Jump to content

Gay Man Marries Woman


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, statistically speaking this is very true when it comes to abuse.  A child is much more likely to suffer from abuse with a nonbiological parent and even more so if there is no marriage relationship between the couple (I have no clue if marriage or no makes a difference for homosexual couples raising children...doubt they have enough time yet to establish that).

 

I'm not at all talking about abuse. And I'm certainly not talking about excluding others that are NOT biological parents ... from being parents, because of some statistical nonsense.

 

My wife is not anyone's biological parent. How should that reasonably exclude her from being a mother for my children, or a grandmother for my grandchildren?!

My father married a woman who had nine children (and that, after having parented nine with his first wife – my mother). Her husband died before any of her grandchildren knew any grandfather. My dad is the only grandfather that any of those 32 grandchildren have ever known. How logical is it (or statistically [in]correct) that he should be their grandparent ... or that my wife should be a parent to my children?

 

I'm talking about "parents" (regardless of physical attributes) and supporting family structure providing a wholesome environment for child development. "Statistically speaking," folks living in specific geographical/social areas shouldn't even have children ... based on statistical abuse rates. Should they not be allowed to marry, cohabitate, nor have children (even adopted) ... even if they are heterosexual relationship? How can one reasonably say that 1) homosexuals shouldn't at all be, or that 2) they have no cohabitation rights, or that 3) they have no justifiable child-rearing rights?

 

edited to add "no cohabitation rights".

Edited by cursor
Link to post

I don't know how to post links from a smart phone and am away from my computer for now.

Search for sexuality in Sparta and ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia. If you are unable to find references I will provide them when I can.

Why would it be surprising to find societies that predominantly engage in homo or bi-sexual activities? Why would this be more surprising than a society with predominant hetero-sexual views? The western concept of sexuality is not and has never been universally accepted.

-guerreiro9

The rules of this board require that you provide references for specific claims when called upon to do so. Or you must retract the claim. I am fine waiting til you have the chance but I already did a brief search and could find no support for your statement.

It would be surprising to me to find a society that was predominantly homosexual because I think it would be an anomaly in the pattern of sexual orientation. But it would not really change my views.

The main reason I am asking you to reference your claim is that you brought it up as a means of countering the Bradshaw podcast I cited presumably in your ongoing attempt to portray sexual orientation as something that can be chosen or learned.

Link to post

I'm not at all talking about abuse. And I'm certainly not talking about excluding others that are NOT biological parents ... from being parents, because of some statistical nonsense.

The stats aren't nonsense...perhaps you mean how the stats are being used though?  I didn't mean to imply anything but simply to respond to the comment "probably".

 

Simply because there are established advantages to a particular form of parenthood does not mean that all other forms of parenthood are bad or that individuals in different forms cannot excel past parents of the 'ideal' form.  It is only talking in general terms...which is what subsidizing should be dealing with in order to maximize beneficial use of government resources.

 

I don't think government should be subsidizing marriage at all, but if there is some behaviour that is more likely to be associated with marriage that benefits society, such as owning one own's home, having children, etc. to the point of returning more funding to the government than it shells out for it; the behaviour itself should be subsidized rather than marriage.

Link to post

The fact that you categorize him as "bi" doesn't mean he has to define himself by that term.  To be defined as "gay" all it takes is the aptitude to regard men as being sexually attractive, unless you accept the more liberal definition of gay which isn't strictly limited to males but also includes females as being among the "gay" crowd.  In a strictly technical sense someone who is bi is both gay and straight, but a male who considers himself to be gay isn't forced to consider himself as bi even if he is attracted to both males and females.  Each of us can define our sexuality in any way that we want to.

Ahab, Ahab, you argue just to argue.

 

Words must have meaning. "Bi" must mean sexual attraction to both genders, it doesn't have to worry about comparative amounts of attraction. He can call himself "gay" or homosexual all he wants. The fact that he married a woman and had procreative intercourse enough times to produce three children is proof that his sexuality accommodates at least one woman, he is not homosexual, and he's made his choice. We all make choices vis-a-vis our sexuality. A man who later divorces his wife, the mother of his children, and goes after his own gender, is not homosexual or "gay", he's choosing to ID that way is all....

