Can a gay person be against gay marriage?

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are homosexuals that despise other homosexuals, and homosexuality. There are dark-skinned people who loathe and denigrate dark skinned people as a people. There are women who dislike women and men that dislike men as the whole gender. It's not a common phenomena, but it happens enough that it's "a thing". The gay men I've met over the years attest to being witness to this phenomena at one time or another.

There are some people in the world who have fallen into the habit of projecting what they loathe within themselves, onto others, and so loathe those others as a result. It's not common, but it certainly does occur.

Opppsing gay marriage doesn't necessarily amount to self-hatred.

 

[Spiderman]

Opppsing gay marriage doesn't necessarily amount to self-hatred.

Amen!

 

[james dixon]

As a bystander, a grandfather several times over; the concept of being “gay” puzzle’s me. I see two men walking down the street, should I presume they maybe gay?

& if they are why should I care?

Even at my late age I have never met a gay person.

Just because one-man shakes another’s hand doesn’t mean they are gay. And then you grab the other man’s shoulder and shake it—

That does not mean you are gay.

Trump does it and he ain't gay.

Right-?

 

[james dixon]

What is marriage?
(1) A lifelong commitment

May you and your friend remain friends for ever

 

[Spiderman]

As a bystander, a grandfather several times over; the concept of being “gay” puzzle’s me. I see two men walking down the street, should I presume they maybe gay?

& if they are why should I care?

Even at my late age I have never met a gay person.

Just because one-man shakes another’s hand doesn’t mean they are gay. And then you grab the other man’s shoulder and shake it—

That does not mean you are gay.

Trump does it and he ain't gay.

Right-?

Seriously? Really?

 

[SomeRandom]

To be frank, I get sadistic desires to dominate, control, and exercise ownership upon people.

my conscience tells me it's wrong, so I've never done it.

And it absolutely should not be legal to do such a thing.

Also, I thank God I don't have this tendency or inclination, but if a 40 year old and a 6 year old fall in love with each other, and the six-year-old really wants to get married, there should absolutely be laws that protect a child from their own poor judgement, and forbid such a thing.

Firstly, sadism isn't a bad desire in and of itself. There are perfectly healthy BDSM relationships that stress love, consent and comfort. Being a sadist is not inherently bad. Only if it involves an unwilling participant.

So I do not agree that it should be illegal. It's not the Government's job to tell people what they should do in the bedroom or what to do with their "kinks." Far too Big Brother like for my liking. People should have healthy outlets for their desires, within reason. And if a sadist happens to have an outlet in the form of a consenting adult submissive then everyone wins.

Secondly, and I am so sick of this nonsensical piece of rhetoric, a child is not the same as an adult. They have to be told what to do, they have to have laws protecting them because they do not have the mental capacity necessary to make informed judgements about their own lives. That is why it is illegal to have sex with a child. That is why we have minimum age requirements for sex acts (what age that is does depend on where one lives, though.)
That is why we make the distinction between two teens having sex, which may be enough to make allowances and an adult grooming a 16 year old, even if 16 is "legal."

Also yeah it is possible for gay people to be against gay marriage. Gay people are multifaceted people. Colour me shocked.
But abnormality is not a bad thing, nor should it be justification for laws. Normalcy is relative and changes constantly. It is an entirely fluid concept. It used to be perfectly normal in society to marry one's cousin barely a century ago. So please forgive my reticence at allowing society of all things decide what is and isn't abnormal. They suck at it.

 

[james dixon]

Seriously? Really?

Seriously?

what -

 

[james dixon]

Firstly, sadism isn't a bad desire in and of itself. There are perfectly healthy BDSM relationships that stress love, consent and comfort.

So said the spider to the fly

So I do not agree that it should be illegal. It's not the Government's job to tell people what they should do in the bedroom or what to do with their "kinks."

Again, as a bystander I could care less what you do; unless you break a "law". There is no law against two people becoming close friends; male or femal

 

[SomeRandom]

So said the spider to the fly

Hey, people are kinky. Some people like to be dominated. Some people find that sexy. Have you seriously never heard of BDSM before?

