#53485 Gay Marriage

[krebscout]

Yeah, I've been operating under the assumption that "Gay Blade" has been a parody, and so has everyone else. Thus the strong reaction.

[Gay Blade]

Could we use the name "Gay Blade," please. I believe "Vorpal Blade" has a wife, daughter, and brother who may visit this website at any time, and know him as "Vorpal Blade." Let's respec t his privacy and any problems being associated with "Gay Blade" might lead.

I really do, no kidding, in real life experience same-sex attraction. This is not a persona. I repeat that I do not like labels such as "homosexual."

I believe the Kinsey scale refers to sexual experiences you have had. As far as I can remember, I have had sexual experiences with only one person in my life, and that is my wife. That's because of my moral upbringing.

I think we can do better than type cast a person based on sexual orientation. We ought to be concerned with what a person believes and does, without consideration of some handy classification guide.

[krebscout]

So I have to ask why you made your Gay Blade debut acting as if you support a bunch of things you really don't?

[Gay Blade]

Looking back over my posts I can't see that I've supported anything that I don't believe in, except the total me does not support Harvey Milk holiday. I can see why a lot of "gays" would like it, though, and seen through one part of my personality it is understandable and desirable. But even there I was ambivalent. Are you sure you haven't misunderstood what I said?

I've quoted sources I don't always agree with, merely to show that "gay" people support what I said. However, they go a lot farther than I do. Is that what you are talking about?

Anyway, like I said, this was an exercise to see the world from the point of view of one facet of my personality. Other facets don't always agree with this one.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I've quoted sources I don't always agree with, merely to show that "gay" people support what I said. However, they go a lot farther than I do. Is that what you are talking about?

Portraying what may or may not be their point of view is different than talking as if you are one who is personally affected by this, i.e. living a homosexual lifestyle.

As that isn't the case, it destroys all credibility and generates hostility.

[Gay Blade]

I've quoted sources I don't always agree with, merely to show that "gay" people support what I said. However, they go a lot farther than I do. Is that what you are talking about?

Portraying what may or may not be their point of view is different than talking as if you are one who is personally affected by this, i.e. living a homosexual lifestyle.

As that isn't the case, it destroys all credibility and generates hostility.

First, I apologize to all those I have offended or insulted. I have many weaknesses, inconsistencies, and rough edges. Thank you for your patience.

Second, I am personally affected by this. If you exclude all those who are not living a homosexual lifestyle then you exclude all of The Black Sheep's gay friends at BYU. She says "(and, it's worth mentioning that the only gay people I know here do not plan on pursuing same-sex relationships any time in the future)." Everyone one of us is unique, but since having a same-sex attraction is a common denominator, I'm in the same group as all the gay people The Black Sheep knows at BYU. How am I any different?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

How am I any different?

It all depends really. If you have the occasional temptation or thought to kiss a guy or whatever, then yes, that's different. On the other hand, if you have secretly kept your attraction of the male gender hidden from you wife and children, and it is something that constantly plagues you internally, then you're right. Your situation is not that much different.

[Gay Blade]

I’d like to talk about the difference you see. Suppose person A frequently has temptations and inappropriate thoughts pop into his head regarding the same gender or both genders. He immediately hits the “delete” button in his head, or drives the thought away. He does this before any impure feelings have time to develop. His knee-jerk reaction is the same whether it is a same-sex attraction or an opposite-sex attraction. This is what we are taught to do, right? Are you saying that such a person who is aware of same-sex temptations does not qualify to speak as one who has a same-sex attraction, merely because he is in control of himself?

Now suppose person B is like person A, except person B allows himself to dwell on these temptations. This reminds me of a story about an older gentleman who caught a boy reading some inappropriate material. The old man said, “Young man, are you entertaining immoral thoughts?” The young man replied, “No sir! They are entertaining me.” Suppose person B keeps thinking about what it would be like to be with someone of the same sex. He imagines the experience. He agonizes over the question of whether he is really “gay” or not. Because he does not exercise control over his thoughts and feelings the situation gets steadily worse, until he is constantly plagued internally. The internal wolf we feed becomes stronger.

Now, are you saying that person B has become “gay” merely because he has allowed himself to think about it so much?

I also have opposite-sex attraction. But neither my opposite-sex attraction nor my same-sex attraction can be said to constantly plague me internally. Does this mean I’m asexual? It doesn’t feel that way, since I’m aware of strong sexual feelings. So, what am I? And are we merely to make a distinction here based on our out-of-control feelings?

I wouldn’t say it plagues me to be constantly bombarded by temptations, because I feel that I’m in complete control of myself.

By the way, my wife doesn’t like me to talk about it. And it never seemed like a good idea to talk to the kids about it. I don’t want them questioning themselves about their “sexual orientation.”

