Gay Relationships

[Veldel]

I have zero problems with homosexuals and I feel like they deserve the right to marriage just as much as everyone else. I am not gay and I don't see any situation where I would be interested in men in that way but I don't have any problem with it.

I find it...baffling? baffling is a good word....baffling that there is anyone who could possibly be against gay marriage but they can have that opinion. I find it an incredibly silly and stupid opinion but why should you care what I think?

you said everything I was going to say perfectly so this completely as it baffles me as well.

 

[Black Reaper]

I support same-sex relationships, my mom's in one, and i turned out weird since my mom is weird too, not because of her sexual preferences
Something that bothers me is that when i'm at school and the class is watching a video or something, and some guys kiss, some of the class makes signs of disgust
Fuck those guys, i wonder if they would still be disgusted if that was a kiss between women

As for marriage, it seems like a waste of money to me, but if someone wants to do it, it's their business

 

[Lilani]

Oh, another SJW topic. You people really have nothing better to do, haven't you

Oh, another person who comments in threads to complain about that thread's existence. You really have nothing better to do, do you?

 

[Veylon]

As I said above, it's not so much about what will actually come from gay people getting married so much as what people say could happen.
As for a negative effect, the only thing I can think of is it could change what taxes gay people pay if they get married, but I'm not sure if that would be positive or negative.

Also, it's not really so true that gay couples can't have kids. It's more of an ordeal for them than it is for straight couples, but it is possible and has been done.

Gays would pay less taxes if married. Since the purpose for married couples to pay less taxes - among other benefits - is because they are raising children, it's a negative if the gays aren't doing that.

In my book, couples should only get those breaks if they are performing active child-rearing. A gay couple that adopts two kids and raises them is doing more for the future of the nation than a barren straight couple and the incentives should reflect that.

My own view is that homosexuality is unnatural (though that's not a terribly strong term for me), but if they can build themselves a relatively normal life and live happily and productively, than why should anyone want to get in the way of that? Going out of one's way to inflict misery on someone who's got a genetic mutation and already has trouble fitting in strikes me as being on the same moral level as beating a cripple.

 

[Lieju]

Well I'm gay so... Yes.
And I'm just so frustrated people keep making an issue over this. I don't want my sexuality to be anything 'special' or weird but people constantly keep making it that.

So we're pretty much all fine and dandy with homosexuality, but what about polygamy? How do people feel about someone's ability to have more than one true love and how would they feel if their significant other proposed the idea?

Well I know polyamorous people and they make it work and are perfectly happy. Not my thing and I wouldn't be into it but I don't care as long as no one is deceived.

I REALLY don't get why everyone's so obsessed with sex, anyway. That's like the least amount of anyone's business who isn't sleeping with said person(s)

Relationships aren't just about sex, and people have the unfortunate tendency of equating gay relationships with sex and consider hetero relationships more pure and kid-friendly. Which is annoying and why people keep treating gay couples doing things like holding hands as inherently sexual when it's tolerated from straight couples.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Gays: OK

Gay dudes making out in front of me: weird

Straight couples making out in front of me: weird, but admittedly probably slightly less weird

Gay marriage: Nope

Straight marriage: Nope

Marriage: Nope

That's roughly my standpoint.

 

[username sucks]

Oh, another SJW topic. You people really have nothing better to do, haven't you

Believe it or not, gay people exist and are often shunned by society, and in many places aren't equal under the law. I fail to see anything wrong with discussing a topic that is relevant to the issues of society today.

I'd like to ask you why this thread's existance bothers you so much.

 

[Lilani]

Oh, another SJW topic. You people really have nothing better to do, haven't you

Oh, another person who comments in threads to complain about that thread's existence. You really have nothing better to do, do you?

if your attempt of being a snarky comebacker consists of equaling a 10-word post to a page long wall of text, kudos

I'm not trying to "equal" anything. Just pointing out that taking the time to whine about a thread you don't like is rather like taking the time to whine about a menu item you don't like at a restaurant. Petty, unnecessary, and childish. Don't like it? Okay, then be a grown-ass adult about it find one you do like. I don't like oysters, but I'm not going to ***** about them every time I go to Red Lobster, either.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

As I said above, it's not so much about what will actually come from gay people getting married so much as what people say could happen.
As for a negative effect, the only thing I can think of is it could change what taxes gay people pay if they get married, but I'm not sure if that would be positive or negative.