Again, as a bystander I could care less what you do; unless you break a "law". There is no law against two people becoming close friends

Close friends typically don't get married, unless it's a marriage of convenience. Like what? I can assure you gay people getting married to one and other is a little bit more than being "close friends." You need to improve your attention span, my good bystander. Because you are either wilfully naive or you don't understand how human relationships work, despite viewing them with your own eyes, presumably.
Or are you just saying that you are painstakingly indifferent to relationships of other people in general?

 

[james dixon]

Close friends typically don't get married, unless it's a marriage of convenience.

What you are now calling "marriage" is an agreement between the two to share whatever they have for life. It is an eternal commitmente to be together through thick and thin while enjoying the good in-between.

Still I don't see a "law" against it.

Do you?
-

 

[suncowiam]

A Christian gay person...

 

[SomeRandom]

What you are now calling "marriage" is an agreement between the two to share whatever they have for life. It is an eternal commitmente to be together through thick and thin while enjoying the good in-between.

Still I don't see a "law" against it.

Do you?
-

I never said it was illegal though???

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I used to live with a gay man who took me off the streets.

He offered to pay me to let him perform sexual favors and promised me I would like it.

I'm very grateful that I did not indulge in any of those actions.

I love gay people, feel it is very sad they are bullied, rejected by Family, rejected by religious people etc. But we have to be careful what we glorify as noble and praiseworthy.

If I would have committed sexual actions with that man, because Society tells me there's nothing wrong with it, that would have left me with very deep wounds, shame, guilt, and self-hatred. It would make it much more difficult for me to live with myself.

It just feels like there is something not right about it.

I worry that if Society repeatedly tells people what is abnormal, is normal and praiseworthy, it will lead many people with poor judgement, into actions that will haunt, wound, and traumatize them internally.

Yeah that, and the fact that gay "marriage" is nothing but a power play. BTW, Elton John was against gay marriage, before he was for it. So was he right then or right now, or hypocritical all along. My best friend in high school was gay, and two of them were in the group I ran with at UGA, in the 60s. One of them had a gait so blatant, you could spot him walking across campus a mile away.

For me, gays, like Jews, contribute to our culture percentage wise in numbers well above the norm for other social entities. (No connection between Jews and gays is implied, btw. In fact, I can't think of a gay Jew right off. So naturally I do a search, and Wiki has a long list, though I recognize almost none of them. The most surprising is Anne Frank, on which I gotta call BS-she was only 15 when she was murdered. And it appears to me that non-butch variety lesbianism is much less inherent for females than it is for guys.)

 

[SomeRandom]

For me, gays, like Jews, contribute to our culture percentage wise in numbers well above the norm for other social entities. (No connection between Jews and gays is implied, btw. In fact, I can't think of a gay Jew right off. So naturally I do a search, and Wiki has a long list, though I recognize almost none of them. The most surprising is Anne Frank, on which I gotta call BS-she was only 15 when she was murdered. And it appears to me that non-butch variety lesbianism is much less inherent for females than it is for guys.)

Hmm I know that Anne Frank is somewhat adopted by some in the gay community as an icon of sorts.
And speculation has long been around that she was at least bi curious. Not sure if she was necessarily gay, though oddly her diary is often challenged for containing "pornographic and homosexual" material.
Which is baffling in and of itself.
But typically one at least has an inkling of their sexuality when one goes through puberty. So I wouldn't dismiss the claim outright. Then again what are the moral implications of discussing a murdered teenage girl's intimate personal thoughts to begin with? Further what does it say about a community who tries to censor something perceived as homoerotic but has no qualms about literal mass genocide being discussed? On top of that, what does it say of people who focus on one piece of information from a child's diary which touches upon the burgeoning human female form (not necessarily sexual in nature), in a diary which contains quite the poignant look at one of humanity's worst atrocities?
Hmm moral quandaries everywhere.

 

[Spiderman]

Firstly, sadism isn't a bad desire in and of itself. There are perfectly healthy BDSM relationships that stress love, consent and comfort. Being a sadist is not inherently bad. Only if it involves an unwilling participant.

So I do not agree that it should be illegal. It's not the Government's job to tell people what they should do in the bedroom or what to do with their "kinks." Far too Big Brother like for my liking. People should have healthy outlets for their desires, within reason. And if a sadist happens to have an outlet in the form of a consenting adult submissive then everyone wins.

