gay researcher Paul Cameron's falsehoods are well-known. The incredible thing is the people who still cite them.
posted by ericb at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by ericb at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2006
eisbaer said 'Not wearing your wedding ring while away from your spouse has a smell to it. And there is a subtext to that first part that bothers me. Marriage is "tough." Tough to stay faithful?'
That, combined with the interesting choice of illustration - toilet signs - made me assume the bloke bumped into his old friend while on a weekend break form the missus for some hot cottaging action.
In all seriousness, I'm not getting the sympahy angle at all - your man is deceiving a woman he doesn't appear to love, deceiving his family (who are presented as being decent but misguided, and so might well have accepted their son as gay, eventually).
So he's weak, cowardly, a liar and, it is implied, unfaithful. And this has put the poor lamb in an unhappy place? Boo fucking hoo.
posted by jack_mo at 12:51 PM on February 15, 2006
That, combined with the interesting choice of illustration - toilet signs - made me assume the bloke bumped into his old friend while on a weekend break form the missus for some hot cottaging action.
In all seriousness, I'm not getting the sympahy angle at all - your man is deceiving a woman he doesn't appear to love, deceiving his family (who are presented as being decent but misguided, and so might well have accepted their son as gay, eventually).
So he's weak, cowardly, a liar and, it is implied, unfaithful. And this has put the poor lamb in an unhappy place? Boo fucking hoo.
posted by jack_mo at 12:51 PM on February 15, 2006
Excuse my quoting myself:
Yet I am sure that if he will be outed , he'll be also treated as a misleading liar.
and now
So he's weak, cowardly, a liar and, it is implied, unfaithful. And this has put the poor lamb in an unhappy place? Boo fucking hoo.
Easy prophecy indeed.
posted by elpapacito at 12:59 PM on February 15, 2006
Yet I am sure that if he will be outed , he'll be also treated as a misleading liar.
and now
So he's weak, cowardly, a liar and, it is implied, unfaithful. And this has put the poor lamb in an unhappy place? Boo fucking hoo.
Easy prophecy indeed.
posted by elpapacito at 12:59 PM on February 15, 2006
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other, says Willie.
posted by emelenjr at 1:01 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by emelenjr at 1:01 PM on February 15, 2006
The sad part is that if this guy has a breakdown and leaves his family over his homosexuality, his wife and his parents will blame "gay culture" and increased gay rights for his family's collapse, rather than blaming themselves and their opposition to gay rights that goaded him into entering a dishonest relationship in the first place.
posted by deanc at 1:02 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by deanc at 1:02 PM on February 15, 2006
Well, I've read most of the arguments for homosexuality as an evolutionary trait and I find them to be very weak. The honest answer is that none of these hypotheses are much better than pure speculation,
In fairness, that's what they're intended to be. Keep in mind that these arguments are made in response to the common argument based on a naive view of evolution, "if homosexuality were genetic, it would have been removed from the population by natural selection." The arguments about altruistic uncles and aunts are intended to show that it is theoretically possible for homosexuality to be genetic without being selected out of the population. I don't think anyone mistakes such thought experiments for evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:13 PM on February 15, 2006
In fairness, that's what they're intended to be. Keep in mind that these arguments are made in response to the common argument based on a naive view of evolution, "if homosexuality were genetic, it would have been removed from the population by natural selection." The arguments about altruistic uncles and aunts are intended to show that it is theoretically possible for homosexuality to be genetic without being selected out of the population. I don't think anyone mistakes such thought experiments for evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:13 PM on February 15, 2006
DevilsAdvocate: Well, I find the nature vs. nurture thing to be loaded with problems anyway.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:23 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:23 PM on February 15, 2006
Deanc, I can definitely see the cycle happening as you describe in your scenario, but I do not think these families should blame themselves--whether or not they support gay rights. I can only imagine how betrayed some ex-spouses must feel to have loved and perhaps devoted many years of their lives to someone who did not, and could not, love them back in kind. After the fallout these spouses/families may be too close to the fire to see the bigger picture that homophobia is what causes the shame that makes some gays fake heterosexuality.
I think the deceived wives/families are also the victims of our homophobic culture, and they deserve as much support as do gay people. When gays and lesbians are afforded the same dignity and civil rights as heteros, I think we will see stronger families, not weaker ones.
posted by applemeat at 1:28 PM on February 15, 2006
I think the deceived wives/families are also the victims of our homophobic culture, and they deserve as much support as do gay people. When gays and lesbians are afforded the same dignity and civil rights as heteros, I think we will see stronger families, not weaker ones.
posted by applemeat at 1:28 PM on February 15, 2006
Reading that Paul Cameron quote, all I can say is. . .wow, I've seen some closet-cases in my day, but. . .damn. "Homosexuality is too powerful to resist"? Damn!
posted by Ndwright at 1:35 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by Ndwright at 1:35 PM on February 15, 2006
So he's weak, cowardly, a liar and, it is implied, unfaithful. And this has put the poor lamb in an unhappy place? Boo fucking hoo.
Right, because anyone that doesn't see through society's bullshit is a poser, man! Didn't everyone go through life exactly like me, and have the exact same experiences?
posted by deadfather at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2006
Right, because anyone that doesn't see through society's bullshit is a poser, man! Didn't everyone go through life exactly like me, and have the exact same experiences?
posted by deadfather at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2006
Desire does not always trump belief.
Those of us that are married know that. At least those of us who stay faithful to our spouses. It is normal to be attracted occasionaly to those we are not married to, as hormones don't make wedding vows. Faithful people say no to that and turn that energy back into improving their marriage. Really good marriages can communicate that sort of stuff and be stronger for it.
Life is about more than orgasms. Having said that I can understand a man having a deep love for another man. I am saying that that love should not be sexual-just as a straight man should not be sexual with someone other than his spouse.
I think a bigger problem we have is not knowing how to handle deep love for someone without needing to bring our sexual bits into it.
And I like sex just as much as anyone. I simply keep that part of my life where it belongs-in my case, marriage. Before I married, but after I was converted to Christianity, I went back to celibacy, so I know for a fact a person won't die if he or she does not have sex.
posted by konolia at 1:45 PM on February 15, 2006
Those of us that are married know that. At least those of us who stay faithful to our spouses. It is normal to be attracted occasionaly to those we are not married to, as hormones don't make wedding vows. Faithful people say no to that and turn that energy back into improving their marriage. Really good marriages can communicate that sort of stuff and be stronger for it.
Life is about more than orgasms. Having said that I can understand a man having a deep love for another man. I am saying that that love should not be sexual-just as a straight man should not be sexual with someone other than his spouse.
I think a bigger problem we have is not knowing how to handle deep love for someone without needing to bring our sexual bits into it.
And I like sex just as much as anyone. I simply keep that part of my life where it belongs-in my case, marriage. Before I married, but after I was converted to Christianity, I went back to celibacy, so I know for a fact a person won't die if he or she does not have sex.
posted by konolia at 1:45 PM on February 15, 2006
"No, but you I might be able to recruit you to the homosexual agenda"
Yeah, I suppose there is already pressure from my team to recruit you guys - and therein lies the problem.
I seriously wonder how much guys like Ken Ervin are getting. I'm a little too busy having sex with my wife to put a lot of time and effort into that crap.
"...Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does..."
And I think that's the problem with those folks.
I couldn't look at another guy's hairy ass and think about lovin'. (no offense)
And I've always found lesbians driving me further into heterosexuality. I've had some threesomes. Y'know that opening scene in "Saturday Night Fever" where he's walking like he's the shit?
Did that for about a month and a half.
"When gays and lesbians are afforded the same dignity and civil rights as heteros, I think we will see stronger families, not weaker ones." - posted by applemeat
Seconded.
"...claim that they honestly believed they were "in love" with their spouses at the time..."
I can buy that. I have male friends that I honestly love with all my heart. They could not possibly, for example, steal from me because I'd give them the shirt of my back. And I get that back in return. One of my friends crawled - literally - out of a hospital bed to be there when I needed him.
I never found the need or had the desire to express that with physical intimacy though. But I understand where some folks are conflicted and sexually not as extremely aligned.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:48 PM on February 15, 2006
Yeah, I suppose there is already pressure from my team to recruit you guys - and therein lies the problem.
I seriously wonder how much guys like Ken Ervin are getting. I'm a little too busy having sex with my wife to put a lot of time and effort into that crap.
"...Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does..."
And I think that's the problem with those folks.
I couldn't look at another guy's hairy ass and think about lovin'. (no offense)
And I've always found lesbians driving me further into heterosexuality. I've had some threesomes. Y'know that opening scene in "Saturday Night Fever" where he's walking like he's the shit?
Did that for about a month and a half.
"When gays and lesbians are afforded the same dignity and civil rights as heteros, I think we will see stronger families, not weaker ones." - posted by applemeat
Seconded.
"...claim that they honestly believed they were "in love" with their spouses at the time..."
I can buy that. I have male friends that I honestly love with all my heart. They could not possibly, for example, steal from me because I'd give them the shirt of my back. And I get that back in return. One of my friends crawled - literally - out of a hospital bed to be there when I needed him.
I never found the need or had the desire to express that with physical intimacy though. But I understand where some folks are conflicted and sexually not as extremely aligned.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:48 PM on February 15, 2006
"Having said that I can understand a man having a deep love for another man. I am saying that that love should not be sexual."
Fuck off.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:49 PM on February 15, 2006
Fuck off.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:49 PM on February 15, 2006
Right, because anyone that doesn't see through society's bullshit is a poser, man! Didn't everyone go through life exactly like me, and have the exact same experiences?
Yes, it's society's fault he can't stand up for himself.
He may not have gotten married under the best circumstances. We all make mistakes.
He is now a grown man. His parents no longer own him. He should have come out when he realized he would be involving his children in the mess.
I mean, this has been going on for years. He has had every opportunity to do right by his family, but simply would rather not.
No doubt he tells himself that it's too late now, but the truth has a way of turning up. His family deserves to hear it from him.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:51 PM on February 15, 2006
Yes, it's society's fault he can't stand up for himself.
He may not have gotten married under the best circumstances. We all make mistakes.
He is now a grown man. His parents no longer own him. He should have come out when he realized he would be involving his children in the mess.
I mean, this has been going on for years. He has had every opportunity to do right by his family, but simply would rather not.
No doubt he tells himself that it's too late now, but the truth has a way of turning up. His family deserves to hear it from him.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:51 PM on February 15, 2006
konolia -- I'm married to a man. A priest married us, with all of our friends and family, including my late father, in attendance. We've been together for nearly 12 years. Am I allowed to make love with him, as you do your wife?
posted by digaman at 1:56 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by digaman at 1:56 PM on February 15, 2006
Konolia, are you aware of how ridiculously hypocritical that sounds?
So, the big problem we have is "knowing how to handle deep love for someone without needing to bring our sexual bits into it?"
So how did you manage to get around that problem?
Looks like you succumbed to it when you married your wife.
But that's different, you'll say. Hypocrite.
posted by applemeat at 1:56 PM on February 15, 2006
So, the big problem we have is "knowing how to handle deep love for someone without needing to bring our sexual bits into it?"
So how did you manage to get around that problem?
Looks like you succumbed to it when you married your wife.
But that's different, you'll say. Hypocrite.
posted by applemeat at 1:56 PM on February 15, 2006
"I am saying that that love should not be sexual."
I'm not going to be as harsh as Optimus Chyme here, but I haven't been attracted - outside of pure masterbatory fantasy - to anyone other than my wife, since some time before we got married.
Mebbe certain monogomy genes are dialed way way up in me. I don't know. But I wouldn't argue what's 'normal' is necessarially what's right.
By definition, if it's normal to be attracted to women other then your wife, then I'm not normal. Put me in the same classification as homosexuals.
'Cause it's certainly not morality that's stopping me. I've done some seriously kinky things with some seriously kinky women.
But if my wife suggested having a threesome I wouldn't be interested.
Perhaps at some point you reach a stage of sexual maturity where just sensation doesn't cut it and it's intimacy that is the only thing that can arouse you.
I don't know. But if someone felt the way I feel about my male friends (which is also the friendship/kinship I feel with my wife) - but also had the same need for intimacy I feel with my wife, there is no way in Hell I would ever deny anyone that kind of love.