Also, it's not really so true that gay couples can't have kids. It's more of an ordeal for them than it is for straight couples, but it is possible and has been done.

Gays would pay less taxes if married. Since the purpose for married couples to pay less taxes - among other benefits - is because they are raising children, it's a negative if the gays aren't doing that.

In my book, couples should only get those breaks if they are performing active child-rearing. A gay couple that adopts two kids and raises them is doing more for the future of the nation than a barren straight couple and the incentives should reflect that.

My own view is that homosexuality is unnatural (though that's not a terribly strong term for me), but if they can build themselves a relatively normal life and live happily and productively, than why should anyone want to get in the way of that? Going out of one's way to inflict misery on someone who's got a genetic mutation and already has trouble fitting in strikes me as being on the same moral level as beating a cripple.

Well then. Lest hope they get to have kids as well as get married or we'll end up in the red. xD
Oops, too late. ;p

Truly though, the way some people talk about the gay marriage debate you'd think all the couples wanted out of it was a wedding celebration. Tax breaks are nice, but I'd say the other legal rights are a bit more important (the next of kin and medical visitation stuff and what not).

Anyway, question. What do you mean by "unnatural"?
If we go off the dictionary definition(s): https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=natural
I don't see how homosexuality fits into that. It does after all show up in more species besides ours, and is hardly new.
There are even theories on how homosexuality can be evolutionary beneficial. True, they are unlikely to pass on their genes without straight sex, but they can help to insure the survival of their siblings offspring.

As the saying goes, "Gay people don't make gay people. Straight people make gay people."

 

[Spider RedNight]

I REALLY don't get why everyone's so obsessed with sex, anyway. That's like the least amount of anyone's business who isn't sleeping with said person(s)

Relationships aren't just about sex, and people have the unfortunate tendency of equating gay relationships with sex and consider hetero relationships more pure and kid-friendly. Which is annoying and why people keep treating gay couples doing things like holding hands as inherently sexual when it's tolerated from straight couples.

I get what you're saying; perhaps I should've generalized to "I don't get why everyone's obsessed with relationships" but my point still stands; *I* don't care and I don't see why everyone makes it their business when it's really not.

But then again, I suppose if we were all the same, the world would be a dull place

 

[beigelibrarian]

Straight white male here. Shocking, I know.

On this subject? Absolutely no qualms, whatsoever. As a universal rule, I think people are 'allowed' to do whatever they please, so long as it doesn't harm someone else and, well, love is love, so? Go for it.

Gay marriage? No problem. Full on supporter.

But then... I don't really care what people do with their personal lives in general. It's none of my business and, frankly, if it'll make your time on earth marginally less miserable, I'm behind it. Hobby, relationship, job, what have you.


I will say this though; being completely honest with you folks:

Two dudes kissing in front of me still makes me a bit uncomfortable.

If it's a romantic thing, I can totally see how it is and it'll even get a little "aw" out of me, but there's still that little initial 'shock.'

Two women? Not the least bit of a wiggle in my subconscious.

I can't really help it, which has prompted more than a few inner discussions about whether or not I'm truly supportive of male homosexual relationships or not...but I do, quite fervently, believe I don't have a problem outside of the aforementioned bit of discomfort.

Perhaps it's just a matter of volume of exposure.

And even if I did have a problem? Doesn't matter one bit. People's lives and, by extension, their relationships are their own.

As a gay dude, I'd just like to say that your willingness to admit your discomfort, and moreover your willingness to examine it, is definitely worth some accolades, regardless of what conclusion you draw.

Anyway. In a desparate attempt to turn this thread into something other than an echo chamber (save the occasional "anti-SJW" black hat), let me make a vaguely controversial statement:

Gay marriage is not, by a wide margin, the most important issue facing the gay community in the western world today. That position goes squarely toward developing still-uneven support network for young people questioning their sexuality: unless you're lucky to live in a fairly progressive area (a definition which encompasses more of the world every day, thankfully), being gay still sucks until you have a relatively high degree of independence. In other words, I want us to be able to stop saying "it gets better". The threat of being disowned is a diminishing (but still present) factor, so I think we need to turn our eyes to more quality-of-life oriented issues: making homosexual romance, love, and sexuality something that is not considered any more taboo to discuss than their heterosexual equivalents.

A large part of this is simply letting the process of cultural osmosis do its thing, as more conservative generations die off and social mores change; there's not a whole lot that can be realistically done, except waiting, to make Baby Boomers reliquish their hold over Western politics and society.