Link to post

The rules of this board require that you provide references for specific claims when called upon to do so. Or you must retract the claim. I am fine waiting til you have the chance but I already did a brief search and could find no support for your statement. It would be surprising to me to find a society that was predominantly homosexual because I think it would be an anomaly in the pattern of sexual orientation. But it would not really change my views. The main reason I am asking you to reference your claim is that you brought it up as a means of countering the Bradshaw podcast I cited presumably in your ongoing attempt to portray sexual orientation as something that can be chosen or learned.

 

References on Spartan Homosexuality as requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/19a_p1.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/greekeros.asp

 

There are many others, but I was unable to find internet view-able copies of a number of textbooks.  I can state for a fact that the University Course I took in Greek History taught that all Spartan Male citizens were encouraged to engage in homosexual relationships.  This view may have changed since I took the course, but I believe it is still the prevalent theory.

 

Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia is discussed in a number of textbooks, the first link is just a quick summary of the textbook.  The 2nd link is a full article.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812448?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102566388273

http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=nexus

 

-guerreiro

 

p.s.  I am not sure which search engine you were using, but google actually auto-completed Homosexuality in Sparta, and Ritual Homosexuality in Melanesia.  There is a lot more information available but most of it is in textbook form.  If you would like to read more I will try to find it for you.

Link to post

If you'll look at the post I was responding to, "more attracted" means not 100% attracted only one way; it means some attraction occurs for both genders. I think he's being disingenuous as a spokesman, making a more powerful point needlessly. He's obviously bi or he could not even function sexually with a woman. So either he's not representing himself with words accurately, or his wife is a very odd sort of woman, who doesn't mind never having sex for fun/intimacy, doesn't mind being married to a man who finds her utterly unattractive sexually, doesn't mind if he even finds her repulsive sexually. I doubt that either of them have revealed these kinds of intimate feelings that define their marriage sexually for all the world to pick over....

 

I see the other post, he was incorrect in his assertion. Josh clearly states that on basis of general sexual attraction he's gay, not bi. Not even close. He's been quite strident on that point. As for what you've mentioned, you're getting a poor idea of what one would expect in their marriage based entirely on an increasingly obsolete view of sexuality. A couple of weeks ago I went to a workshop about same-sex attraction, therapeutic practice, up-coming research, and changes in dialogue about sexuality in general. The ideas you indicate follow more the Kinsey model of viewing sexuality mixed with the idea that sexual orientation and identity are the same, and that these are incapable to change and have little flexibility in their parameters. This is not what's being found. Instead of a model that follows what would look more like a gage some are splitting (male*) sexuality into more of a spectrum in a grid of 4 different areas of attraction and where sexual attraction is only one feasible area that helps to develop their expression of sexuality. For example, one man stated they mentioned was generally sexually attracted to women, but had such a hard time trusting them based on his past that he felt safer in intimate relationships with men.  The idea of Bi, Straight, and gay are becoming more heavily antiquated in its designations. In this old format Josh and Lolly can't make sense without one/both of them not being honest or having something really wrong with them. In newer understandings of the dynamics of sexuality, it most certainly can and does make sense. 

 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

*I state male because the research on female sexuality is still not the greatest. Most models focus more on male sexuality as a basis.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

...

 

My position is this: I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest that individuals choose their sexual orientation. We love who we love. And I think that it is morally and constitutionally objectionable to deny these souls the right and ability to legally marry the person the choose (and who chooses them). That you believe heterosexual marriage to be a better goal does not justify the imposition of that belief on a free society.

 

Your position is not the legal position of even societies that allow/encourage homosexual relationships. Sparta, arguably the most devoted to culturally admitted homosexuality, and promoted it in young boys, taken from their mothers and the company of females by the age of six (iirc), were, nevertheless, required to marry women and produce offspring. It was the duty of every man to do so. His main attraction might be his companion in arms, but his wife had to be impregnated, or else he lost status and possibly even citizenship or worse. We live in a different (weird) world.

