Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing is, nobody would just choose to do those things without some kind of attraction in the first place. I could never do something like that. Why? Because I have never and never will be attracted to my own sex. You can't just like your own gender because you want to be rebellious. That is silly and absurd.
Haaziq
People do silly and absurd things everyday. Especially in SF.
Aren't there cases of young beautiful women who marry old guys for money? Are the really attracted to them? People have different motivations.
People do silly and absurd things everyday. Especially in SF.
I'm not even going to take that seriously. You're insisting that people can just become gay for random reasons. That is not true. There has to be some kind of attraction there first. I hated the way my parents were too, but I'm not going to kiss somebody of my own gender to rebel. That notion is simply laughable.
I'm not even going to take that seriously. You're insisting that people can just become gay for random reasons. That is not true. There has to be some kind of attraction there first. I hated the way my parents were too, but I'm not going to kiss somebody of my own gender to rebel. That notion is simply laughable.
I am conveying what my gay friend told me. I accept it. When he told me, I did not call him liar and tell him it was not true. I am not insisting on anything. If you are not going to take it seriously, that is up to you. People are not all like you.
Okay. He is a very good friend and we have been through a lot together. He is now 60. He came to SF in the 70s. He told me just in the last two or three years that it was choice for him because it was cool and rebellious. He said he hated his father and moving to SF from Louisiana was a way out. Now SF in the 70s till now is perhaps very different from wherever you are. The Gay community is exceptionally powerful and I would have to say it is a political ADVANTAGE to be gay. (A choice compelled by something other or more than just than sexual attraction)
I used to have a coffee house in SF for a few years and I had this regular customer who was a good looking guy and would bring in women every so often. Then one day one of his girlfriends came in all upset and told me that she was disgusted with this guy because he told her that he was bisexual because it was easier to get sex from guys than from girls. (A practical choice)
I would think that guys in prison where there is no other choice might also make a choice.
That's it.
It sounds to me like in both cases, both men were attracted to men and women, and for a few reasons, decided they didn't want to date women anymore. So, I'm of the opinion that they aren't what our society deems "gay," but probably "bisexual" and decided to date only the same sex.
A more personal opinion regarding that second person you mentioned--that person sounds like a real jerk to me. It's his prerogative to date only men if that's what he wants, but what a thoroughly shallow and selfish explanation. Did he have to hurt someone that much?
I don't think guys in prison become "gay" just because they have sex with the same sex in the absence of women.
Marriage to some religions, especially Catholics, is a holy sacrament that is NOT to be taken lightly. There is a reason why Catholics severely look down upon divorce. Catholics do not believe homosexuality is correct, therefore it is banned in Catholic doctrine. It only makes sense to ban gay marriages in the Catholic Church.
I believe most other Church's feel the same way. If gays want to get married in a Church that doesn't feel this way, then I am more than happy for them.
But it's irrelevant. Marriage is a civil institution. Likewise, no church would be forced to marry same-sex couples if that went against their doctrine.
It sounds to me like in both cases, both men were attracted to men and women, and for a few reasons, decided they didn't want to date women anymore. So, I'm of the opinion that they aren't what our society deems "gay," but probably "bisexual" and decided to date only the same sex.
A more personal opinion regarding that second person you mentioned--that person sounds like a real jerk to me. It's his prerogative to date only men if that's what he wants, but what a thoroughly shallow and selfish explanation. Did he have to hurt someone that much?
I don't think guys in prison become "gay" just because they have sex with the same sex in the absence of women.
Ok. I'll buy that. So my friend is not really gay. Just as some straight people might not really be straight. He is a gay poser!
Aren't there cases of young beautiful women who marry old guys for money? Are the really attracted to them? People have different motivations.
I was assuming your friend was more sincere than that.
But I guess it's all semantics. People pretend to be heterosexual to be a part of the military. Does that make them heterosexual? If they believe themselves to be long enough (and perhaps arrange a marriage for appearances), does it start being true? I guess only they know the answer to that.
Ok. I'll buy that. So my friend is not really gay. Just as some straight people might not really be straight. He is a gay poser!
I don't believe in the gay/straight dichotomy, anyway. We've got a limited vocabulary either way, but it sounds to me like he would be bisexual. Just because he chooses to be with men only doesn't mean he has lost all his attraction to women. I'm probably not telling you something you don't already know, but bisexual people don't have to be with both sexes at once by any means, and could also go their entire lives committed to one person.
Okay...now stay with me here. I know this is going to sound utterly silly at first: There should be a law that can be voted on in each state to institute a gay marriage. It will have all the "rights" of a regular marriage. This new instituion will be called "Garriage".
Stop laughing and think about it. I laughed to, then started to like the idea.
First off, not my idea. I heard it on the Dennis Prager program. He's a conservative, very, very smart, and his program is very interesting.
Prager is against gay marriage mainly because he feels that marriage is a fundamental building block of society and that it must remain between male and female. He gives many well thought out arguments for this, the most important being how it (gay marriage) would affect children. He is very concerned that if this comes into the culture that 5 year olds would become confused, i.e., now if you ask Bobby who he wants to marry when he grows up he would think of little girls....if gay marriage became accepted Bobby would have the boys to choose from, too. I'm not going to try to go into all of Prager's arguments, but they are well reasoned. He's syndicated and usually plays on am radio in the mornings in the major markets. Even if you are very liberal, if you appreciate logic, common sense and intelligent debate with NO screaming or stupidity and a lot of respect you should listen to a few shows and you will be hooked.
Anyway, so this could be a state law and everything would be the same except the name. You would fill out a "garriage" LICENSE and you would be "garriad". Well, you get the picture.
Would this work? It seems so simple and fair. Traditionalists will be happy that marriage has not changed and gays that want to be married for all the reasons we hear about (usually the legalities), will finally get what they have wanted.
I see a few problems....some conservatives will have a problem with adding more people into social services. But I bet eventually they would relent.
Very strident gay activists will balk at being excluded from "marriage"...but I think they would be over ridden by most run of the mill gays that are getting pretty much all they've been hoping for.
Yes, there is a very, very easily solution to the gay marriage dilemma. It's not garriage, it's not traditional marriage for gays. It's NO state recognition of any marriage, period. Marriage becomes a solely private (religious or otherwise) affair. There is no discrimination on the public level (churches would be left to discriminate as they choose).
Get rid of the state's involvement, get rid of the dilemma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