This business with bringing an innocent into the situation aside of course.
And as I've pointed out - in some religions there is no internal conflict.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:05 PM on February 15, 2006
I'm not going to be as harsh as Optimus Chyme here, but I haven't been attracted - outside of pure masterbatory fantasy - to anyone other than my wife, since some time before we got married.
Mebbe certain monogomy genes are dialed way way up in me. I don't know. But I wouldn't argue what's 'normal' is necessarially what's right.
By definition, if it's normal to be attracted to women other then your wife, then I'm not normal. Put me in the same classification as homosexuals.
'Cause it's certainly not morality that's stopping me. I've done some seriously kinky things with some seriously kinky women.
But if my wife suggested having a threesome I wouldn't be interested.
Perhaps at some point you reach a stage of sexual maturity where just sensation doesn't cut it and it's intimacy that is the only thing that can arouse you.
I don't know. But if someone felt the way I feel about my male friends (which is also the friendship/kinship I feel with my wife) - but also had the same need for intimacy I feel with my wife, there is no way in Hell I would ever deny anyone that kind of love.
This business with bringing an innocent into the situation aside of course.
And as I've pointed out - in some religions there is no internal conflict.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:05 PM on February 15, 2006
I have male friends that I honestly love with all my heart. They could not possibly, for example, steal from me because I'd give them the shirt of my back. And I get that back in return. One of my friends crawled - literally - out of a hospital bed to be there when I needed him.
I never found the need or had the desire to express that with physical intimacy though. But I understand where some folks are conflicted and sexually not as extremely aligned.
But there is a huge difference between friend/family love and romantic love. I have friends of all genders whom I love. I am a lesbian and I have female friends who I love so much I would certainly climb out of a hospital bed to help them provided the need. Just because I love them and they happen to be the gender I am attracted to does not mean that my feelings could ever take a romantic turn. I have never felt the need to express my feelings toward them with physical intimacy because those are not the nature of my feelings. My spouse, however, I have a very different kind of love for, and no... it is not misplaced "best friend" feelings.
Love + confusion != homo.
posted by arcticwoman at 2:09 PM on February 15, 2006
I never found the need or had the desire to express that with physical intimacy though. But I understand where some folks are conflicted and sexually not as extremely aligned.
But there is a huge difference between friend/family love and romantic love. I have friends of all genders whom I love. I am a lesbian and I have female friends who I love so much I would certainly climb out of a hospital bed to help them provided the need. Just because I love them and they happen to be the gender I am attracted to does not mean that my feelings could ever take a romantic turn. I have never felt the need to express my feelings toward them with physical intimacy because those are not the nature of my feelings. My spouse, however, I have a very different kind of love for, and no... it is not misplaced "best friend" feelings.
Love + confusion != homo.
posted by arcticwoman at 2:09 PM on February 15, 2006
there is a huge difference between friend/family love and romantic love
There is a huge difference between friend/family love and the initial stages of lust, but I wouldn't say the love feelings are very different -- just the ways they're expressed. Your mileage may vary.
posted by digaman at 2:12 PM on February 15, 2006
There is a huge difference between friend/family love and the initial stages of lust, but I wouldn't say the love feelings are very different -- just the ways they're expressed. Your mileage may vary.
posted by digaman at 2:12 PM on February 15, 2006
-Confusion is a normal part of any honest person's life. People make mistakes. They try to be the people they're expected to be. Not everyone has the advantage of being exposed to progressive liberal culture. It takes a lifetime for some people to reach the point of self-acceptance luckier people achieve by puberty.
It pisses me off equally when I hear either smug progressives or righteous conservative dismissing men who marry for the wrong reasons as weak, selfish and cowardly. Why not apply the same standard to straight couples who marry impulsively when young and later regret it? What is the relevant difference?
posted by slatternus at 2:16 PM on February 15, 2006
It pisses me off equally when I hear either smug progressives or righteous conservative dismissing men who marry for the wrong reasons as weak, selfish and cowardly. Why not apply the same standard to straight couples who marry impulsively when young and later regret it? What is the relevant difference?
posted by slatternus at 2:16 PM on February 15, 2006
Sure but expressing your love toward your best friend the way you express it to your spouse would be pretty deeply wrong, oui? You just know what kind of expression is appropriate for your particular relationship and it would be pretty unlikely to get confused and creep up to whisper sweet nothings in your buddy's ear.
posted by arcticwoman at 2:19 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by arcticwoman at 2:19 PM on February 15, 2006
It's annoying that people extrapolate their unique sexual and/or romantic experiences into normative standards. If something works for you, that's great--ne're did the course of true love yadda yadda. But "you" ! = the rest of us. That's how you end up with things like this.
Ugh. It's insane that as an American I have to explain basic small-L liberal principles to anyone--do as you will as long as you do no harm. And stay the fuck out of my bedroom unless I invite you there.
posted by bardic at 2:20 PM on February 15, 2006
Ugh. It's insane that as an American I have to explain basic small-L liberal principles to anyone--do as you will as long as you do no harm. And stay the fuck out of my bedroom unless I invite you there.
posted by bardic at 2:20 PM on February 15, 2006
do as you will as long as you do no harm.
IMHO, this is a much more complicated proposition than most small-L liberals like to admit.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM on February 15, 2006
IMHO, this is a much more complicated proposition than most small-L liberals like to admit.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM on February 15, 2006
elpapacito said 'Easy prophecy indeed.'
I must've missed the part where he was outed, I'm calling him out on his closeted actions.
Right, because anyone that doesn't see through society's bullshit is a poser, man!
Huh? Don't see what that has to do with my comment. I didn't call him a poser, or anything close, and he has seen through society's bullshit, then chosen to go along with it so as not to upset his family (who, again, according to the author of the piece, seem the sort likely to come to terms with their son's sexuality.)
Really, what exactly do any of the defenders of this guy find honourable in his behaviour? It's don't lack sympathy for the position he found himself in, far from it; I lack sympathy for the way he's dealt with it by lying and cheating.
posted by jack_mo at 2:23 PM on February 15, 2006
I must've missed the part where he was outed, I'm calling him out on his closeted actions.
Right, because anyone that doesn't see through society's bullshit is a poser, man!
Huh? Don't see what that has to do with my comment. I didn't call him a poser, or anything close, and he has seen through society's bullshit, then chosen to go along with it so as not to upset his family (who, again, according to the author of the piece, seem the sort likely to come to terms with their son's sexuality.)
Really, what exactly do any of the defenders of this guy find honourable in his behaviour? It's don't lack sympathy for the position he found himself in, far from it; I lack sympathy for the way he's dealt with it by lying and cheating.
posted by jack_mo at 2:23 PM on February 15, 2006
IMHO, this is a much more complicated proposition than most small-L liberals like to admit.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM PST on February 15
How so?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:30 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM PST on February 15
How so?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:30 PM on February 15, 2006
JekPorkins, I'll take an abstract principle over the fiat of bigots any day.
posted by bardic at 2:31 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:31 PM on February 15, 2006
JekPorkins, I'll take an abstract principle over the fiat of bigots any day.
I wasn't aware that those were the only two options (or that they were mutually exclusive).
posted by JekPorkins at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2006
I wasn't aware that those were the only two options (or that they were mutually exclusive).
posted by JekPorkins at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2006
I happen to agree with Jek on that one, but just because something is complex doesn't mean that it's wrong.
posted by digaman at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by digaman at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2006
Again, I ask: how is this "more complicated," Jek? Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish so long as they harm no one else. This includes fucking and marriage.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:38 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:38 PM on February 15, 2006
Seatbelt laws are an area where the liberty principle's application can be dicey--if you don't have health insurance, then the State has to pay for you to be put back together, and hence there's an undue burden on tax payers.
But what Optimus is saying--when it comes to sex and marriage, do what you want in the privacy of your home with consenting adults. What's so complicated about that?
posted by bardic at 2:41 PM on February 15, 2006
But what Optimus is saying--when it comes to sex and marriage, do what you want in the privacy of your home with consenting adults. What's so complicated about that?
posted by bardic at 2:41 PM on February 15, 2006
What's so complicated about that?
People's feelings.
posted by digaman at 2:42 PM on February 15, 2006
People's feelings.
posted by digaman at 2:42 PM on February 15, 2006
Really? Call me cynical, but people's feeling's when it comes to romance and sex tend to be rather predictable--important, but predictable.
posted by bardic at 2:49 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:49 PM on February 15, 2006
Optimus, I have reason to believe that you're an intelligent enough person to understand that "so long as they ahrm no one else" is extraordinarily complex, and that even consensual and private conduct - indeed, even conduct that seemingly affects only the person engaging in the conduct - is often extremely harmful on many levels.
You and I have had civil, rational discussions. Nevertheless, you plainly now have some animus against me based, I suspect, on what you presume are my religious beliefs. I strongly suspect that a) you're assuming incorrectly regarding several of my beliefs, and b) you have some deep-seated personal animus against my particular religion, perhaps due to some personal experience with it that has nothing to do with me. I hope that's not the case, but it certainly seems that way -- I can't think of any other rational explanation for your hostility towards my (I think) rational and largely judgment-neutral posts.
And as to your assertion that "Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish so long as they harm no one else," again, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. The government should generally not interfere with people's private sexual conduct, within certain limitations, obviously. People should be free to do lots of things that I think they shouldn't do, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think they should do them.
For example, as to the guy in the article above, I think he should be free to cheat on his wife and to psychologically and emotionally scar his children by his conduct. I think the immoral and unethical nature of breaching a spouse's trust is self evident, but I think that a person should be free to make even immoral decisions sometimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:52 PM on February 15, 2006
You and I have had civil, rational discussions. Nevertheless, you plainly now have some animus against me based, I suspect, on what you presume are my religious beliefs. I strongly suspect that a) you're assuming incorrectly regarding several of my beliefs, and b) you have some deep-seated personal animus against my particular religion, perhaps due to some personal experience with it that has nothing to do with me. I hope that's not the case, but it certainly seems that way -- I can't think of any other rational explanation for your hostility towards my (I think) rational and largely judgment-neutral posts.
And as to your assertion that "Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish so long as they harm no one else," again, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. The government should generally not interfere with people's private sexual conduct, within certain limitations, obviously. People should be free to do lots of things that I think they shouldn't do, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think they should do them.
For example, as to the guy in the article above, I think he should be free to cheat on his wife and to psychologically and emotionally scar his children by his conduct. I think the immoral and unethical nature of breaching a spouse's trust is self evident, but I think that a person should be free to make even immoral decisions sometimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:52 PM on February 15, 2006
Wow, four paragraphs just to dodge a question. Impressive.
If societies were based on principles because of their simplicity JekPorkins, I suggest we'd all still be living in caves and having this discussion via smoke signal.
posted by bardic at 2:59 PM on February 15, 2006
If societies were based on principles because of their simplicity JekPorkins, I suggest we'd all still be living in caves and having this discussion via smoke signal.
posted by bardic at 2:59 PM on February 15, 2006
bardic, I'm glad you agree with me re: the complexity of the "harm no one" principle. Thank you. Oh, and I answered the question in the first paragraph (I guess you didn't notice).
I'm really perplexed by the people who consistently agree with me, but who act as though they don't (e.g. Optimus, bardic). What's up with that?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:09 PM on February 15, 2006
I'm really perplexed by the people who consistently agree with me, but who act as though they don't (e.g. Optimus, bardic). What's up with that?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:09 PM on February 15, 2006
Life is about more than orgasms. Having said that I can understand a man having a deep love for another man. I am saying that that love should not be sexual-just as a straight man should not be sexual with someone other than his spouse.
I wholly agree. Which is why I support gay marriage.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:19 PM on February 15, 2006
I wholly agree. Which is why I support gay marriage.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:19 PM on February 15, 2006
Some people are calling this guy "selfish."
I don't see it, myself.
He is denying himself in order to provide parenting to his children and a companion for his wife as best as he is able. That hardly seems selfish.
"Weak", I'll agree with: without the explicity permission of his spouse, he should not be having extramarital sex. That endangers her without her consent. Big no-no.
