> *delurks for a moment* > As the resident gay person on this list, I figured I > should say *something* > :D
You're gay? ... hrm... ::shuffle:: rotate world view 0.02 degrees clockwise okay... I'm better now. :) Granted I'm sure some folks had that reaction to my saying I was bisexual a while back. :) It wasn't gratuitous -- in a thread about prejudice. > Reading this thread, I see a lot of different > perspectives on this issue, and I think it's an > amazing thing that society's reached the point > where we can even have this discussion. > I know that everyone's essentially looking for an > answer to the nature vs. nurture question, Not me. I don't give a shit. :) > but I think that belies a deeper question that > society continually drills into us: "How can > homosexuality be cured?" How can we get rid of > this undesirable element so that everyone can > be happy and normal? Unfortunately that's what society does with everything, not just homosexuality. Oh my god, do I wish that someone could be upset without having to hear how they should ask their doctor about Paxil or Prosac. I wish some people could put off lysolling their coffee table for a day, or simply choose not to file a lawsuit becuase they're uncomfortable with someone in the office where they work. I really wish people would just get helmets. > This question is pointless; the question should > be instead: "why is it that my relationship is > not protected in the same way as others?" I'm > not so naive as to think that there are no more > second-class citizens in our society, but why is > it that my relationship -- with the man who I > love and who completes me emotionally, > intellectually, spiritually, and in every other > possible way -- is not afforded the same protections > as the relationship between two people who get a > shotgun wedding in Vegas as a joke? In my opinion, > marriage in this country is more harmed by an > increasingly lax attitude towards the importance of > marriage, rather than by two men declaring their > undying love for one another. Personally I don't think it's really necessary (or necessarily even desirable) for everyone to "declare undying love" for anyone. Personally I would actually rather see people get tied "for a year and a day" and then decide at the end to recommit, or for that matter simply declare their love (minus the undying part). People are people and we grow and change. Imo declaring "undying love" for someone is like saying "you and I will never grow or change as people -- we will always be exactly who we are this moment". It strikes me as a real Disneyism and we "live hapily ever after" because our lives end at the end of the 2hr movie. You'll have to pardon me if I seem beligerent or disrespectfull, it's not intended that way, I'm just saying, I have a very different view of love and commitment than what I think our culture at large has, and I'm convinced for starters that we place too much emphasis on sexual fidelity as a yardstick for personal commitment. Personally I really would love to see everyone's relationships equally protected or equally ignored by the government (preferably the latter and including non-monogamous relationships). Which is why this idea of Canada ultimately abolishing marriage is so appealing. :) > The bottom line is that for whatever reason, > I am incapable of forming the same kind of emotional > and physical attachment with a woman that I can with > a man, and I don't think I should be looked down on > for that. The whole nature vs. nurture debate is > interesting as a curiosity, but I don't think > it's relevant on the whole to society. I personally > feel that it's a mixture of both. No I don't think anyone should be looked down on for their sexual preference... Although being bisexual, I have to say that we get it from both sides, which is an interesting if hipocritical phenomenon... Gay people largely say "we shouldn't be looked down on for being attracted to each other" but then look down on bisexual people for being attracted to both because they personally object to the oposite sex. "Get off the fence!" I'm not on the fence. I know exactly what I like. Note that I'm not talking about you, just saying, in general -- the anecdotal majority of the gay community. That article about Indian tribes treatment of sexuality was interesting... I noticed that although the thrust of the article seemed to opose the idea, a few of the specific tribes mentioned seemed to impose their own ideas about sexuality on their members (albeit in really creative ways). In particular the canadian tribe who would raise one of their daughters as a warrior and then demand that all her sexual experiences be with other women because they believed sex with men would make her unlucky when hunting. The one tribe who's dominant sexual behavior is homosexual is an interesting if anecdotal refute to the idea that homosexuality must be aberrant... Apparently herein lies a tribe in which all members are essentially bisexual (woohoo!) and who are very deliberate about procreation (whereas most cultures are not). s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199998 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