 

My position is this: sexuality is malleable throughout life. The Spartans knew this clearly. Men and women, boys and girls, find a whole array of "things" sexually interesting. The pleasure center of the brain does not care how it gets a shot of dopamine. Habitual and available stimulus predominates. And later, when other choices come into play, yes, the individual has a choice which to go with.

 

I don't have patience for the GLBTQ advocacy assertion that they don't have a choice being what they are, the way they are. That seems to be the core assertion: that somehow they are "hardwired" to be what they are. Not even heterosexual are "hardwired" to be heterosexuals. It comes naturally as the most beneficial way to be sexual in society, in civilization. It is less selfish, less inconvenient, less dangerous, the advantages far outweigh the alternative methods of getting a dopamine fix, so heterosexuality is dominant in all cultures. (I won't even bother echoing a CFR for the above assertion that there are cultures which emphasize bisexuality, much less homosexuality, because there are not any that do that.) Everyone has a choice, always. There is no such thing as SSA as a cellular condition from birth. The vast majority, if not all, babies are bisexual. Women, because of their biology, retain more of that than men typically do. But men also swing both ways easily enough, if society does not scare it out of them, as Western (Judeo-Christian) culture has done for centuries....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

You made the claim... It's on you to back it up.

I don't have any numbers, I will remove my claim.

 

So heterosexual unions should be rewarded with legal recognition of their marriages and the accompanying benefits?

I believe so yes, or at least encouraged in some way.  I believe strong hetero-sexual marriages will provide the highest probability of success for children, and thus for society.  I also believe homo-sexual marriages should be legally recognized and provide some benefits, but I do not believe they should be encouraged to the same extent hetero-sexual marriages are.

 

Okay... In this context... What is the difference between denying and not rewarding? I don't see it.

I think the best illustration of the difference is what happened to members of the Church who were practicing polygamy in the late 1800s.  If they engaged in polygamy they would have been thrown in jail and would have had their property confiscated.  They were being denied to right to practice polygamy.  If they had simply not been rewarded for practicing polygamy, they would not have been thrown in jail and would not have had their property confiscated.  The government would not have recognized their plural wives, and they would not have received extra government benefits for having them, but they would not have been prohibited from having them.  If this had been the case it's possible the Church would still be practicing polygamy today.

 

Yes. I've always wanted to be taller.

This is pure snark and is not conducive to a productive dialogue.

 

And you are probably the first heterosexual person I've met who thought that they could make their self gay.

I am not sure what you mean by "make their self gay".  I don't see any reason why I couldn't learn to enjoy physical intimacy with a man.  It would require the same steps I went through to learn to enjoy physical intimacy with a women, but would probably take a little longer now as I am older and more set in my ways.  If you mean the erroneous stereotypical "gay" as portrayed by Hollywood, no I would have a harder time becoming that, but that has nothing to do with physical intimacy.

 

Yes.

What other (non-snarky) aspects of our being do you feel we are unable to modify?  Is it limited to sexual orientation only?  If so why is sexual orientation different?  What about sexual attraction in general?  Do you think we can learn to be attracted to different types of peoples?  If not, at what point does our attraction become immutable?  If yes, what  is the difference between this and sexual orientation?

 

My position is this: I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest that individuals choose their sexual orientation.

Have you seen any evidence that sexual attraction is affected by culture?  If so, why not sexual orientation?  If not, at what point are our sexual attractions set?  Some people who are considered very attractive in one culture are not considered so in others.  Do you think you would find the same people attractive no matter where you were born?

 

We love who we love.

We love those whom we serve.  The idea of uncontrollably and helplessly falling in love with someone is a Hollywood farce.  Infatuation, and physical response to someone we find attractive are very often uncontrollable, but this is not love, and attractiveness is very strongly tied to culture.

 

And I think that it is morally and constitutionally objectionable to deny these souls the right and ability to legally marry the person the choose (and who chooses them).

I believe some people should be denied marriage (children, family members), but I do not consider homosexuals to be in this group.  I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry whomever they choose (see first group), but I do not believe these marriages are as beneficial for society and as such should not be encouraged to the same level.