"Cowardly", I disagree. Too strong a term. He has made a decision regarding the value of his community versus his desires. We might think his fears foolish, but it is not unreasonable for him to conclude that outing himself is mutually exclusive with membership of that community. What makes his decision "cowardly" instead of "practical"?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:26 PM on February 15, 2006
I don't see it, myself.
He is denying himself in order to provide parenting to his children and a companion for his wife as best as he is able. That hardly seems selfish.
"Weak", I'll agree with: without the explicity permission of his spouse, he should not be having extramarital sex. That endangers her without her consent. Big no-no.
"Cowardly", I disagree. Too strong a term. He has made a decision regarding the value of his community versus his desires. We might think his fears foolish, but it is not unreasonable for him to conclude that outing himself is mutually exclusive with membership of that community. What makes his decision "cowardly" instead of "practical"?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:26 PM on February 15, 2006
And I like sex just as much as anyone. I simply keep that part of my life where it belongs-in my case, marriage. Before I married, but after I was converted to Christianity, I went back to celibacy, so I know for a fact a person won't die if he or she does not have sex.
Number 1. No, you don't like sex just as much as anyone: you only think you do. But there's nothing wrong with that.
Number 2. Good on you. Infidelity isn't about sex, it's about trust. Trust is hard to come by and easy to loose.
Number 3. A person won't die if he or she does not have sex, but it's so much like being dead, it's hard to tell the difference.
posted by three blind mice at 3:58 PM on February 15, 2006
Number 1. No, you don't like sex just as much as anyone: you only think you do. But there's nothing wrong with that.
Number 2. Good on you. Infidelity isn't about sex, it's about trust. Trust is hard to come by and easy to loose.
Number 3. A person won't die if he or she does not have sex, but it's so much like being dead, it's hard to tell the difference.
posted by three blind mice at 3:58 PM on February 15, 2006
Konalia: Life is about more than orgasms. Having said that I can understand a man having a deep love for another man. I am saying that that love should not be sexual-just as a straight man should not be sexual with someone other than his spouse.
And personally, I see no reason why if my love for a man is as deep as the love between any husband and wife, why I should not have sex.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:04 PM on February 15, 2006
And personally, I see no reason why if my love for a man is as deep as the love between any husband and wife, why I should not have sex.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:04 PM on February 15, 2006
five fresh fish: This man may certainly be denying himself--and perhaps you see that kind of suffering as ennobling (I don't) but the really messed up part of the problem as I see it is that he is also denying his wife. And she, by not knowing the truth about him, had no choice in the matter.
That is a huge, fundamental no-no. Don't you agree?
posted by applemeat at 4:12 PM on February 15, 2006
That is a huge, fundamental no-no. Don't you agree?
posted by applemeat at 4:12 PM on February 15, 2006
Jek, you asserted that the liberty principle is something held up by people who don't understand the complexity of it. I said that it's complex, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good idea qua complexity. Presumably, OC was asking you to provide some examples of how upholders of the liberty principle are somehow ignorant of its complexity. So this is a long way of saying no, you didn't answer his question.
posted by bardic at 4:21 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by bardic at 4:21 PM on February 15, 2006
Well, when you consider how staying in the closet poses some major risks to the long-term mental health of the people involved, I don't think that sticking with the marriage is free of harm either.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:34 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:34 PM on February 15, 2006
bardic, I didn't say that the liberty principle is something held up by people who don't understand the complexity of it. I asserted that "this is a much more complicated proposition than most small-L liberals like to admit." Not admitting something is quite different than being ignorant of it or not understanding it. So you can probably understand (but perhaps not admit) the logical reading of OC's question (which was, literally, how is the principle more complex than most acknowledge). But, since you pose the question of whether I can give examples of how upholders of the "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone" principle are somehow ignorant of its complexity, here are a couple of good ones:
when it comes to sex and marriage, do what you want in the privacy of your home with consenting adults.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship, as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
people's feeling's when it comes to romance and sex tend to be rather predictable--important, but predictable.
(I think the ignorance of this one is self-evident, and since you haven't asked for explanations of my examples, I'll leave it as simply an example)
And by the way, I'm an upholder of the liberty principle, though I'm neither ignorant of its complexity nor do I fail to acknowledge that complexity.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:34 PM on February 15, 2006
when it comes to sex and marriage, do what you want in the privacy of your home with consenting adults.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship, as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
people's feeling's when it comes to romance and sex tend to be rather predictable--important, but predictable.
(I think the ignorance of this one is self-evident, and since you haven't asked for explanations of my examples, I'll leave it as simply an example)
And by the way, I'm an upholder of the liberty principle, though I'm neither ignorant of its complexity nor do I fail to acknowledge that complexity.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:34 PM on February 15, 2006
Number 3. A person won't die if he or she does not have sex, but it's so much like being dead, it's hard to tell the difference.
I beg to differ. I'm quite happy without having sex. Some people are just fine without it. Your experience is not indicative of the whole of humanity, so quit with the generalizations, please.
Not all of us think with our gonads.
posted by beth at 4:52 PM on February 15, 2006
I beg to differ. I'm quite happy without having sex. Some people are just fine without it. Your experience is not indicative of the whole of humanity, so quit with the generalizations, please.
Not all of us think with our gonads.
posted by beth at 4:52 PM on February 15, 2006
Dan Savage asks Christians to put their money where their mouth in (as it were):
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?posted by dgaicun at 4:54 PM on February 15, 2006
Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.
the really messed up part of the problem as I see it is that he is also denying his wife. And she, by not knowing the truth about him, had no choice in the matter.
Agreed.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship, as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
Whu? Consensual? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:02 PM on February 15, 2006
Agreed.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship, as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
Whu? Consensual? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:02 PM on February 15, 2006
Jek, you're a strange fellow. Do you drive a car? Because there's a chance you might run someone over. Hence, no one should be allowed to drive, ever.
Anyways, do you think gays should be allowed to marry? If not, how does this jibe with your belief in the liberty principle?
posted by bardic at 5:06 PM on February 15, 2006
Anyways, do you think gays should be allowed to marry? If not, how does this jibe with your belief in the liberty principle?
posted by bardic at 5:06 PM on February 15, 2006
This just happened to a close friend of ours. Her husband - about a year to the day after the divorce - "came out." Which is surprising to no one but, unfortunately, her.
All her friends - we all - had our gaydar pegged for some time. The guy was gayer that Gay McGayerson from Gayville. Gayer than Tom Cruise, even. They had separated for a time a few years back - before having a kid and we all wish we had said something. What is the etiquette?
She is somewhat relieved by this news - but now filled with renewed anger. And I don't blame her. He had the opportunity to back-out before making them both miserable - and involving a child - for four more years. And before he also began cheating with men.
I don't understand his problem coming out sooner. There are a number of gay folk in our friendship group (who called it way early), his brother has been openly gay for years (who called it early), and nobody in his immediate peer or professional group would of have a problem.
Now people are a little pissed. Oh well. Sad all around. These days this sort of thing is a result of a character flaws rather than social pressures IMHO.
But if my wife suggested having a threesome I wouldn't be interested.
Ahem. So this wife. She hot?
just say'n
posted by tkchrist at 5:09 PM on February 15, 2006
All her friends - we all - had our gaydar pegged for some time. The guy was gayer that Gay McGayerson from Gayville. Gayer than Tom Cruise, even. They had separated for a time a few years back - before having a kid and we all wish we had said something. What is the etiquette?
She is somewhat relieved by this news - but now filled with renewed anger. And I don't blame her. He had the opportunity to back-out before making them both miserable - and involving a child - for four more years. And before he also began cheating with men.
I don't understand his problem coming out sooner. There are a number of gay folk in our friendship group (who called it way early), his brother has been openly gay for years (who called it early), and nobody in his immediate peer or professional group would of have a problem.
Now people are a little pissed. Oh well. Sad all around. These days this sort of thing is a result of a character flaws rather than social pressures IMHO.
But if my wife suggested having a threesome I wouldn't be interested.
Ahem. So this wife. She hot?
just say'n
posted by tkchrist at 5:09 PM on February 15, 2006
Not all of us think with our gonads.
No. Only 50% of us. And the other 49.999% think with those other ovaraythingywhatchmacallits that don't dangle so annoyingly in their shorts.
IOW: YOUR the freak. FURRRR-eeeek I tell you. Now let the rest of us go be frustrated horny, sexy generalizers.
posted by tkchrist at 5:16 PM on February 15, 2006
No. Only 50% of us. And the other 49.999% think with those other ovaraythingywhatchmacallits that don't dangle so annoyingly in their shorts.
IOW: YOUR the freak. FURRRR-eeeek I tell you. Now let the rest of us go be frustrated horny, sexy generalizers.
posted by tkchrist at 5:16 PM on February 15, 2006
Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
Whu? Consensual? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, I know what it means. But perhaps the nature of the concept of consent is part of the complexity of the "do no harm" principle. How broad is the category of persons whose consent needs to be obtained, and how informed need their consent be?
Anyways, do you think gays should be allowed to marry? If not, how does this jibe with your belief in the liberty principle?
Short answer: Yes. Want the long answer? Send me an email. I suspect that here, like elsewhere, you and I agree, but you're being willfully disagreeable (see, for example, your ridiculous car example above where you seem to be disagreeing with the liberty principle).
posted by JekPorkins at 5:27 PM on February 15, 2006
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
Whu? Consensual? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, I know what it means. But perhaps the nature of the concept of consent is part of the complexity of the "do no harm" principle. How broad is the category of persons whose consent needs to be obtained, and how informed need their consent be?
Anyways, do you think gays should be allowed to marry? If not, how does this jibe with your belief in the liberty principle?
Short answer: Yes. Want the long answer? Send me an email. I suspect that here, like elsewhere, you and I agree, but you're being willfully disagreeable (see, for example, your ridiculous car example above where you seem to be disagreeing with the liberty principle).
posted by JekPorkins at 5:27 PM on February 15, 2006
Jek, I think my car example is actually apropos, because I'm bringing up the important issue of risk analysis. Of course there are limits to the liberty principle--child porn? rape? People who do these things should be locked up. Should someone who breaks another's heart be locked up? Probably not. Honestly, if you were to push your peculiar conceptualization of "consent" to its limit, I guess we should outlaw all relationships, because people get hurt sometimes. Maybe we should ban procreation as well--babies cry an awful lot.
As far as email, no thank you. I'm content to stand or fall by what I type here in the blue (not so much the gray--that place brings out the crazy in me). It's a shame you're not willing to do the same.
posted by bardic at 5:37 PM on February 15, 2006
As far as email, no thank you. I'm content to stand or fall by what I type here in the blue (not so much the gray--that place brings out the crazy in me). It's a shame you're not willing to do the same.
posted by bardic at 5:37 PM on February 15, 2006
Honestly, if you were to push your peculiar conceptualization of "consent" to its limit, I guess we should outlaw all relationships, because people get hurt sometimes.
Yes, I believe the logical fallacy you're applying there is called reductio ad absurdum. The best part is that you're applying it to something that you probably agree with. Why would you do that? Why don't you just agree?
As far as email, no thank you. I'm content to stand or fall by what I type here in the blue (not so much the gray--that place brings out the crazy in me). It's a shame you're not willing to do the same.
Well, I was going to spare the blue my long answer, but gosh, I'm really ashamed now, so here's a slightly longer version:
1: What I think "should" happen and what I think the U.S. constitution requires aren't necessarily the same thing, but since you said "should," my answer ("yes") refers to what I think "should" happen.
2: My answer ("yes") assumes that by "do you think gays should be allowed to marry," you meant "do you think that same sex couples should be afforded the same privileges and penalties as opposite sex couples and allowed to enter into the same marriage agreement with the government as them?" The answer to that question is yes.
3: As to the constitutional question that you didn't ask, I think that SCOTUS' statement that there is a fundamental right to marriage has a fundamental problem, due to the fact that SCOTUS has never said what "marriage" is. I think that government recognition of marriage is probably unconstitutional per se, regardless of whether the persons being married are straight.
4: I wonder what the definition of the term "marry" or "marriage" really is, in a legal sense. I'd really like to see a workable definition of "marriage" that doesn't include the presence of both male and female parties to it, that doesn't necessarily involve the government, and that is distinguishable from any other type of legal contract.