Secondly, and I am so sick of this nonsensical piece of rhetoric, a child is not the same as an adult. They have to be told what to do, they have to have laws protecting them because they do not have the mental capacity necessary to make informed judgements about their own lives. That is why it is illegal to have sex with a child. That is why we have minimum age requirements for sex acts (what age that is does depend on where one lives, though.)
That is why we make the distinction between two teens having sex, which may be enough to make allowances and an adult grooming a 16 year old, even if 16 is "legal."

Also yeah it is possible for gay people to be against gay marriage. Gay people are multifaceted people. Colour me shocked.
But abnormality is not a bad thing, nor should it be justification for laws. Normalcy is relative and changes constantly. It is an entirely fluid concept. It used to be perfectly normal in society to marry one's cousin barely a century ago. So please forgive my reticence at allowing society of all things decide what is and isn't abnormal. They suck at it.

I question whether sadism is healthy. Acting out the fantasy could be pouring gasoline on an unhealthy flame of sinister passion. People have actually died during rough sex. People have also strangled them self to death while masturbating... and this was not an intentional suicide. It has actually claimed the lives of some famous people in history.

One thing leads to another, and people want to get more deviant.

What if a woman is about to die, and she wants her husband to keep her corpse in the house, and make love to her deceased body, as some sort of a spiritual ritual, for communing with her disembodied spirit.

Weirder religious practices have been done to commune with the spirits of the dead.

Should we say, "it's not hurting anyone, it's consensual, it has a religious basis , it's completely harmless, therefore it should be legal?"

or should we listen to our gut and conscience, draw a line in the sand, and say that's f***** up?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Spiderman]

Seriously?

what -

Never mind. We're past all that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A Christian gay person...

Or even a non-christian one. There are gay people who don't like marriage for the same reason some straight people don't. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'gay person who doesn't agree with legal marriage for anyone' outnumbered the gay Christians against specifically gay marriage. Especially since more Christians these days are fine with gay marriage.

 

[Spiderman]

Hmm I know that Anne Frank is somewhat adopted by some in the gay community as an icon of sorts.
And speculation has long been around that she was at least bi curious. Not sure if she was necessarily gay, though oddly her diary is often challenged for containing "pornographic and homosexual" material.
Which is baffling in and of itself.
But typically one at least has an inkling of their sexuality when one goes through puberty. So I wouldn't dismiss the claim outright. Then again what are the moral implications of discussing a murdered teenage girl's intimate personal thoughts to begin with? Further what does it say about a community who tries to censor something perceived as homoerotic but has no qualms about literal mass genocide being discussed? On top of that, what does it say of people who focus on one piece of information from a child's diary which touches upon the burgeoning human female form (not necessarily sexual in nature), in a diary which contains quite the poignant look at one of humanity's worst atrocities?
Hmm moral quandaries everywhere.

Anne Frank is one of the souls in heaven, (Heavenly beings) that I pray to or invoke on a daily basis... if she appreciated female beauty, I find that endearing!

 

[SomeRandom]

I question whether sadism is healthy. Acting out the fantasy could be pouring gasoline on an unhealthy flame of sinister passion. People have actually died during rough sex. People have also strangled them self to death while masturbating... and this was not an intentional suicide. It has actually claimed the lives of some famous people in history.

One thing leads to another, and people want to get more deviant.

What if a woman is about to die, and she wants her husband to keep her corpse in the house, and make love to her deceased body, as some sort of a spiritual ritual, for communing with her disembodied spirit.

Weirder religious practices have been done to commune with the spirits of the dead.

Should we say, "it's not hurting anyone, it's consensual, it has a religious basis , it's completely harmless, therefore it should be legal?"

or should we listen to our gut and conscience, draw a line in the sand, and say that's f***** up?

Where do you draw the line?

I could die tomorrow cooking chickens at work. So why not ban giant ovens used by multi billion dollar retail companies who use them to cook hot food and roast chickens? I could potentially lose my hand slicing deli meats, quick! Ban the giant blade we use constantly to cut people's leg hams!
I could die tomorrow driving to work! Quick let's make cars illegal. Best we make walking illegal as you could potentially slip and fall over, injuring yourself.