 

That you believe heterosexual marriage to be a better goal does not justify the imposition of that belief on a free society.

Any society that is unable or unwilling to promote behaviors that strengthen the society is doomed to fail.  All behaviors should not be seen as equally beneficial, and should not be encouraged equally.  I respect your believe that homo-sexual marriages are worthy of being encouraged, and I think your belief has merit.  I would ask for the same respect of my belief that hetero-sexual marriages are more beneficial to our society.  I utterly reject however, that it is morally wrong to vote for and encourage behaviors we view as beneficial just because others disagree with our views

 

-guerreiro9 

 

 

 

 

Edited by guerreiro9
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

You're the one who mentioned sexual positions and fetishes not I.  The point remains that the government to a certain extent regulates sexual activities.  If you wish to receive tax subsidizes (and not go to jail) you have to abide by the regulations.  If you don't care about tax subsidies then you have more leeway. -guerreiro9

Please do not insult mine or the Boards intelligence, your "bedroom activities" was pointless empty emotional rhetoric.

Link to post

Please do not insult mine or the Boards intelligence, your "bedroom activities" was pointless empty emotional rhetoric.

 

Erm... Guerriero was not the one who used 'bedroom activities'... that was someone else...

 

Also, so you know, all words are to some degree, rhetoric (there's a great article on Wikipedia about how impossible it is to achieve neutral point of view, you can get close, but not perfectly).  From what I see however, guerriero's response to your post was a bit more substantial than your response to his above.  Perhaps you could rewrite it and address it a bit better.  I don't think your response to his post was good enough, tbh.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Erm... Guerriero was not the one who used 'bedroom activities'... that was someone else...

 

Also, so you know, all words are to some degree, rhetoric (there's a great article on Wikipedia about how impossible it is to achieve neutral point of view, you can get close, but not perfectly).  From what I see however, guerriero's response to your post was a bit more substantial than your response to his above.  Perhaps you could rewrite it and address it a bit better.  I don't think your response to his post was good enough, tbh.

 

I believe I was the first to use bedroom activities, and I apologize.  Believe it or not it was actually an attempt to be less overtly sexual, but did not come across as such.  I would have changed it on later reflection, but it had already been replied to, the damage was done.

 

Foster, I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intention.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited by guerreiro9
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

This ties into former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowen Williams advice to "persecuted" Christians: "grow up". Gay marriage is not an attack on any heterosexuals marriage or religious institution. Such an assertion is juvenile and narcissistic.

 

It is interesting that you would use this church as an example for other churches. Could you also share how the growth of their church has been over the last ten years as they have become progressively more liberal?

Link to post

. Instead of a model that follows what would look more like a gage some are splitting (male*) sexuality into more of a spectrum in a grid of 4 different areas of attraction and where sexual attraction is only one feasible area that helps to develop their expression of sexuality. For example, one man stated they mentioned was generally sexually attracted to women, but had such a hard time trusting them based on his past that he felt safer in intimate relationships with men.  The idea of Bi, Straight, and gay are becoming more heavily antiquated in its designations. In this old format Josh and Lolly can't make sense without one/both of them not being honest or having something really wrong with them. In newer understandings of the dynamics of sexuality, it most certainly can and does make sense. 

 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

*I state male because the research on female sexuality is still not the greatest. Most models focus more on male sexuality as a basis.I

 

I would love to see the research you were given at this workshop. I think everyone who has done any research into SSA realizes the Kinsey scale is antiquated; however, I've yet to see any credible (not sponsored by an anti-gay group) research that wouldn't consider the man in your example to be bi-sexual given he is sexually attracted enough to men to choose to be intimate with them, even though he his sexual attraction to women is much stronger. It's my understanding a true homosexual would not be able to do that. But, I've not seen the research you're describing, so I could be wrong. Would you mind directing me to any links to the research, or perhaps the authors' names so I can read about this myself? I would really appreciate it.

Link to post

I am a man, but I feel as though I have emotionally and physically been through child birth three times the same way my wife has.  