Once again, I don't think you and I disagree, and I'm perplexed that you try so hard to pretend that we do.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:01 PM on February 15, 2006
Yes, I believe the logical fallacy you're applying there is called reductio ad absurdum. The best part is that you're applying it to something that you probably agree with. Why would you do that? Why don't you just agree?
As far as email, no thank you. I'm content to stand or fall by what I type here in the blue (not so much the gray--that place brings out the crazy in me). It's a shame you're not willing to do the same.
Well, I was going to spare the blue my long answer, but gosh, I'm really ashamed now, so here's a slightly longer version:
1: What I think "should" happen and what I think the U.S. constitution requires aren't necessarily the same thing, but since you said "should," my answer ("yes") refers to what I think "should" happen.
2: My answer ("yes") assumes that by "do you think gays should be allowed to marry," you meant "do you think that same sex couples should be afforded the same privileges and penalties as opposite sex couples and allowed to enter into the same marriage agreement with the government as them?" The answer to that question is yes.
3: As to the constitutional question that you didn't ask, I think that SCOTUS' statement that there is a fundamental right to marriage has a fundamental problem, due to the fact that SCOTUS has never said what "marriage" is. I think that government recognition of marriage is probably unconstitutional per se, regardless of whether the persons being married are straight.
4: I wonder what the definition of the term "marry" or "marriage" really is, in a legal sense. I'd really like to see a workable definition of "marriage" that doesn't include the presence of both male and female parties to it, that doesn't necessarily involve the government, and that is distinguishable from any other type of legal contract.
Once again, I don't think you and I disagree, and I'm perplexed that you try so hard to pretend that we do.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:01 PM on February 15, 2006
Yes, no one can change their sexual orientation-without a miracle. I'm saying that God can provide that. But if a person isn't interested, He won't.
I know a self-identified gay man who is a Christian who has made the choice to stay celibate and to walk in purity. He firmly believes that homosexual acts are sin. At some point God could very well change his orientation (altho being hiv positive I don't think he is worried about that at this point.) My belief is that God will and is honoring his choice to obey God even when his natural feelings are what they are. He and I have had some pretty long conversations and I have much admiration for him. At the same time I doubt very much he would go into a marriage (if the HIV weren't an issue) simply because it wouldn't be fair to the woman.
I know many of you simply see this as a discrimination problem. Heaven knows that I love my gay friends just as much as my straight ones. But I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church. We humans have gotten sex so mixed up...all I can say is I've done things my way and I've done things His way and His way is much better.
posted by konolia at 6:39 PM on February 15, 2006
I know a self-identified gay man who is a Christian who has made the choice to stay celibate and to walk in purity. He firmly believes that homosexual acts are sin. At some point God could very well change his orientation (altho being hiv positive I don't think he is worried about that at this point.) My belief is that God will and is honoring his choice to obey God even when his natural feelings are what they are. He and I have had some pretty long conversations and I have much admiration for him. At the same time I doubt very much he would go into a marriage (if the HIV weren't an issue) simply because it wouldn't be fair to the woman.
I know many of you simply see this as a discrimination problem. Heaven knows that I love my gay friends just as much as my straight ones. But I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church. We humans have gotten sex so mixed up...all I can say is I've done things my way and I've done things His way and His way is much better.
posted by konolia at 6:39 PM on February 15, 2006
I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
But konolia, don't you get it? I don't give a damn what your God thinks or wants. I don't need his approval, so I certainly don't need anyone else's.
posted by slatternus at 6:48 PM on February 15, 2006
But konolia, don't you get it? I don't give a damn what your God thinks or wants. I don't need his approval, so I certainly don't need anyone else's.
posted by slatternus at 6:48 PM on February 15, 2006
Was konolia's kind of bullshit present during the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s? It's very disheartening and will be quite an accomplishment when it's finally overcome.
posted by mullacc at 6:51 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by mullacc at 6:51 PM on February 15, 2006
But I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? When did God write the rule book? When did Christ? Humans - awful, dirty, little humans - wrote all them words. And then all them words were changed. And changed again. Paul didn't like getting freaky so none of us are supposed to, either. How can anyone argue with such blathering idiocy when the response is that God has explicitly said something, or demanded something? Human beings - fallible little sadists that we are - wrote all those things that you believe God is telling you.
"I'm not going to argue with God." Good for you. How about we make a deal - I won't argue with God, either. Because if I argue with God, you know what's going to happen? All those things I secretly, subconsciously want "Him" to tell me, He will.
posted by billysumday at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? When did God write the rule book? When did Christ? Humans - awful, dirty, little humans - wrote all them words. And then all them words were changed. And changed again. Paul didn't like getting freaky so none of us are supposed to, either. How can anyone argue with such blathering idiocy when the response is that God has explicitly said something, or demanded something? Human beings - fallible little sadists that we are - wrote all those things that you believe God is telling you.
"I'm not going to argue with God." Good for you. How about we make a deal - I won't argue with God, either. Because if I argue with God, you know what's going to happen? All those things I secretly, subconsciously want "Him" to tell me, He will.
posted by billysumday at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
You and I have had civil, rational discussions. Nevertheless, you plainly now have some animus against me based, I suspect, on what you presume are my religious beliefs.
Well, to be honest, I think you're a stand-up guy, smart and civil, but I also think that even when we agree we come to those conclusions based on extraordinarily different reasoning. That's fine. But often you don't explain that reasoning, merely making a broad statement like "it's more complex etc etc" without explaining why, exactly.
The government should generally not interfere with people's private sexual conduct, within certain limitations, obviously.
See? Right there. You say "within certain limitations, obviously." What are those obvious limitations? Certainly one can't consent to, say, being murdered as part of some bizarre sex ritual, but anything else is none of my goddamn business, nor the government's, nor yours, nor konolia's. I understand that you agree with the idea that all people should have the freedom to marry, and that's good to hear. But you have to be clear with us when you make statements like the above.
For example, as to the guy in the article above, I think he should be free to cheat on his wife and to psychologically and emotionally scar his children by his conduct. I think the immoral and unethical nature of breaching a spouse's trust is self evident, but I think that a person should be free to make even immoral decisions sometimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:52 PM PST on February 15
This is a totally different thing from the freedom to marry. Sure, I guess one should be free to cheat on one's spouse, and I don't think it should be a criminal offense, but it does make that person a grade-A asshole. It also has nothing to do with barbaric, retarded legal restrictions on the status of monogamous homosexuals who should be free to date and marry whomever they wish.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship,
How in the fuck can one outside of a consentual relationship be harmed by it?
as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
That's why we have laws against murder, cannibalism, or other explicitly dangerous activities to which one cannot truly consent.
Yes, no one can change their sexual orientation-without a miracle. I'm saying that God can provide that. But if a person isn't interested, He won't.
Don't presume to know the mind of God, konolia. I'm not interested in heresy.
I know a self-identified gay man who is a Christian who has made the choice to stay celibate and to walk in purity.
Super.
He firmly believes that homosexual acts are sin. At some point God could very well change his orientation
He could also turn an acorn into a philosopher. Both of those incidents are equally common.
I know many of you simply see this as a discrimination problem.
Maybe because you support laws prohibiting the union of homosexuals. People who want nothing more than a recognition of their love, to whom you say: "no, sorry, your marriage would be against my religion."
Heaven knows that I love my gay friends just as much as my straight ones.
But heaven forbid they be treated as equals.
But I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
It's true. No one got married before the birth of Christ.
We humans have gotten sex so mixed up...all I can say is I've done things my way and I've done things His way and His way is much better.
My all-powerful deity inspired me: I'm thinking about proposing a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage for overweight busybodies more concerned with what the gays do than all that boring love thy neighbor shit. Write your congressman.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:20 PM on February 15, 2006
Well, to be honest, I think you're a stand-up guy, smart and civil, but I also think that even when we agree we come to those conclusions based on extraordinarily different reasoning. That's fine. But often you don't explain that reasoning, merely making a broad statement like "it's more complex etc etc" without explaining why, exactly.
The government should generally not interfere with people's private sexual conduct, within certain limitations, obviously.
See? Right there. You say "within certain limitations, obviously." What are those obvious limitations? Certainly one can't consent to, say, being murdered as part of some bizarre sex ritual, but anything else is none of my goddamn business, nor the government's, nor yours, nor konolia's. I understand that you agree with the idea that all people should have the freedom to marry, and that's good to hear. But you have to be clear with us when you make statements like the above.
For example, as to the guy in the article above, I think he should be free to cheat on his wife and to psychologically and emotionally scar his children by his conduct. I think the immoral and unethical nature of breaching a spouse's trust is self evident, but I think that a person should be free to make even immoral decisions sometimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:52 PM PST on February 15
This is a totally different thing from the freedom to marry. Sure, I guess one should be free to cheat on one's spouse, and I don't think it should be a criminal offense, but it does make that person a grade-A asshole. It also has nothing to do with barbaric, retarded legal restrictions on the status of monogamous homosexuals who should be free to date and marry whomever they wish.
(apparently ignores possible to harm to those outside of the consensual relationship,
How in the fuck can one outside of a consentual relationship be harmed by it?
as well as harm to those who may knowingly or unknowingly consent to harmful conduct)
That's why we have laws against murder, cannibalism, or other explicitly dangerous activities to which one cannot truly consent.
Yes, no one can change their sexual orientation-without a miracle. I'm saying that God can provide that. But if a person isn't interested, He won't.
Don't presume to know the mind of God, konolia. I'm not interested in heresy.
I know a self-identified gay man who is a Christian who has made the choice to stay celibate and to walk in purity.
Super.
He firmly believes that homosexual acts are sin. At some point God could very well change his orientation
He could also turn an acorn into a philosopher. Both of those incidents are equally common.
I know many of you simply see this as a discrimination problem.
Maybe because you support laws prohibiting the union of homosexuals. People who want nothing more than a recognition of their love, to whom you say: "no, sorry, your marriage would be against my religion."
Heaven knows that I love my gay friends just as much as my straight ones.
But heaven forbid they be treated as equals.
But I am not going to argue with God. He is the one who has instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
It's true. No one got married before the birth of Christ.
We humans have gotten sex so mixed up...all I can say is I've done things my way and I've done things His way and His way is much better.
My all-powerful deity inspired me: I'm thinking about proposing a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage for overweight busybodies more concerned with what the gays do than all that boring love thy neighbor shit. Write your congressman.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:20 PM on February 15, 2006
What a fine God you have, K!
First he gives us humans a rare gift: the ability to have sex any time, and with the greatest of pleasure, requiring not that the female of the species be "in heat" at the time, nor that pregnancy be the inevitable outcome given the startlingly high non-implantation/miscarriage rates.
Then he gives us Love. That irrational, uncontrollable, bursting-with-hope-and-happiness emotional experience of giving oneself over to another. Of sharing all intimacies, of supporting one another, of learning and growing as a couple, of giving freely and unconditionally of one another.
Then he makes a good number of us humans homosexual. And these poor sods feels the same qualities of Love as those of us who are heterosexual. The same quality of Love that would lead almost all us sinners into marrying and engaging in healthy sex.
Except that your God, He forbids that these lover share that rare gift with one another. Let's them have everything else, but denies them the sex.
I know, I know: the old bastard is ineffable. One is just supposed to take it on faith that we aren't supposed to "get it."
On the other hand, you could be horrendously mistaken.
I'm laying odds on the latter.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 PM on February 15, 2006
First he gives us humans a rare gift: the ability to have sex any time, and with the greatest of pleasure, requiring not that the female of the species be "in heat" at the time, nor that pregnancy be the inevitable outcome given the startlingly high non-implantation/miscarriage rates.
Then he gives us Love. That irrational, uncontrollable, bursting-with-hope-and-happiness emotional experience of giving oneself over to another. Of sharing all intimacies, of supporting one another, of learning and growing as a couple, of giving freely and unconditionally of one another.
Then he makes a good number of us humans homosexual. And these poor sods feels the same qualities of Love as those of us who are heterosexual. The same quality of Love that would lead almost all us sinners into marrying and engaging in healthy sex.
Except that your God, He forbids that these lover share that rare gift with one another. Let's them have everything else, but denies them the sex.
I know, I know: the old bastard is ineffable. One is just supposed to take it on faith that we aren't supposed to "get it."
