Gay Relationships

[NemotheElvenPanda]

Haven't read all the replies, but I'm more interested in the top/bottom relationship between gay partners.

Is mutual expected? Or is it more normal for there to be a top and a bottom?

I'm gay myself and I still don't understand it; I just do whatever I think is fun. A lot of the whole top and bottom thing is based on whole masculine=giver/feminine=receiver thing which makes a lot of gay guys call themselves versatile, which in a lot of cases is just code for bottom since they don't want to be seen as less or a man or some other stupid reason. It's ironic that while gay couples tend to be happier because there's no real pressure to abide by gender roles which makes a lot of the the work divided equally, that completely turns around when it comes to stuff in the bedroom.

 

[cathou]

Secondly i'm not against gays, read my first post in case anyone who reads this is wondering. I just think holding a marriage in a church being performed by people who's beliefs are against it which may or not feel that it risks their souls (because its what they believe) should not be forced to perform said rites of marriage. That doesn't mean some sort of law contract can't be made out to say a couple is a legitimate union.

Literally nobody has suggested a law forcing churches to perform weddings that they object to, and yet I keep hearing this brought up as an argument. I truly don't understand why.

um, well because if you are wanting to get married you probably going to try more than likely and do it in a traditional isle/building style.

Actually, at least up here, i think there's more marriage celebrated outside a religious building than inside one. In Canada the marriage laws are pretty loose, so you can get married anywhere, by anybody, as long as you follow the legal guide lines and fill the right forms.

Our marriage laws provide coverage, that allows Church to refuse to marry anybody for whatever reason. i think it's fair to protect the churchs from law suits from extremist. but since a civil marriage between a man and a woman outside a Church is call a marriage, i dont see why a civil marriage between a man and a man outside a Church should be call something else.

 

[The Choke]

Actually, at least up here, i think there's more marriage celebrated outside a religious building than inside one. In Canada the marriage laws are pretty loose, so you can get married anywhere, by anybody, as long as you follow the legal guide lines and fill the right forms.

That's more common than you would think, especially these days with the costs of a wedding. My sister just got married last summer, and it was way, way cheaper to rent out an entire vineyard for eight hours than it was to rent a church for three. Also, it meant our family friend who is a pastor could perform the ceremony. Some churches insist that their pastor performs the ceremony.

 

[poundingmetal74]

....but I'm more interested in the top/bottom relationship between gay partners. Is mutual expected? Or is it more normal for there to be a top and a bottom?

It really depends. Just based on anecdotal experience, it seems most gay guys are versatile in that they prefer to top and bottom, depending on what they're in the mood for. You have some who have a preference for just one position - and I suppose everyone has their preference - but I think the majority like both to a degree. It isn't *that* common for one to have a total preference for one position.

It's also a question that gets asked very early on in a relationship, for obvious reasons. And finding out you both have the same preference can usually strain things or end a potential relationship outright pretty quickly.

 

[JarinArenos]

Literally nobody has suggested a law forcing churches to perform weddings that they object to, and yet I keep hearing this brought up as an argument. I truly don't understand why.

um, well because if you are wanting to get married you probably going to try more than likely and do it in a traditional isle/building style.

It is still technically legal for a priest to refuse to perform interracial marriage, even if it would be societally frowned upon. Please quit inventing false objections.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

snip

It was debated quite seriously for a while here in Australia. Unless I misunderstood it. It was a few years back.

snip

I'm not too sure about the logistics of organized religion but yeah if it were up to me: Any relgion could allow gay marriage but shouldn't have to.

 

[Johnny Impact]

There isn't enough love in the world. If it makes you happy and doesn't involve animal cruelty or anything nonconsensual, go for it.

Personally I'd want a straight, committed monogamous relationship. My family have all done quite well choosing single partners and sticking with them for life. My folks are 40+ years of marriage and still in love, my sister just passed 12 years, my extended family likewise (with the exception of one divorced uncle who is since happily remarried). Perhaps it's outdated, but I've seen it work.

Captcha: apple pie. "Apple pie and monogamy: support American tradition!"

 

[Eddie the head]

Not only am I fine with gay relationships, I'll take it a few steps farther and say that there is no other view which is rationally or morally acceptable and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong and on the wrong side of history. They will also likely spend much of their lives embarrassing their children and grandchildren with their absurd beliefs, assuming they aren't the type that end up having a gay child that they drive to suicide.