I'll also lend my voice to those commending Korrasami: if I had seen the main character - not the token gay one - of a popular kids' show getting a happy romantic ending with another main character of the same sex, I think it would have made me much more secure in my identity at that time in my life. That it was not sexualized or exoticized in any way, as many historic lesbian relationships on-screen have been, is also a tremendous step forward.

Closing remarks: my ideal position for homo(/bi/pan/etc.)sexuality in society is somewhere between hair color (which is a purely cosmetic difference) and a very minor sensory abnormality, like slight color blindness or synesthesia (which somewhat affects the way one percieves the world, but shouldn't affect how one is treated by others).

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

No problems with gay or lesbian relationships in theory or anything like that, whoever you want to spend your time with is your business. However, I find the concept of anal sex to be completely and utterly disgusting. Makes me reflexively and physically gag uncontrollably, same reaction I have to seeing very overweight women eating poutine.

Sorry if this offends you, please feel free to tell me why or get angry at me or anything like that, I am not easily offended and enjoy discussion with people who disagree with me.

 

[Veylon]

Anyway, question. What do you mean by "unnatural"?
If we go off the dictionary definition(s): https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=natural
I don't see how homosexuality fits into that. It does after all show up in more species besides ours, and is hardly new.
There are even theories on how homosexuality can be evolutionary beneficial. True, they are unlikely to pass on their genes without straight sex, but they can help to insure the survival of their siblings offspring.

I guess I mean "unnatural" in the sense of color blindness or Micheal Phelps' double-jointedness or most people being genetically lactose-tolerant these days or sweet almond trees. Homosexuals have a quirk that sets them apart from their peers. I certainly don't mean it that this means they are bad or anything.

I also kind of have my doubts about this kind of research. It seems to be that the conclusion of homosexuality in animals as good is created first and that the justification is added later. That we want to "prove" that it's okay in humans by proving it okay in animals. Homosexuals and their allies shouldn't need to justify themselves that way. In a free society, the burden of proof ought to be on those who wish to limit behavior.

We've gotten to the point of allowing gay marriage because people stopped asking "Why should we allow it?" and started asking "Why should we ban it?" which really wrongfooted the orthodox, who weren't used to answering such a question. Defenders of Traditional Marriage got buried in a hedge of contradictions and justifications to the point that the gays (and co.) were offering the only simple, coherent definition: Two loving adults sharing a life.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Anyway, question. What do you mean by "unnatural"?
If we go off the dictionary definition(s): https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=natural
I don't see how homosexuality fits into that. It does after all show up in more species besides ours, and is hardly new.
There are even theories on how homosexuality can be evolutionary beneficial. True, they are unlikely to pass on their genes without straight sex, but they can help to insure the survival of their siblings offspring.

I guess I mean "unnatural" in the sense of color blindness or Micheal Phelps' double-jointedness or most people being genetically lactose-tolerant these days or sweet almond trees. Homosexuals have a quirk that sets them apart from their peers. I certainly don't mean it that this means they are bad or anything.

I also kind of have my doubts about this kind of research. It seems to be that the conclusion of homosexuality in animals as good is created first and that the justification is added later. That we want to "prove" that it's okay in humans by proving it okay in animals. Homosexuals and their allies shouldn't need to justify themselves that way. In a free society, the burden of proof ought to be on those who wish to limit behavior.

We've gotten to the point of allowing gay marriage because people stopped asking "Why should we allow it?" and started asking "Why should we ban it?" which really wrongfooted the orthodox, who weren't used to answering such a question. Defenders of Traditional Marriage got buried in a hedge of contradictions and justifications to the point that the gays (and co.) were offering the only simple, coherent definition: Two loving adults sharing a life.

Please, don't misunderstand me. I believe it is fine for someone to be gay, but not because of this theory. I didn't mean to imply that because of this possible benefit that it means gay people are good. The research wasn't about weather or not homosexuality is moral. Rather it was about why/how it still is around. Having children born homosexual isn't exactly the best way to propagate your genes. Not so much of an issue now a days, but homosexuality has been around for very long so there's the question of why.

Truly, something being beneficial to propagating your genes in my opinion doesn't add up to much in terms of it being good or bad. If that was the measure, it would just be about how to make the most kids, and reduce what is "good and bad" down to a high score game.

I agree that ones actions and character should be what defines them as people and apologize for my misleading post.