On the other hand, you could be horrendously mistaken.
I'm laying odds on the latter.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 PM on February 15, 2006
So, anyway, let's assume for a second that konolia's god is the real deal - the all powerful one who created life the universe and all things great and small in six days, with a Sunday breather.
Well, so what? Ooooooh he created the universe. Big fucking deal. What, am I supposed to take his moral judgements seriously just because he's all powerful? I don't exactly get how that entitles him to tell me or anyone else who or how I should love, or how I should live my life. Why? What gives him the right?
posted by slatternus at 8:08 PM on February 15, 2006
Well, so what? Ooooooh he created the universe. Big fucking deal. What, am I supposed to take his moral judgements seriously just because he's all powerful? I don't exactly get how that entitles him to tell me or anyone else who or how I should love, or how I should live my life. Why? What gives him the right?
posted by slatternus at 8:08 PM on February 15, 2006
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
What, that they aren't sexually attracted to women? I agree, I'm sick of hurtful stereotypes, like that black people have darker skin, or that just because some people are fat, that they also have to weigh more. Dan Savage and his anti-gay propaganda have to go.
posted by dgaicun at 8:15 PM on February 15, 2006
What, that they aren't sexually attracted to women? I agree, I'm sick of hurtful stereotypes, like that black people have darker skin, or that just because some people are fat, that they also have to weigh more. Dan Savage and his anti-gay propaganda have to go.
posted by dgaicun at 8:15 PM on February 15, 2006
Why do people pay any attention to konolia at all, much less try to "argue" with her? It is not possible to have a debate with someone whose only substantive premise is "faith" in a divine authority. All the further premises simply assume themselves - and that's the end of the reasoning chain. You might as well try to argue with the guy at the bus stop who has some sort of theory involving the Kennedy assassination, Eskimos and a certain lovable blue dog called Foofur. How do you even oppose or affirm gibberish?
posted by dgaicun at 8:34 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by dgaicun at 8:34 PM on February 15, 2006
I'm not sexually attracted to women, and I never have been in my life. And I like women just fine. So there. 100% gay. There really is such a thing, and it's not impolitic to suggest it.
posted by slatternus at 8:36 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by slatternus at 8:36 PM on February 15, 2006
What, am I supposed to take his moral judgements seriously just because he's all powerful?
Which moral judgments? The ones written, enforced, and propogated by man? You show me where God has told me how to live - undiluted by the ministrations of man - and I'll do it.
posted by billysumday at 8:37 PM on February 15, 2006
Which moral judgments? The ones written, enforced, and propogated by man? You show me where God has told me how to live - undiluted by the ministrations of man - and I'll do it.
posted by billysumday at 8:37 PM on February 15, 2006
whose only substantive premise is "faith" in a divine authority
Correction: faith in what a (pr|t)eacher in a local college has said.
Hey, K, exactly what accreditation are you going for? Is there going to be a doctorate from a respected university in your future? Or is this something internal to your church?
As for why respond: because I care. Konolia has charmed me over the years, and my sincere wish is that she find a more encompassing, loving faith during her journey. I think with that in hand, she would have a much greater ability to make an enormous positive difference in this world.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 PM on February 15, 2006
Correction: faith in what a (pr|t)eacher in a local college has said.
Hey, K, exactly what accreditation are you going for? Is there going to be a doctorate from a respected university in your future? Or is this something internal to your church?
As for why respond: because I care. Konolia has charmed me over the years, and my sincere wish is that she find a more encompassing, loving faith during her journey. I think with that in hand, she would have a much greater ability to make an enormous positive difference in this world.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 PM on February 15, 2006
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
What, that they aren't sexually attracted to women? I agree, I'm sick of hurtful stereotypes, like that black people have darker skin, or that just because some people are fat, that they also have to weigh more. Dan Savage and his anti-gay propaganda have to go.
No, the assumption that all gay men look at gay porn on the internet. That's the assumption I was referring to.
How in the fuck can one outside of a consentual relationship be harmed by it?
Well, Optimus, a good example of this would be when a married man has a consensual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife, and his wife is hurt because of it.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:29 PM on February 15, 2006
What, that they aren't sexually attracted to women? I agree, I'm sick of hurtful stereotypes, like that black people have darker skin, or that just because some people are fat, that they also have to weigh more. Dan Savage and his anti-gay propaganda have to go.
No, the assumption that all gay men look at gay porn on the internet. That's the assumption I was referring to.
How in the fuck can one outside of a consentual relationship be harmed by it?
Well, Optimus, a good example of this would be when a married man has a consensual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife, and his wife is hurt because of it.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:29 PM on February 15, 2006
Why would you generalize the unique subset 'gay men that are married to women' to all gay men, and then condemn your own over-generalization?
posted by dgaicun at 9:52 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by dgaicun at 9:52 PM on February 15, 2006
i'm sorry, dgaicun. Are you saying that all gay men who are married to women look at gay internet porn? that's an equally crappy assumption. are you sure the distinction really makes the assertion any more likely to be true? i don't.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:46 PM on February 15, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 10:46 PM on February 15, 2006
JekPorkins: Your latest example fails to contribute to moving the discussion forward.
You have not adequately spelled out the details of your hypothetical. But I'll play the same game you do: it's called "let's assume."
Presumably, you are describing a situation where the husband made marriage vows to the effect that she would be his one and only. Presumably, you speak of a situation in which he is cheating on her behind her back.
Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation. The wife is both not informed and not providing consent: she has not agreed to this change in their vows.
Rather than assuming that you understand what all this talk of informed adult consent is about, please take the time to read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It'll bring you up to speed and will likely provide you with a much better framework upon which to hang your socio-political opinions.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:55 PM on February 15, 2006
You have not adequately spelled out the details of your hypothetical. But I'll play the same game you do: it's called "let's assume."
Presumably, you are describing a situation where the husband made marriage vows to the effect that she would be his one and only. Presumably, you speak of a situation in which he is cheating on her behind her back.
Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation. The wife is both not informed and not providing consent: she has not agreed to this change in their vows.
Rather than assuming that you understand what all this talk of informed adult consent is about, please take the time to read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It'll bring you up to speed and will likely provide you with a much better framework upon which to hang your socio-political opinions.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:55 PM on February 15, 2006
JekPorkin: Your latest pedantic trick fails to contribute to moving the discussion forward.
"Are you saying that all gay men who are married to women look at gay internet porn?"
First of all, dgaicun was quoting Dan Savage. If you really have a beef with Dan's generalization, it would be appropriate to take it up with him, not with dgaicun.
But it appears you're playing the "let's assume" game again. As in, "let's assume that dgaicun agrees with a literal interpretation of what Dan Savage wrote."
I suggest that your assumption is unkind, and rather ironic given that you were the one whinging about "Once again, I don't think you and I disagree, and I'm perplexed that you try so hard to pretend that we do." Fact is, you aren't disagreeing, you're merely engaging in pedantry and gainsaying.
I suggest we can give dgaicun the benefit of the doubt here: it is highly unlikely that he intends to indicate that he believes that literally every gay man looks at gay porn.
A more charitable understanding would grant that it is highly probable that he is using shorthand to convey a more important point: namely, that a gay man in a straight marriage is likely to be caught-out through a careless slip. When addressing a web-savvy population, that the slip might be an unpurged browsing history is not inappropriate; it might also be cell phone records, unexplained expenses, or a pair of boxers wedged in the front seat.
Anyway, point of all this is to tell you to stop it. It is rapidly becoming unpleasant to see your name in a thread. You need to quit trying to pick fights, and start trying to understand those whose ideas you find challenging.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 PM on February 15, 2006
"Are you saying that all gay men who are married to women look at gay internet porn?"
First of all, dgaicun was quoting Dan Savage. If you really have a beef with Dan's generalization, it would be appropriate to take it up with him, not with dgaicun.
But it appears you're playing the "let's assume" game again. As in, "let's assume that dgaicun agrees with a literal interpretation of what Dan Savage wrote."
I suggest that your assumption is unkind, and rather ironic given that you were the one whinging about "Once again, I don't think you and I disagree, and I'm perplexed that you try so hard to pretend that we do." Fact is, you aren't disagreeing, you're merely engaging in pedantry and gainsaying.
I suggest we can give dgaicun the benefit of the doubt here: it is highly unlikely that he intends to indicate that he believes that literally every gay man looks at gay porn.
A more charitable understanding would grant that it is highly probable that he is using shorthand to convey a more important point: namely, that a gay man in a straight marriage is likely to be caught-out through a careless slip. When addressing a web-savvy population, that the slip might be an unpurged browsing history is not inappropriate; it might also be cell phone records, unexplained expenses, or a pair of boxers wedged in the front seat.
Anyway, point of all this is to tell you to stop it. It is rapidly becoming unpleasant to see your name in a thread. You need to quit trying to pick fights, and start trying to understand those whose ideas you find challenging.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 PM on February 15, 2006
When did God write the rule book
When He created the universe. And by the way, He is the one who created sex. He is the one who came up with the idea of orgasms in the first place. And not just for procreation either.
Oh, and if you concede that there may be an Almighty God who created all things-an all powerful omnipotent omnicient Being-isn't it the height of foolishness to piss Him off? Just sayin'.
Oh, and my certificate is going to be in worship leading, if anyone cares. But I take the same theology classes as the guys who are going for a Bachelor of Divinity.
It is not news to God or to any serious Christian that the Christian life is impossible to lead...in one's own strength. We were never meant to do it ourselves. That's the whole point of the Book. Do we love God with our whole heart, mind and strength or do we love our own pleasures more? We have a choice.
The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't. That is the crux of the matter with homosexuality, abortion, and tons of other controversial topics. We humans think we can live our lives as we see fit...we are wise in our own eyes and utter fools in reality. THAT is the human condition.
posted by konolia at 5:52 AM on February 16, 2006
When He created the universe. And by the way, He is the one who created sex. He is the one who came up with the idea of orgasms in the first place. And not just for procreation either.
Oh, and if you concede that there may be an Almighty God who created all things-an all powerful omnipotent omnicient Being-isn't it the height of foolishness to piss Him off? Just sayin'.
Oh, and my certificate is going to be in worship leading, if anyone cares. But I take the same theology classes as the guys who are going for a Bachelor of Divinity.
It is not news to God or to any serious Christian that the Christian life is impossible to lead...in one's own strength. We were never meant to do it ourselves. That's the whole point of the Book. Do we love God with our whole heart, mind and strength or do we love our own pleasures more? We have a choice.
The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't. That is the crux of the matter with homosexuality, abortion, and tons of other controversial topics. We humans think we can live our lives as we see fit...we are wise in our own eyes and utter fools in reality. THAT is the human condition.
posted by konolia at 5:52 AM on February 16, 2006
The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't.
I'd say it rather boils down to whether every letter of the English-translated 66-book Bible is the pure, complete, and unadulterated word of God or not.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:36 AM on February 16, 2006
I'd say it rather boils down to whether every letter of the English-translated 66-book Bible is the pure, complete, and unadulterated word of God or not.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:36 AM on February 16, 2006
Aces, another konolia reply in which she is unwilling or unable to refute the earlier arguments posed to her.
Oh, and if you concede that there may be an Almighty God who created all things-an all powerful omnipotent omnicient Being-isn't it the height of foolishness to piss Him off? Just sayin'.
And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!
The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't. That is the crux of the matter with homosexuality, abortion, and tons of other controversial topics.
No, what it boils down to is not whether or not he is "boss" or even whether or not he exists. What is boils down to is this: should the tenets of your barbaric death cult serve as the foundation of the laws of the United States or that of any other country? Answer: no. I understand that the modern suburban Christian has forgotten the orders to give to the poor and to love one's neighbor, and that their new mission - not laid down by any god but by their leaders on earth - is to ensure that the lives of others, Christian or not, are ruled by the insane fiats written down by a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders.
This is a big country, filled with Christians and Jews and Muslims, atheists and agnostics, Hindus, pagans, voodoo priests. Every one of these people has the right to worship as they fit so long as no one is harmed by that worship. No one will take your bible away. No homosexuals are going door-to-door trying to fuck your husband. No atheists are trying to prevent whatever disgusting, depressing acts take place in your bedroom. Be a doll and butt out of our lives.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:58 AM on February 16, 2006
Oh, and if you concede that there may be an Almighty God who created all things-an all powerful omnipotent omnicient Being-isn't it the height of foolishness to piss Him off? Just sayin'.