Well morality doesn't work that way. I would quit calling people's subjective opinions objectively wrong. Not only are you not helping, your hindering. Look I disagree with people who say gay relationships are immoral, but this is just ham fisted ignorance. You can't expect to change an ignorant person's mind by being ignorant. It's just going to cause them to be more firm in there beliefs.

 

[Vivi22]

Not only am I fine with gay relationships, I'll take it a few steps farther and say that there is no other view which is rationally or morally acceptable and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong and on the wrong side of history. They will also likely spend much of their lives embarrassing their children and grandchildren with their absurd beliefs, assuming they aren't the type that end up having a gay child that they drive to suicide.

Well morality doesn't work that way. I would quit calling people's subjective opinions objectively wrong. Not only are you not helping, your hindering. Look I disagree with people who say gay relationships are immoral, but this is just ham fisted ignorance. You can't expect to change an ignorant person's mind by being ignorant. It's just going to cause them to be more firm in there beliefs.

Sorry, but no. Morality may be subjective in the sense that some people, largely idiots and sociopaths, feel certain things which are unacceptable to them or desirable to them should be illegal or legal, but it really doesn't work that way. Most people, if pressed about some fundamental sense of morality are going to come to the same basic conclusions: they don't want harm to come to them and they don't want people telling them what they can and can't do if they're causing no harm to others. In fact, it's really the only morality or philosophy upon which to build a society that recognizes the importance of the individual as well as society as a whole. It's remarkably simple, yet also about the only rational way to have a society of free and equal individuals.

So yes, anyone who thinks gay relationships or gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is wrong. Because that belief results in a less equal and free society for everyone. And that is one of the few things which is unacceptable. There is no ignorance in that. The ignorance is in thinking that it's okay for people to believe that a less equal and free society is something good. They are not entitled to their point of view or their feelings when their feelings are fundamentally geared towards oppressing others without good cause. But anyone who actually holds or clings to those beliefs (often while going on about how awesome it is that they live in a "free country" no less) even when pressed to get to the core of why what they think is wrong, is either a complete idiot or a lacks anything resembling empathy. In other words, they're either too stupid to deserve a say in matters that affect the lives of people other than themselves or they're mentally ill.

 

[6037084]

So yes, anyone who thinks gay relationships or gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is wrong.

While I personally couldn't give less of a shit about gay people, saying something like that is fucking retarded.
I'm glad that you think that you've got morality all figured out, but it's not even close to as easy as you make it seem.
Say for example I believe that homosexuals can't go to heaven. And that heaven is the best possible thing ever. Wouldn't it make sense from my perspective to make sure as few people 'give into their gay urges' as possible, so even though their life on Earth is shit they can experience the best possible thing? Since to me, from that persons perspective, that sounds like the most 'moral' thing to do.

Morality is an incredibly difficult subject with no correct answers, stop pretending like it isn't.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

Totally fine with gay people, really couldn't care less about sexuality, it doesn't faze me. Having said that, I do get annoyed when the focal point of someone's identity is their sexual preference. If all a gay person does is point out how gay they are, or, conversely, a 'bro' just says how much sex he has and all that jazz, THEN I have an issue. But, once again, I just disagree with the idea of putting a person down to just their sexuality and activity of such.

 

[Vault101]

Say for example I believe that homosexuals can't go to heaven. And that heaven is the best possible thing ever. Wouldn't it make sense from my perspective to make sure as few people 'give into their gay urges' as possible, so even though their life on Earth is shit they can experience the best possible thing? Since to me, [b/]from that persons perspective, that sounds like the most 'moral' thing to do.[/b]
.

so? most people who do "bad" things don't think they're bad at all

yes we know WHY people do the things they do, a lot of people do things they think are right but that doesn't mean we can't come up with logical reasons as to why their moral ideas might not be the best

for example Christians [footnote/]the ones who disapprove of being gay based on their faith[/footnote] make the assumption that their faith is factually true and therefore should apply to everyone, we know how ridiculous this assumption is because (by its very nature)religion a non-falsifiable interpretation of a text. Its subjective

and even if you ARE Christian there's no reason other people should follow "your" rules when they are for the most part arbitrary[footnote/]and in the realm of the non-hard sciences I'd say some ideas and or rules are less arbitrary than others[/footnote]