 

[poundingmetal74]

As someone in a gay relationship, I'm 100% in favour of them and gay marriage - and very happy to live in a country which allows everyone to marry, regardless of gender. For me, being against gay marriage is like saying you shouldn't be allowed to marry because you're left handed - especially if you think being left handed is just a preference the way some people think being gay is.

One point I've only seen partially addressed by a few posts in this thread is about referring to your significant other. As open as I try to be about my life and who I really am, I still find myself leading a double life and watching which pronouns I use when describing my relationship; especially around brand new people I meet. I doubt straight guys have much issue with saying "my girlfriend" to strangers. But when you're gay, you never know how the other person/party is going to take it. Do I come right out with it and say "my boyfriend," or is it easier just to refer to them as a "friend" in the way you would a straight friendship between two guys? It depends on the situation, but I often find myself doing both.

Also, one term I've never liked is "partner" in a gay relationship. It sounds cold like a business relationship or buddy-cop movie. If/when I do get married, he'll be my "husband," and I'll be his. Partner sounds like you're just staying together for the house.

 

[Saltyk]

A while back I was trying to make sense of someone being gay, but couldn't wrap my head around it. I'm not gay and thus it's just not something I can understand.

This is something I realized from seeing other people. For example, my mom has stated in the past that she can understand men being gay, but not women. And obviously she can understand that as she likes men. She can't see an attraction to women and I realized that I've often had the same issue. I've joked in the past that the day women realize how much sexier they were than men, we men are screwed. Something that I understand as I am attracted to women.

And I realized that's my problem here. I'm straight. So I changed the question from, "Why would someone be gay" to "Why am I straight".

I thought about that for a moment. Why do I like women? Well, boobs are pretty awesome. The female body is just plain sexy. I love the look of a woman's face. Women are just all around great. However, that's not really answering the question I posed myself.

So I asked myself: "Why do I find those things attractive? And did I choose that? If so, when did I make that decision?"

And you know what I realized? I just find women attractive because I find women attractive. As far back as I remember, I never choose that. I even remember having crushes on girls as far back as first grade. I'm straight because I'm straight. And I never choose that.

So, if I'm straight because that simply how I am, why would someone go against that and choose to be gay? Especially considering how difficult that sort of life can be. And I realized that a person wouldn't choose that.

In other words, I find being gay to be natural. Probably doesn't hurt that I have a bisexual friend and have met plenty of gay people as a result. Even had conversations with them. Good conversations at that.

Yea I'm pro equality on all fronts. I'm not a fan of "Gay Culture" mostly because I find it to actually work against inclusion and promote untrue stereotypes about gays, I used to work with a Bisexual woman who actually turned me on to this notion.

But like I said straight, gay, whatever we're all human and in my opinion you cant justify bigotry.

I was just hanging out with my bisexual friend and his boyfriend. While we were out, my friend told his boyfriend to do "his gay impersonation". After he did, I replied that it was bad. He asked how his gay impersonation can be bad when he's gay. I simply said, his impersonation of himself is just bad and he should accept it. It's almost like gay people are just like you and me. Isn't that weird?

 

[Bat Vader]

Oh, another SJW topic. You people really have nothing better to do, haven't you

Oh, another person who comments in threads to complain about that thread's existence. You really have nothing better to do, do you?

if your attempt of being a snarky comebacker consists of equaling a 10-word post to a page long wall of text, kudos

I'm not trying to "equal" anything. Just pointing out that taking the time to whine about a thread you don't like is rather like taking the time to whine about a menu item you don't like at a restaurant. Petty, unnecessary, and childish. Don't like it? Okay, then be a grown-ass adult about it find one you do like. I don't like oysters, but I'm not going to ***** about them every time I go to Red Lobster, either.

I wish more people thought like you.

On Topic: I'm fine with gay relationships. I just don't see the point of relationships in general. Just seem like a complete waste of time to me.

 

[kingthrall]

Somebody think of the priests for a change. Marriage is a religious ceremony and gay people trying to force the hand of the church to get married is just insane to me. You cant change the words in the bible, you burn in hell for being gay simple as that as its a sin written in the bible. I would of thought homosexual people would have better understanding about forcing life values on others especially priests to certify and betray their sworn oaths to the church. Yes im taking it from a christian/catholic perspective as a example.

That doesn't mean im against getting some sort of certificate to say two of the same sex are a couple under some official external ceremony even though I find it morally wrong it would be the right thing to do to make everyone happy.

Finally there should be no bonuses/penalties for same sex couples to hetro couples the rules should be the same.