And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!
The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't. That is the crux of the matter with homosexuality, abortion, and tons of other controversial topics.
No, what it boils down to is not whether or not he is "boss" or even whether or not he exists. What is boils down to is this: should the tenets of your barbaric death cult serve as the foundation of the laws of the United States or that of any other country? Answer: no. I understand that the modern suburban Christian has forgotten the orders to give to the poor and to love one's neighbor, and that their new mission - not laid down by any god but by their leaders on earth - is to ensure that the lives of others, Christian or not, are ruled by the insane fiats written down by a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders.
This is a big country, filled with Christians and Jews and Muslims, atheists and agnostics, Hindus, pagans, voodoo priests. Every one of these people has the right to worship as they fit so long as no one is harmed by that worship. No one will take your bible away. No homosexuals are going door-to-door trying to fuck your husband. No atheists are trying to prevent whatever disgusting, depressing acts take place in your bedroom. Be a doll and butt out of our lives.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:58 AM on February 16, 2006
When did God write the rule book
When He created the universe.
I'm doing that thing where I take my hand and sort of swipe it over my head and then go "woosh".
posted by billysumday at 7:16 AM on February 16, 2006
When He created the universe.
I'm doing that thing where I take my hand and sort of swipe it over my head and then go "woosh".
posted by billysumday at 7:16 AM on February 16, 2006
five fresh fish: you're not reading what i've written, and you're assuming that you and I disagree, which we don't. Stop picking fights with me and asking me to re-explain what I've already written, especially when what I've written agrees with you.
And i wasn't disagreeing with dgaicun, I was taking issue with the statement that was quoted. Again please actually read, rather than assuming that I disagree with you and preparing counterattacks without noticing that I agree with your position.
It'll bring you up to speed and will likely provide you with a much better framework upon which to hang your socio-political opinions.
Yeah, my socio-political opinions which are actually almost exactly the same as yours, but that you are attacking anyway. Did you miss my statements about the ambiguous breadth of the consent principle? WTF?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:01 AM on February 16, 2006
And i wasn't disagreeing with dgaicun, I was taking issue with the statement that was quoted. Again please actually read, rather than assuming that I disagree with you and preparing counterattacks without noticing that I agree with your position.
It'll bring you up to speed and will likely provide you with a much better framework upon which to hang your socio-political opinions.
Yeah, my socio-political opinions which are actually almost exactly the same as yours, but that you are attacking anyway. Did you miss my statements about the ambiguous breadth of the consent principle? WTF?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:01 AM on February 16, 2006
Oh, and if you concede that there may be an Almighty God who created all things-an all powerful omnipotent omniscient Being-isn't it the height of foolishness to piss Him off? Just sayin'.
So Konolia, what makes you so sure that you're NOT pissing off an omnipotent creator? Maybe an omniscient being created our superior human brains for us to use for thinking and considering the world around us critically and creatively. ...And maybe that god is furious as hell at evangelical fundamentalists (of all stripes) who forsake this amazing gift by clinging to ancient superstitions, shunning the science that is staring them in the face, and perpetuating the brutality against logic (or against other humans, as the case may be) that seems akin to your brand of "'cuz the bible sez so!" fundamentalism. Just sayin'.
And I second the others here who request that you try to answer a question without citing your bible. One, because you appear to have ample intelligence to express yourself effectively, and two, because your bible is utterly irrelevant to this secular discussion about gays in society.
posted by applemeat at 8:04 AM on February 16, 2006
So Konolia, what makes you so sure that you're NOT pissing off an omnipotent creator? Maybe an omniscient being created our superior human brains for us to use for thinking and considering the world around us critically and creatively. ...And maybe that god is furious as hell at evangelical fundamentalists (of all stripes) who forsake this amazing gift by clinging to ancient superstitions, shunning the science that is staring them in the face, and perpetuating the brutality against logic (or against other humans, as the case may be) that seems akin to your brand of "'cuz the bible sez so!" fundamentalism. Just sayin'.
And I second the others here who request that you try to answer a question without citing your bible. One, because you appear to have ample intelligence to express yourself effectively, and two, because your bible is utterly irrelevant to this secular discussion about gays in society.
posted by applemeat at 8:04 AM on February 16, 2006
i know it's supposedly important to respect other people's opinions, but sometimes these opinions are just so damn stupid that it's really hard to show even a modicum of respect towards them.
all this shit about god and 'his' grand plan and one person being privy to it, is just that - shit. no one knows if there is a god or not, and everyone's god - if he or she exists - is different for that person. way to go to use him or her to support moronic opinions and oppress other people.
this situation in the story is not complicated. this gay man got married to a straight woman. he did not tell her that he is gay, so he is a big fat liar. apparently he married her, because even in this day and age, and living in a free country, he felt that he could not be himself. just because he's married to her, and perhaps even loves her in some way, does not make him bisexual, let alone straight.
being truly a bisexual person and married to someone of the opposite gender is a whole other issue, whether or not that person knows the truth. at least the bisexual person is capable of enjoying themselves because they really do feel a genuine attractation to their opposite-sex partner, and aren't there out of some self-loathing self-hatred situation.
sexual orientation is unchangeable. it's pretty much carved in stone. you are who you are. however, you can change your behaviour, even if you would really rather not, and even if it causes you great emotional and mental pain. he's not happy, and most people who lie to themselves - about anything, let alone sexual orientation - are not happy.
he's pathetic and weak, and a huge liar. if he really wants to know how horrible it can be to be gay, he should try living in Iran where they flog you a few thousand times before hanging you from a crane on the street corner, including if you are a teenager, and if you are female, making sure the guards gang rape you before your state sanctioned murder. that's significantly worse than having your family express disapproval. and guess what? the people carrying out such horrific sentences also very sincerely believe they are doing god's will.
will he cheat on his wife with a man? probably. this is someone who doesn't even wear his wedding ring when away from home, so thinking that he might be unfaithful is not a huge stretch. hopefully, he'll be careful and won't bring home some lethal disease and give it to her. the statistics for women married to gay men who contract AIDs and pass it along are not zero.
will the marriage last? not likely. and the wife, and the children will probably feel totally betrayed. and they were. by him. what a pathetic loser.
posted by TrinityB5 at 8:09 AM on February 16, 2006
all this shit about god and 'his' grand plan and one person being privy to it, is just that - shit. no one knows if there is a god or not, and everyone's god - if he or she exists - is different for that person. way to go to use him or her to support moronic opinions and oppress other people.
this situation in the story is not complicated. this gay man got married to a straight woman. he did not tell her that he is gay, so he is a big fat liar. apparently he married her, because even in this day and age, and living in a free country, he felt that he could not be himself. just because he's married to her, and perhaps even loves her in some way, does not make him bisexual, let alone straight.
being truly a bisexual person and married to someone of the opposite gender is a whole other issue, whether or not that person knows the truth. at least the bisexual person is capable of enjoying themselves because they really do feel a genuine attractation to their opposite-sex partner, and aren't there out of some self-loathing self-hatred situation.
sexual orientation is unchangeable. it's pretty much carved in stone. you are who you are. however, you can change your behaviour, even if you would really rather not, and even if it causes you great emotional and mental pain. he's not happy, and most people who lie to themselves - about anything, let alone sexual orientation - are not happy.
he's pathetic and weak, and a huge liar. if he really wants to know how horrible it can be to be gay, he should try living in Iran where they flog you a few thousand times before hanging you from a crane on the street corner, including if you are a teenager, and if you are female, making sure the guards gang rape you before your state sanctioned murder. that's significantly worse than having your family express disapproval. and guess what? the people carrying out such horrific sentences also very sincerely believe they are doing god's will.
will he cheat on his wife with a man? probably. this is someone who doesn't even wear his wedding ring when away from home, so thinking that he might be unfaithful is not a huge stretch. hopefully, he'll be careful and won't bring home some lethal disease and give it to her. the statistics for women married to gay men who contract AIDs and pass it along are not zero.
will the marriage last? not likely. and the wife, and the children will probably feel totally betrayed. and they were. by him. what a pathetic loser.
posted by TrinityB5 at 8:09 AM on February 16, 2006
TrinityB5: sexual orientation is unchangeable. it's pretty much carved in stone. you are who you are. however, you can change your behaviour, even if you would really rather not, and even if it causes you great emotional and mental pain. he's not happy, and most people who lie to themselves - about anything, let alone sexual orientation - are not happy.
Ohh, this is a hot topic because i really don't think we have a good theory about what sexual orientation is, much less how plastic it might be over time. I suspect there is a bit more to "sexual orientation" than whether you get turned on by boobs or a basket.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:24 AM on February 16, 2006
Ohh, this is a hot topic because i really don't think we have a good theory about what sexual orientation is, much less how plastic it might be over time. I suspect there is a bit more to "sexual orientation" than whether you get turned on by boobs or a basket.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:24 AM on February 16, 2006
And in regards to Christian prohibitions on marriage, I think it's at a point of agree to disagree. My boilerplate response to this is:
1: I'm no longer a Christian, so expecting me to follow Christian prohibitions on sexuality is rather like me expecting Christians to follow my prohibitions on diet.
2: Within Christianity reasonable people can disagree regarding these issues.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:32 AM on February 16, 2006
1: I'm no longer a Christian, so expecting me to follow Christian prohibitions on sexuality is rather like me expecting Christians to follow my prohibitions on diet.
2: Within Christianity reasonable people can disagree regarding these issues.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:32 AM on February 16, 2006
Total aside -- but, there is an interesting article in the current issue of the New Yorker, 'The Saintly Sinner,' about the evolution of the way Christians viewed Mary Magdalene over time. Her story varies greatly in the various gospels and in later centuries it is amended to fit Western events and history.
Interesting excerpts:
posted by ericb at 8:50 AM on February 16, 2006
Interesting excerpts:
"Today, with so many Biblical literalists around, we have to fuss about what Scripture actually says, but in the early centuries after Christ’s death such questions were less important, because most people couldn’t read. The four Gospels, for the most part, are collections of oral traditions. Once they were written down, they served as a guide for preaching, but only as a guide. Preachers embroidered upon them freely, and artists—indeed, everyone—made their own adjustments....The literal word of God? Or, the evolution of a collection of religious myths and parables written down after years of oral telling akin to the 'Gilgamesh' for the Babylonians', the 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' for the Greeks; 'The Aeneid' for the Romans?
As [English scholar Marina] Warner shows, many of the details of the Nativity so familiar to us from paintings and hymns and school pageants—'the hay and the snow and the smell of animals’ warm bodies' —are not in the New Testament. People made them up; they wanted a better story....
Europe, once it was converted to Christianity, was not content to have all those holy people in the Bible confine their activities—or, more important, their relics—to the Middle East."
posted by ericb at 8:50 AM on February 16, 2006
Are you saying that all gay men who are married to women look at gay internet porn?
All gay men who are married to women are, through some psychic outlet, sexually fantasizing about men, yes. (Let 'all' stand in as overwhelming majority since humans are complicated enough to have all sorts of surprising exceptions) Just as all straight men that aren't getting any play are fantasizing about women.
Is all this fantasizing going-on on the Internet? Well, let's just say that the Internet has made it easy enough, that Dan is really getting at a greater truth here, if we give him enough tether to not obsess with vulgar literalism over the word 'all'. (hint: he is a humorist)
posted by dgaicun at 8:56 AM on February 16, 2006
All gay men who are married to women are, through some psychic outlet, sexually fantasizing about men, yes. (Let 'all' stand in as overwhelming majority since humans are complicated enough to have all sorts of surprising exceptions) Just as all straight men that aren't getting any play are fantasizing about women.
Is all this fantasizing going-on on the Internet? Well, let's just say that the Internet has made it easy enough, that Dan is really getting at a greater truth here, if we give him enough tether to not obsess with vulgar literalism over the word 'all'. (hint: he is a humorist)
posted by dgaicun at 8:56 AM on February 16, 2006
konolia, I wish your humility in the face of God extended to your belief in your ability to interpret his word.
posted by digaman at 9:08 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by digaman at 9:08 AM on February 16, 2006
As a gay guy, stories like this (and Brokeback Mountain) rip the guts out of me because they remind me of the time, growing up, when I thought my feelings were so despicable that it was inconceivable I'd ever be able live my life openly and honestly with someone I loved.