then you have to take into account who's rights are being violated. Our society seems to be increasingly focused on personal freedoms, freedom to do what we want, to express ourselves how we want ect <-while I don't think this is always a recipe for utopia it IS good when it comes to questioning institutions we've had for a long long time (at least so far as we can see in modern history) like gender roles, sexuality, rights for women ect

the only things Christians suffer in the face of gay rights is people calling them out on homophobia...OR anxiety over people going to hell but due to the nature of religion that can't be helped. Not to mention a lot of the time its not really a religious thing....just plain old hate dressed up to look pretty

people in out society are free to be as sexist or racist or homophobic as they please, because people are people and you cant change some of them...HOWEVER shitty ideas being in fused with institutions and society at large...that's when "live and let live" isn't good enough

while ethics and morality are incredibly tricky subjects throwing your hands up in the air and saying "its too hard!" because of moral relativism helps no one

 

[Sampler]

I've left one for another (with about a month overlap that only one half was aware of) so evidently I don't have a problem with concurrency either

This is where I draw the line. That isn't poly, that's cheating on your partner. The whole idea of a poly relationship is that everyone knows about, and is ok with, their other having multiple partners. I think knowledge and trust is the difference between poly and cheating.

Sorry, I didn't mean that to be an example of Poly but as an example that at least personally I have the capacity to love more than one person.

I cheated, I was an absolute arsehole, there were many reasons behind it (or excuses in my mind) - mostly because we worked and lived together so she needed time to find a new home and job, I thought better to keep the second relationship quiet then to tell her as it would've devastated her and did when she visited a few month after she'd moved out and I thought it was time to tell her I'd moved on (as clearly she hadn't); I'd been economic with the timing, suggesting it was after she'd left, but still, ruined her.

They're many things I'm not proud of in my life, this is very near the top - it has informed future behaviour though. Since even though there have been people I've grown very fond of I haven't pursed until the current relationship is finished and moved on - even when that means the person I wanted has moved on and no longer available. I still feel bad about what I did, though obviously of little consequence to the others involved.

 

[Joshroom]

Hmmm, my own opinions have changed and evolved over the years as I've been exposed to new things and meet new people.

When I was younger I liked to believe I was a tolerant and inclusive person but in hindsight I was probably way more homophobic than I realized. I was one of those "I don't have an issue with it, no really...as long as they don't do it in front of me" sort of people; which isn't acceptance and isn't understanding. Its condescending.

Then, well, for me it was the fact that I enjoy reading romance, stories and manga. And after starting to run out of conventional romances to read I started reading yuri and yaoi stuff.
And you know what? It was awesome.
And just like that all my old uncomfortable feelings in regards to gay relationships just dissipated.

Besides, it would be a little hypocritical of me to have issues with it as my family really has a lot of roots in the gay bush. Both my mum and my aunty have been in lesbian relationships; hell, my mum had me while still in a said relationship (long and awesome story). I have a gay cousin and one "confirmed bachelor" great uncle. My partner is openly bi and I suppose I myself could quite honestly be classed as bi-curious these days.

So in my opinion. Gay relationships are just relationships. Same as any other really.

 

[Chris Moses]

So yes, anyone who thinks gay relationships or gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is wrong.

While I personally couldn't give less of a shit about gay people, saying something like that is fucking retarded.
I'm glad that you think that you've got morality all figured out, but it's not even close to as easy as you make it seem.
Say for example I believe that homosexuals can't go to heaven. And that heaven is the best possible thing ever. Wouldn't it make sense from my perspective to make sure as few people 'give into their gay urges' as possible, so even though their life on Earth is shit they can experience the best possible thing? Since to me, from that persons perspective, that sounds like the most 'moral' thing to do.

Morality is an incredibly difficult subject with no correct answers, stop pretending like it isn't.

What if I believed that the only way I can get into heaven is by taking the virginity of as many minors as possible, or to make a more realistic example, if I believed that I could get into heaven by strapping a bomb to my chest and taking out a large group of people?

Would you call such actions moral?

If you really want to be moral you need to adhere to the old adage "Your morality/freedom ends where someone else's begins." Otherwise you are being immoral by taking freedoms away from that someone. (Or perhaps interfering with their morality.)

Calling morality "subjective" in this case is just an excuse for people to intrude/meddle in the lives of others. That is, if they even care if their "right" beliefs are interfering with the lives of other people living "wrongly".