 

(The bold is mine.)

 

Are you saying you have literally experienced what childbirth physically feels like? If so, what did you do to have that experience? 

 

I hope you did something similar to the two men in this video, because otherwise, I'm not buying it!  :P

Link to post

I may be the only one on this thread who has read hundreds if not thousands of posts on Josh's blog. If a statement is "incorrect", a person will have to do more than state so. Josh knowingly, voluntarily, willingly made a choice, with the full understanding and agreement of his companion, to live the life they have chosen. Those who can't understand that choice will have to live with their own shortcomings of comprehension and compassion.

So I have tried to think of the best way for me to remember how Josh describes himself in the few things that I have read by him and I would like your opinion on my summary...

He sees himself as sexually attracted to men, but he wants to be a companion to his wife, first through the original relationship that was a friendship and then through the one they were both able to develop of romance and love, of which their sexual relationship is part.

In essence, he is now still sexually attracted to men, but romantically attracted/attached to his wife.

A similar situation might be a heterosexual man that was sexually attracted to attractive women, but was romantically attached to his wife who happened to be terribly scarred from a car accident. It isn't the usual cues that cause him to desire to be with her, but cues that have developed out of the relationship itself. In another woman, the same sort of scarring would cause him to not be attracted to that woman, but with his wife he sees her as beautiful no matter what her outward appearance is....his heterosexual attraction script has been rewritten through the experience of love.

Edited by calmoriah
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I agree, but I would also suggest that those who have had homosexual attractions that are successfully married to those of the opposite gender probably are quiet in their success.  Josh and his wife are an example of both as they took their time going public with this and only did so to help others.  If they had married 25 years ago, chances are they never would have save perhaps to their children if they felt this would help them.

That's an unproven suggestion.

Link to post

So I have tried to think of the best way for me to remember how Josh describes himself in the few things that I have read by him and I would like your opinion on my summary...

 

 

I've also read a ton of his posts on his blog, participated in discussions on it, and watched a number of his interviews. I'd say this is fairly accurate

 

That's an unproven suggestion.

 

Actually, I'd state that's a fairly accurate suggestion acctually. I've read/listened to tons and tons of stories of active LDS people who have SSA or describe themselves as LGBT. What I've found would support what Cal's said. There are older married people who'll talk, but often they use pseudonyms and the ones more out have quite a different story than josh because many of them didn't even have a means to acknowledge what they were experiencing even to themselves. They older you get the more taboo the subject becomes, the less likely you'll hear actual experiences of those with it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to post

Predominant meaning preferred and believed to be superior to hetrosexual expression.

Can we get some references on this?  I've studied ancient Greece and I don't remember this. 

 

I know that homosexuality was not taboo, and that it was oftentimes used as a way for young men to form political bonds with older men, (or in the case of Sparta, it was used both as a way to shame young men as well as to bond them together) but I don't remember it being seen as superior. 

 

Thanks!

Edited by bluebell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Off the top of my head Sparta and Melanesia...

 

I have heard of other cultures, but can't remember them right now.  If you need references I will find them for you later.

 

-guerreiro9

 

Margaret Mead was a gullible racist.

 

And all sorts of awful things got written about the Spartans during the Pelloponesian Wars.  Some of the Athenians had a particularly nasty streak.

Link to post

I think everyone who has done any research into SSA realizes the Kinsey scale is antiquated

 

Masterful understatement.

Brava!

Link to post

It is interesting that you would use this church as an example for other churches. Could you also share how the growth of their church has been over the last ten years as they have become progressively more liberal?

 

Lord Rowan is hardly a friend to Christians, either in his own nation or ours.  For someboy who ostensibly is the face of well-educated, sophisticated High-Church Christianity, he proves himself just another trendy-lefty kneejerk socialist iconoclast so impressed with his superiority that he has no connection with the bulk of humanity.

 

Men like him have been driving people away from the Church [Anglican] since before the Pythons were born.

Link to post

  The point is, it is not your neighbors right to decide who you should or should not marry.  

 

You are correct.  It is however, God's right.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...