Now I'm just grateful God had the wisdom not to answer my nightly childhood prayer that I marry a girl in my class so that no one would ever find out. (I'm sure she is too - she was married with two kids last I heard.)
posted by atticus at 9:20 AM on February 16, 2006
Now I'm just grateful God had the wisdom not to answer my nightly childhood prayer that I marry a girl in my class so that no one would ever find out. (I'm sure she is too - she was married with two kids last I heard.)
posted by atticus at 9:20 AM on February 16, 2006
dgaicun, I'm glad that you and I agree that his statement (humorous or not) makes an overbroad assumption. Thank you for being civil.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:23 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 9:23 AM on February 16, 2006
Atticus, I am also relived for you both. At the risk of gross oversimplification, we all--gay and straight-- deserve the chance to enjoy a mutually fulfilling and reasonably honest marriage should we desire to. The closeted-gay-marries-a-straight scenario is tragedy squared. I've seen it happen, and the unwitting spouse in such a fraud, I think, has been selfishly (though perhaps not intentionally) duped.
posted by applemeat at 10:17 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by applemeat at 10:17 AM on February 16, 2006
five fresh fish: you're not reading what i've written, and you're assuming that you and I disagree, which we don't. Stop picking fights with me and asking me to re-explain what I've already written, especially when what I've written agrees with you.
JefPorkings, you are the one who is not reading what is written.
I did not indicate any disagreement with you in my last two messages. My first message addressed a sole fact: your attempt to paint the man-cheating-on-wife as an example of consensual acts leading to harm is wholly flawed. My second message addressed a sole fact: you have accused dgaicun of saying one thing, when in fact he did not.
I am not picking fights with you. I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out facts in which you are demonstrably in error.
You habitually accuse others of picking fights with you, habitually indicate that you believe you're actually in agreement with others, and habitually misrepresent what others have said or create counter-examples that are mortally flawed.
Please break that habit. You can do that in your very next message: go back through this thread and figure out why this message and my previous two messages state what they state. When you understand that what I have written is true, you will understand why you find yourself continually arguing with people who agree with you.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on February 16, 2006
JefPorkings, you are the one who is not reading what is written.
I did not indicate any disagreement with you in my last two messages. My first message addressed a sole fact: your attempt to paint the man-cheating-on-wife as an example of consensual acts leading to harm is wholly flawed. My second message addressed a sole fact: you have accused dgaicun of saying one thing, when in fact he did not.
I am not picking fights with you. I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out facts in which you are demonstrably in error.
You habitually accuse others of picking fights with you, habitually indicate that you believe you're actually in agreement with others, and habitually misrepresent what others have said or create counter-examples that are mortally flawed.
Please break that habit. You can do that in your very next message: go back through this thread and figure out why this message and my previous two messages state what they state. When you understand that what I have written is true, you will understand why you find yourself continually arguing with people who agree with you.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on February 16, 2006
fff: I'm not arguing with you, and I'm not being pedantic. I'm engaging in a discussion, but you apparently don't want me in the discussion, no matter what I contribute to it. You haven't pointed out any "facts" where I'm demonstrably in errory, you've just gone out of your way to be a jerk. And if you agree with me, but think you have some obligation to demonstrate my errors, maybe you could lead off your posts with something like "Jek, I agree with you, but . . ."
posted by JekPorkins at 10:47 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 10:47 AM on February 16, 2006
You haven't pointed out any "facts" where I'm demonstrably in error
Presumably, you are describing a situation where the husband made marriage vows to the effect that she would be his one and only. Presumably, you speak of a situation in which he is cheating on her behind her back.
Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation. The wife is both not informed and not providing consent: she has not agreed to this change in their vows.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:06 AM on February 16, 2006
Presumably, you are describing a situation where the husband made marriage vows to the effect that she would be his one and only. Presumably, you speak of a situation in which he is cheating on her behind her back.
Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation. The wife is both not informed and not providing consent: she has not agreed to this change in their vows.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:06 AM on February 16, 2006
and that's why you don't trust live preview folks
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2006
"Love + confusion != homo."
posted by arcticwoman
I was addressing more in this specific instance and in a former comment the possibilty that someone could be homosexual and still romantically love a person of the opposite sex.
Otherwise I agree with your point.
/this medium doesn't do nuance that well.
"Ahem. So this wife. She hot?
just say'n" -posted by tkchrist
*saves tkchrist's life by seeing the humor*
Um....you do know the Sicillian side of me is very strong.
"The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't."
Wow. Then it really does become quite simple. I'd rather be with the 'sodamites' than the theocrat tyrants. Not even a close call there.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2006
posted by arcticwoman
I was addressing more in this specific instance and in a former comment the possibilty that someone could be homosexual and still romantically love a person of the opposite sex.
Otherwise I agree with your point.
/this medium doesn't do nuance that well.
"Ahem. So this wife. She hot?
just say'n" -posted by tkchrist
*saves tkchrist's life by seeing the humor*
Um....you do know the Sicillian side of me is very strong.
"The whole thing boils down to either God is boss or He isn't."
Wow. Then it really does become quite simple. I'd rather be with the 'sodamites' than the theocrat tyrants. Not even a close call there.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2006
I do like the blinking, but maybe you didn't notice the repetition of the words "presume."
The point, which I believe was abundantly clear and which I have stated time and again, is that the concepts of "harm no one" and "do whatever you want in your own home with consenting adults" are far more complex than most advocates of those principles generally admit. The illustration of the complexity and virtually limitless breadth of the consent issue is further illustration of my own point, and I do appreciate it. To continue along that line, does everyone who might conceivably be harmed by an extramarital affair need to knowingly consent to the affair? If so, how remote need the forseeable harm be before a person's informed consent should be obtained? How do you decide whether consent is truly informed as to all forseeable harm?
Honestly, what "fact" was I in error on? Because I don't see anyone here who disagrees with any "fact" I've stated, including you, Optimus. You say you think that you and I arrive at our conclusions differently, but I think you're basing that assumption on a faulty assumption about my religious beliefs and the extent to which faith determines my analysis.
Once again, seriously, people, WTF?
posted by JekPorkins at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2006
The point, which I believe was abundantly clear and which I have stated time and again, is that the concepts of "harm no one" and "do whatever you want in your own home with consenting adults" are far more complex than most advocates of those principles generally admit. The illustration of the complexity and virtually limitless breadth of the consent issue is further illustration of my own point, and I do appreciate it. To continue along that line, does everyone who might conceivably be harmed by an extramarital affair need to knowingly consent to the affair? If so, how remote need the forseeable harm be before a person's informed consent should be obtained? How do you decide whether consent is truly informed as to all forseeable harm?
Honestly, what "fact" was I in error on? Because I don't see anyone here who disagrees with any "fact" I've stated, including you, Optimus. You say you think that you and I arrive at our conclusions differently, but I think you're basing that assumption on a faulty assumption about my religious beliefs and the extent to which faith determines my analysis.
Once again, seriously, people, WTF?
posted by JekPorkins at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2006
Honestly, what "fact" was I in error on? Because I don't see anyone here who disagrees with any "fact" I've stated, including you, Optimus.
10 PRINT "Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation."
20 GOTO 10
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:31 AM on February 16, 2006
10 PRINT "Your counter-example does not describe a consensual situation."
20 GOTO 10
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:31 AM on February 16, 2006
Incidentally, the rest of us are not saying that consensual acts are free of consequence or that no one can be harmed emotionally by their existence, we're saying legal prohibitions on consensual acts are insanity.
The way you're reasoning - some consensual acts can harm others - could lead to jailing the quarterback because he took the head cheerleader to prom and broke some nerd's heart.
For instance.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:43 AM on February 16, 2006
The way you're reasoning - some consensual acts can harm others - could lead to jailing the quarterback because he took the head cheerleader to prom and broke some nerd's heart.
For instance.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:43 AM on February 16, 2006
Your attempt to paint the man-cheating-on-wife as an example of consensual acts leading to harm is wholly flawed.
I quote you directly:
Additionally, you have accused dgaicun of saying one thing, when in fact he did not.
I quote you directly:
Deal with it, man: you seek argumentative engagement, but you are doing it ineptly.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2006
I quote you directly:
[Optimus] How in the fuck can one outside of a consentual relationship be harmed by it?Your example is not one that demonstrates how someone outside of a consensual relationship is harmed. The wife is not an outsider, and the husband has not obtained consent.
[JP] Well, Optimus, a good example of this would be when a married man has a consensual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife, and his wife is hurt because of it.
Additionally, you have accused dgaicun of saying one thing, when in fact he did not.
I quote you directly:
i'm sorry, dgaicun. Are you saying that all gay men who are married to women look at gay internet porn?No, Dan Savage was saying it, and he was intentionally using stereotypes as shorthand.
Deal with it, man: you seek argumentative engagement, but you are doing it ineptly.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2006
The way you're reasoning - some consensual acts can harm others - could lead to jailing the quarterback because he took the head cheerleader to prom and broke some nerd's heart.
Once again, reductio ad absurdum.
we're saying legal prohibitions on consensual acts are insanity.
I assume that you mean consensual sexual acts, and not all consensual acts (like conspiracies, etc.). I think I agree with what you mean to be saying, but not with what you're actually saying. See, while it is possible logically to define "consensual" as including consent from spouses who are not part of an extramarital affair and that sort of thing, it's my unerstanding (which may, obviously, be incomplete) that the legal view of whether a sexual relationship is "consensual" requires only that the actual people having sex consent to it. In other words, when A cheats on B with C, A & C's sexual relationship can legally be considered consensual, even if B does not consent to it.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2006
Once again, reductio ad absurdum.
we're saying legal prohibitions on consensual acts are insanity.
I assume that you mean consensual sexual acts, and not all consensual acts (like conspiracies, etc.). I think I agree with what you mean to be saying, but not with what you're actually saying. See, while it is possible logically to define "consensual" as including consent from spouses who are not part of an extramarital affair and that sort of thing, it's my unerstanding (which may, obviously, be incomplete) that the legal view of whether a sexual relationship is "consensual" requires only that the actual people having sex consent to it. In other words, when A cheats on B with C, A & C's sexual relationship can legally be considered consensual, even if B does not consent to it.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2006
JekPorkins, your back must be tired from moving so many goal posts in one day.
posted by bardic at 12:14 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by bardic at 12:14 PM on February 16, 2006
In other words, when A cheats on B with C, A & C's sexual relationship can legally be considered consensual, even if B does not consent to it.
Yes. In addition, even though it may be emotionally harmful to B, it should not be a crime nor the business of the government except during divorce proceedings.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:18 PM on February 16, 2006
Yes. In addition, even though it may be emotionally harmful to B, it should not be a crime nor the business of the government except during divorce proceedings.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:18 PM on February 16, 2006
Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
Sadly, it's not. Gay men are notoriously unfaithful. Put a gay man in a relationship with someone he's not attracted to in the slightest, and the chance that he will go get some nookie from another man rapidly approaches 100%. And the easiest way to do that is to go online. Trust me. I could have someone at may apartment sucking my cock in under twenty minutes, starting from the moment I sit down at my computer. Most people don't 'clean up' after themselves when hunting for such things online, whether out of laziness, ignorance, or a subconscious desire to be caught.
And for you, konolia, I offer this, which I posted once before in response to you:
God is love. When you love someone, whether that person is your mother, father, sister, brother, niece, nephew, boyfriend, girlfriend, or seventh cousin twice removed on your father's side,-- that is God.
When you look up at the sky and realize you are both a unique and singular being, and a tiny mote in an unimaginable cosmos, and you really think about all that-- that is God.
When you hold someone in your arms, and you cradle them, and you say "I love you," God doesn't care if you're a boy or a girl, and God doesn't care if the person you're holding is a boy or a girl. Love is what matters. Caring. Treating your fellow human beings with an ounce of decency-- that's God.