Are there tough moral decisions out there? Sure there are. One tough decision is whether or not you intrude into the lives of people whom you believe are living immorally. If they aren't hurting anyone and you intrude anyway, you've made the immoral decision. One where your ego and arrogance overrides the fact that you would not want someone to intrude in your own life in such a fashion.

That is the logic behind what I believe is "true" morality. You wouldn't want a vegan doing whatever they could to prevent you from eating meat or relegating you to a second class status because you do, just as much as a vegan would not want someone forcing them to eat meat or suffer a diminished social status.

 

[Augustine]

What I will preface with is that I am not too keen on the whole general marriage concept - as in a permanent bond of two different people. Mainly because the odds of finding someone that would resonate well with another individual unto death seem astronomically low.

Having said that, the family of my best friend (gay fellow, specifically) is the only example of prefect synergy of two human beings I have ever seen. I know them well enough, and long enough to know they have beat the odds. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.
But the fact remains, the only marriage that I can identify as truly successful long-term is one involving two men.

Take that as you will...


edit: I consider marriage to be a form of long term relationship, so feel free to substitute every instance of "marriage" with "(long term) relationship".

 

[DANEgerous]

Having had relationships with both genders I tend to favor men as they are simply more easy going about most subjects, this is of course a generalization but it is impossible not to make generalizations when you are talking about half of humanity. As for them in general I fail to see what the huge deal is. People of the same gender have fallen in love... good for them I fail to see why I should care. As for people who oppose them opposing love and happiness is not going to make you well liked, I have a friend that was told to pick me his bisexual friend or his church and watching it was horrific, his reaction was acutely rather haunting, he could not even believe it as he put it "It was like you found your parent are in fact Nazis and idolize Hitler and want to kill all the Jews, I do not care if that breaks Godwins law, saying you can not have friends with a group of people because you find the vile for no reason is stupid." which was rather nice to hear and rather good advice.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Well, I don?t really have any gay friends, but I support their relationships and I get angry whenever people say nasty, ill-informed things about them, like ?It?s a lifestyle? and ?they shouldn?t get married ?cos they can?t have kids? (who the fuck are little ol? you to dictate what marriage is? Religions don?t own marriage, which is why you can get married in registry offices, nor is it a word that can?t change because the world?s going to change whether you like it or not). I just can?t emphasize with those people?s kind of bigoted logic like that. I mean, so what; two guys want to bone. There are more ?unusual? things in the world, but you choose to ***** about this one.

I?m neutral on the topic of gay marriage, but if I had to vote for it (well, we?ve already got it over here in the UK anyway), I?d vote ?yes?. There?s no reason not to. And I?ve never actually met a single gay person who ?shoves? their sexuality in my face. At least, not personally.

 

[Eddie the head]

sinp

Well who are you to decide who is an "idiots and sociopath?" It appears to be people you don't agree with. But let's disregard that and focus on this.

Most people, if pressed about some fundamental sense of morality are going to come to the same basic conclusions: they don't want harm to come to them and they don't want people telling them what they can and can't do if they're causing no harm to others.

For one thing I would disagree with this. I think people don't want harm to come to them, or other people. People are compassionate they care. Even right wing "Pro life" groups are born out of some sense of caring for others. I disagree with them I want to make that clear. But in the end they see it as about protecting those who can't protect themselves.

Now you can feel free to disagree with me on that. (it only proves my point more if you do) But say I'm right and people do care for others. If you're someone who takes the bible literally you might believe that being gay is a "sin" and that people will go to hell for it. With the caveat that people do care about others it's perfectly morally justifiable for someone who takes the bible literally to oppose gay relationships.

Furthermore if you're one of those people believe that "god is judging us." You believe they're harming others by being gay. You're provably wrong but, morality isn't about evidence.

What if I believed that the only way I can get into heaven is by taking the virginity of as many minors as possible, or to make a more realistic example, if I believed that I could get into heaven by strapping a bomb to my chest and taking out a large group of people?

Would you call such actions moral?

No. But I'm not them. That was never the point. This again makes the assumption that people value the same things. I agree that these things are immoral but in a different environment I might not. If I was told form birth that everyones ultimate duty is to god I might find it perfectly moral to blow up a group of people.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's phrase is often used to with only the destination in mind, but it's worth remembering that it is a path. This type of rhetoric condemns people who might otherwise stray form that path dooming them to walk forever down it.