Truth is, life is dangerous. Sex is dangerous. Food is dangerous. Hell water can be dangerous.
The potential for harm is not really a sound enough justification for making things legal or illegal. Otherwise cooking appliances would be illegal.
If it's irreversible inevitable damage, then sure. Like the ineviatable harm caused by rape or child sexual assault. Or murder. The harm is not just potential, it's nigh inescapable. Potential damage is far more.....tricky to define. Eating raw fish has the potential to cause people harm. So do we have to now make sushi illegal?
By the same token, it's also not always a sound judgement on one's personal activities. Being addicted to adrenaline can get one killed. But to jump out of a plane is still optional all the same.

Our laws are much more nuanced than simply "it can cause harm therefore let's make it illegal."
And yes if it doesn't cause harm and involves consenting adults, it's none of anyone else's business to be frank. Let alone law makers. So one's personal opinions are ultimately irrelevant unless they are specifically participating. Honestly busybody much?

As to lines drawn in the sand, that's entirely personal. And no, it shouldn't alway be on your gut or conscious. Unless that's how you personally choose to live. No one else should be obligated to, nor should laws necessarily reflect your conscious. I mean you are quite familiar with the Aghoris by now. They do very illegal things not generally tolerated in polite society. Didn't you also call them liberated in another thread?
So if that old woman did consent to neceophilia being performed after her death, then that's her personal choice. You or I don't get the right to interfere with her personal freedoms. Even if she dies. Do I find that icky? Sure, but I'm not the one involved so my opinion is irrelevant.

Point is, society is not always the best judge of what is and isn't moral. It never really has been. It's lines are a combination of arbitrarily making innocuous things illegal *ahem like homosexuality at one point simply due to religion.* But also allowing horribly unspeakable acts. Like for example it was once perfectly okay to lynch a black person. And a few genuine logical laws. Still is arguably. Though thankfully minus the killing of innocent people. At least legally.

 

[Spiderman]

I could die tomorrow cooking chickens at work. So why not ban giant ovens used by multi billion dollar retail companies who use them to cook hot food and roast chickens? I could potentially lose my hand slicing deli meats, quick! Ban the giant blade we use constantly to cut people's leg hams!
I could die tomorrow driving to work! Quick let's make cars illegal. Best we make walking illegal as you could potentially slip and fall over, injuring yourself.

Truth is, life is dangerous. Sex is dangerous. Food is dangerous. Hell water can be dangerous.
The potential for harm is not really a sound enough justification for making things legal or illegal. Otherwise cooking appliances would be illegal.
If it's irreversible inevitable damage, then sure. Like the ineviatable harm caused by rape or child sexual assault. Or murder. The harm is not just potential, it's nigh inescapable. Potential damage is far more.....tricky to define. Eating raw fish has the potential to cause people harm. So do we have to now make sushi illegal?
By the same token, it's also not always a sound judgement on one's personal activities. Being addicted to adrenaline can get one killed. But to jump out of a plane is still optional all the same.

Our laws are much more nuanced than simply "it can cause harm therefore let's make it illegal."
And yes if it doesn't cause harm and involves consenting adults, it's none of anyone else's business to be frank. Let alone law makers. So one's personal opinions are ultimately irrelevant unless they are specifically participating. Honestly busybody much?

As to lines drawn in the sand, that's entirely personal. And no, it shouldn't alway be on your gut or conscious. Unless that's how you personally choose to live. No one else should be obligated to, nor should laws necessarily reflect your conscious. I mean you are quite familiar with the Aghoris by now. They do very illegal things not generally tolerated in polite society. Didn't you also call them liberated in another thread?
So if that old woman did consent to neceophilia being performed after her death, then that's her personal choice. You or I don't get the right to interfere with her personal freedoms. Even if she dies. Do I find that icky? Sure, but I'm not the one involved so my opinion is irrelevant.

Point is, society is not always the best judge of what is and isn't moral. It never really has been. It's lines are a combination of arbitrarily making innocuous things illegal *ahem like homosexuality at one point simply due to religion.* But also allowing horribly unspeakable acts. Like for example it was once perfectly okay to lynch a black person. And a few genuine logical laws. Still is arguably. Though thankfully minus the killing of innocent people. At least legally.

I'll think about it.

I try to follow my conscience and let that be my guide, and pray to God and the spirits, to inspire in me healthy inclinations and healthy lifestyle.