God is not some heavenly referee who has memorised all the rules, and is jotting down in His scorebook whether you obeyed them or not. God is love. God wants you to look at your fellow human beings and think "Hey, you're a person too. You're just like me. You live, you love, you laugh, you cry. We're the same. Let's get through this together."
It was explained to me some years ago that for Jews, heaven and hell are the same thing: you gaze upon the face of God for eternity. For some, this is a glorious thing; you get to bask in the divine radiance for eternity. For the 'sinners,' though, this is painful, because they are forced to realize how good good can be, and how far they fell short.
My boyfriend and I were discussing this tonight, and I suggested to him my idea of hell: a place where everyone who has done wrong to another person has to truly learn and understand how their actions harmed another. With that in mind, konolia (and your ilk), I sincerely hope that you go to hell. I hope that when you die, you are forced to understand the pain and misery and heartache that your cruelty has inflicted on the world.
God is love. There simply is no way that God could frown on love, on caring, on putting someone else's needs before one's own. Gender is irrelevant, love is all.
Sister Sledge got it right, kids: we are family. Every human being is inextricably linked to every other human being. Let's start acting like it.
God is love.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:36 AM on February 17, 2006
I hope that's making an incorrect assumption about gay men. I hope.
Sadly, it's not. Gay men are notoriously unfaithful. Put a gay man in a relationship with someone he's not attracted to in the slightest, and the chance that he will go get some nookie from another man rapidly approaches 100%. And the easiest way to do that is to go online. Trust me. I could have someone at may apartment sucking my cock in under twenty minutes, starting from the moment I sit down at my computer. Most people don't 'clean up' after themselves when hunting for such things online, whether out of laziness, ignorance, or a subconscious desire to be caught.
And for you, konolia, I offer this, which I posted once before in response to you:
God is love. When you love someone, whether that person is your mother, father, sister, brother, niece, nephew, boyfriend, girlfriend, or seventh cousin twice removed on your father's side,-- that is God.
When you look up at the sky and realize you are both a unique and singular being, and a tiny mote in an unimaginable cosmos, and you really think about all that-- that is God.
When you hold someone in your arms, and you cradle them, and you say "I love you," God doesn't care if you're a boy or a girl, and God doesn't care if the person you're holding is a boy or a girl. Love is what matters. Caring. Treating your fellow human beings with an ounce of decency-- that's God.
God is not some heavenly referee who has memorised all the rules, and is jotting down in His scorebook whether you obeyed them or not. God is love. God wants you to look at your fellow human beings and think "Hey, you're a person too. You're just like me. You live, you love, you laugh, you cry. We're the same. Let's get through this together."
It was explained to me some years ago that for Jews, heaven and hell are the same thing: you gaze upon the face of God for eternity. For some, this is a glorious thing; you get to bask in the divine radiance for eternity. For the 'sinners,' though, this is painful, because they are forced to realize how good good can be, and how far they fell short.
My boyfriend and I were discussing this tonight, and I suggested to him my idea of hell: a place where everyone who has done wrong to another person has to truly learn and understand how their actions harmed another. With that in mind, konolia (and your ilk), I sincerely hope that you go to hell. I hope that when you die, you are forced to understand the pain and misery and heartache that your cruelty has inflicted on the world.
God is love. There simply is no way that God could frown on love, on caring, on putting someone else's needs before one's own. Gender is irrelevant, love is all.
Sister Sledge got it right, kids: we are family. Every human being is inextricably linked to every other human being. Let's start acting like it.
God is love.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:36 AM on February 17, 2006
Sister Sledge got it right, kids: we are family. [I got all my sisters with me]
...sorta loses a little something when you realize that the members of the band were indeed sisters.
There simply is no way that God could frown on love, on caring, on putting someone else's needs before one's own.
I think I'm coming around to Tolstoy's view of things, lately. Christianity implies an abhorrence of war at all times and, for him, the abhorrence of the state follows.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:49 AM on February 17, 2006
...sorta loses a little something when you realize that the members of the band were indeed sisters.
There simply is no way that God could frown on love, on caring, on putting someone else's needs before one's own.
I think I'm coming around to Tolstoy's view of things, lately. Christianity implies an abhorrence of war at all times and, for him, the abhorrence of the state follows.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:49 AM on February 17, 2006
God is love. When you love someone, whether that person is your mother, father, sister, brother, niece, nephew, boyfriend, girlfriend, or seventh cousin twice removed on your father's side,-- that is God.
Oh, how convenient. A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:53 AM on February 17, 2006
Oh, how convenient. A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:53 AM on February 17, 2006
An ostensibly utterly transcendent being that can be viewed through a telescope would indeed be inconvenient for said being's ostensible transcendence.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:56 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:56 AM on February 17, 2006
LOL.
I heart the angelboy. (But not his dirty and numb parts.)
posted by five fresh fish at 2:55 PM on February 17, 2006
I heart the angelboy. (But not his dirty and numb parts.)
posted by five fresh fish at 2:55 PM on February 17, 2006
How does ascribing preferences to imaginary beings advance an idea? There's no more evidence for the statement "God wants you to look at your fellow human beings and think "Hey, you're a person too"" than there is for the assertion that "homosexuality [is a sin] against God AND against one's own body". To tell you the truth if there was evidence that gay guys fucking would release some poisonous gay gas that would result in the deaths of millions of innocents, I would probably support having gay dudes locked in towers. Fortunately no such thing happens in the really real world.
Konolia you are evil, and an idiot. Your religion is bullshit, and you are embarrassingly gullible for swallowing it. Your lack of skepticism and backbone is not harmless, it is hurting real people in the laws you support and the ideas you promulgate. Basing opinions on "divine revelation" that exempts these decrees from independent logical justification is not funny and it doesn't deserve "respect" - it's dangerous and scary and provides moral immunity to oppressive and exploitive ideas under a false banner of righteousness.
Gay marriage and gay people may very well have ill effects on society, major ones even, but this is an issue that can be resolved logically and empirically, and right now neither of these methods support your side, and even if they did you would still be at fault for not utilizing them to come to your conclusions or justifying them on this basis.
Wake up and start using your brain. No one gives a shit what some book, or some guy in a robe told you "God" said, anymore than you would, or should, care if I told you that "God" spoke to me to me right now, and said konolia should send me $100. And just how happy would you be if I could effectively get the law to enforce this idea? What would even be your defense? What could you say?
Support your opinions with logic and evidence or shut up. It's not helpful, enlightening or entertaining to hear about your prejudicial superstitions, and this goes for all other MeFites that think their "beliefs" are appropriate for political discussions.
posted by dgaicun at 9:08 PM on February 17, 2006
Konolia you are evil, and an idiot. Your religion is bullshit, and you are embarrassingly gullible for swallowing it. Your lack of skepticism and backbone is not harmless, it is hurting real people in the laws you support and the ideas you promulgate. Basing opinions on "divine revelation" that exempts these decrees from independent logical justification is not funny and it doesn't deserve "respect" - it's dangerous and scary and provides moral immunity to oppressive and exploitive ideas under a false banner of righteousness.
Gay marriage and gay people may very well have ill effects on society, major ones even, but this is an issue that can be resolved logically and empirically, and right now neither of these methods support your side, and even if they did you would still be at fault for not utilizing them to come to your conclusions or justifying them on this basis.
Wake up and start using your brain. No one gives a shit what some book, or some guy in a robe told you "God" said, anymore than you would, or should, care if I told you that "God" spoke to me to me right now, and said konolia should send me $100. And just how happy would you be if I could effectively get the law to enforce this idea? What would even be your defense? What could you say?
Support your opinions with logic and evidence or shut up. It's not helpful, enlightening or entertaining to hear about your prejudicial superstitions, and this goes for all other MeFites that think their "beliefs" are appropriate for political discussions.
posted by dgaicun at 9:08 PM on February 17, 2006
Oh, how convenient. A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope.
But when you look through a telescope, you see the vastness and majesty of the universe. That's God too. So's your keyboard. Everything is. For me, the word 'God' is the totality of everything, and then some.
And Pentafish, I heart you too. In a platonic and non-buggering-you-in-the-poopchute sort of way.
Konolia you are evil, and an idiot. Your religion is bullshit
No. Idiot, yes. Evil, no. Evil, to my way of thinking anyway, requires intent and malice aforethought. She's ignorant, yes, and closed-minded, but not evil. Her religion isn't bullshit; certain interpretations of it are, and the way it's used to oppress people is, but Christianity in and of itself can be a very beautiful thing. Read the writings of, say, Hildegaard von Bingen, for example.
Don't bother trying to use the 'if you were in my shoes' argument with fundamentalist/Pentecostal/evangelical Christians, dgaicun. They don't understand the concept.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:34 PM on February 17, 2006
But when you look through a telescope, you see the vastness and majesty of the universe. That's God too. So's your keyboard. Everything is. For me, the word 'God' is the totality of everything, and then some.
And Pentafish, I heart you too. In a platonic and non-buggering-you-in-the-poopchute sort of way.
Konolia you are evil, and an idiot. Your religion is bullshit
No. Idiot, yes. Evil, no. Evil, to my way of thinking anyway, requires intent and malice aforethought. She's ignorant, yes, and closed-minded, but not evil. Her religion isn't bullshit; certain interpretations of it are, and the way it's used to oppress people is, but Christianity in and of itself can be a very beautiful thing. Read the writings of, say, Hildegaard von Bingen, for example.
Don't bother trying to use the 'if you were in my shoes' argument with fundamentalist/Pentecostal/evangelical Christians, dgaicun. They don't understand the concept.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:34 PM on February 17, 2006
No. Idiot, yes. Evil, no. Evil, to my way of thinking anyway, requires intent and malice aforethought.
No. This isn't the movies where people twirl their handle bar moustaches and delight in the self-knowledge of being so deeeliciously eeeevul. Most political horrors, from the Nazis to the Commies, were done by people who thought they were on the side of the angels. Well they weren't, and by any meaningful definition (and several silly ones) hacking apart a Tutsi 8 year old with a machete, while her screaming mother watches on is evil, whatever the nice man on the radio made you believe about sinister human "cockroaches".
Now I'm a cause and effect man myself, and I don't believe in some metaphysical energy or essence called "evil", but it's a word that Konolia understands, and she needs to understand that it isn't homosexuality that is 'evil', if this is a concept we've decided to use, it is Konolia.
posted by dgaicun at 9:51 PM on February 17, 2006
No. This isn't the movies where people twirl their handle bar moustaches and delight in the self-knowledge of being so deeeliciously eeeevul. Most political horrors, from the Nazis to the Commies, were done by people who thought they were on the side of the angels. Well they weren't, and by any meaningful definition (and several silly ones) hacking apart a Tutsi 8 year old with a machete, while her screaming mother watches on is evil, whatever the nice man on the radio made you believe about sinister human "cockroaches".
Now I'm a cause and effect man myself, and I don't believe in some metaphysical energy or essence called "evil", but it's a word that Konolia understands, and she needs to understand that it isn't homosexuality that is 'evil', if this is a concept we've decided to use, it is Konolia.
posted by dgaicun at 9:51 PM on February 17, 2006
By the way dnab, the whole "god is everything" defense is kind of disingenuous when you were just clearly ascribing to it agency and your own ethical opinions. That's not cool. Also, the "god" word is so preloaded with meaning that it makes more sense to just say "everything" if that's what you are really talking about. Of course you weren't though.
posted by dgaicun at 9:59 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by dgaicun at 9:59 PM on February 17, 2006
Konolia you are evil, and an idiot. Your religion is bullshit, and you are embarrassingly gullible for swallowing it. Your lack of skepticism and backbone is not harmless, it is hurting real people in the laws you support and the ideas you promulgate. Basing opinions on "divine revelation" that exempts these decrees from independent logical justification is not funny and it doesn't deserve "respect" - it's dangerous and scary and provides moral immunity to oppressive and exploitive ideas under a false banner of righteousness.
welp that's pretty much the best paragraph ever written
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:55 AM on February 18, 2006
welp that's pretty much the best paragraph ever written
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:55 AM on February 18, 2006
And Pentafish, I heart you too. In a platonic and non-buggering-you-in-the-poopchute sort of way.
You say the sweetest things!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2006
You say the sweetest things!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2006
« Older Jungle love | Batman kicks al Qaeda's ass Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2006