[Yarjka]

I also have opposite-sex attraction. But neither my opposite-sex attraction nor my same-sex attraction can be said to constantly plague me internally. Does this mean I’m asexual? It doesn’t feel that way, since I’m aware of strong sexual feelings. So, what am I? And are we merely to make a distinction here based on our out-of-control feelings?

It sounds like bisexuality to me. Asexual would be if you don't have a strong attraction to either sex. And in my opinion it has nothing to do with out-of-control feelings. I think you could differentiate between a "practicing bisexual" and an "abstinent (or heterosexual-practicing) bisexual", but such terms have the disadvantage of making it sound like one's sexual orientation is similar to one's belief system in general.

[Imogen]

sexual orientation isn't fixed. it can be fluid. it's more complex than just gay, straight, and bi.

and i don't believe people "become" gay. i believe you are born gay, just like people are born a certain race. it's not something you learn (how many gay people are born in families and communities that are hostile to homosexuality?) or have control over (i mean the fact of being gay with this and not whether or not someone is a practicing homosexual) or choose (because who would choose to be part of a maligned minority?)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Imogen, to partly verify and partly complicate what you've said, the APA says this about what causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Thus, to spell it out, it's unlikely people are born gay, but it's not a conscious choice.

[Gay Blade]

I also have opposite-sex attraction. But neither my opposite-sex attraction nor my same-sex attraction can be said to constantly plague me internally. Does this mean I’m asexual? It doesn’t feel that way, since I’m aware of strong sexual feelings. So, what am I? And are we merely to make a distinction here based on our out-of-control feelings?

It sounds like bisexuality to me. Asexual would be if you don't have a strong attraction to either sex. And in my opinion it has nothing to do with out-of-control feelings. I think you could differentiate between a "practicing bisexual" and an "abstinent (or heterosexual-practicing) bisexual", but such terms have the disadvantage of making it sound like one's sexual orientation is similar to one's belief system in general.

What you say sounds very reasonable. It makes sense that I would be bisexual, since I do have an attraction to both sexes. I didn’t feel comfortable with the idea that I had to have an out-of-control feeling in order to qualify for a sexual orientation, or speak as one who knows.

The reason I said “out of control” was because Nanti-SARRMM had first implied that I wasn’t affected by this unless I was living a homosexual lifestyle. That made sense in a way, but I was troubled by the fact that many people, such as The Black Sheep, feel that merely having a same-sex attraction (SSA) was sufficient to be called gay. You don’t have to live the lifestyle. That also seems reasonable to me. Why should I have to go out and do what I feel the urge to do in order to think of myself as gay, or having an SSA? We should include those still “in the closet,” with private SSA, as part of the group.

Then Nanti-SARRMM said that there was a distinction to be made between those merely having an occasional SSA, and those who are constantly plagued internally. Well, that also seems reasonable to me. But then I think, is having this constant plaguing thing really necessary? Are we talking only about those who have an uncontrollable urge. In which case many of those who think they are heterosexual may be mistaken, since they may not have an uncontrollable urge either.

And you are right; my sexual orientation is not about my belief system, it is about the way I feel.

I am having a lot of trouble with this.

[Gay Blade]

sexual orientation isn't fixed. it can be fluid. it's more complex than just gay, straight, and bi.

and i don't believe people "become" gay. i believe you are born gay, just like people are born a certain race. it's not something you learn (how many gay people are born in families and communities that are hostile to homosexuality?) or have control over (i mean the fact of being gay with this and not whether or not someone is a practicing homosexual) or choose (because who would choose to be part of a maligned minority?)

I agree that sexual orientation isn’t fixed. I can have an SSA one minute, and an opposite-sex attraction (OSA) the next minute. In my life one or the other attraction may wane or grow depending on the environment I’m in, the influence of my friends, on my mood, or on my perception of the world at the moment. I can easily see how I could have gone in any direction.

I also don’t think people “become” gay as you are using the word. Maybe they just become gayer depending on the circumstances. I think I must have been born with my SSA as well as my OSA. I don't remember when I first noticed having feelings of sexual attraction. Having an SSA or an OSA is not something I learned, but as you say it isn’t exactly fixed, either. It’s more fluid and complex than that. It’s hard to say what fans the flames of these desires we have leading to a full fledged orientation. But it is clear that I didn’t choose to have either an SSA or an OSA. It just happened to me. It’s not my “fault.” What I choose to do about it would, of course, be my responsibility.

[Gay Blade]

Imogen, to partly verify and partly complicate what you've said, the APA says this about what causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Thus, to spell it out, it's unlikely people are born gay, but it's not a conscious choice.

What you say makes sense, and that’s the scientific opinion. They just don’t know. It may be one thing, or it may be another, or it might be both things. Some people experience a sense of choice about it, and most do not. That’s what I get out of the quote.

I don’t know. What does it mean to be gay, anyway? What does it mean to have a sexual orientation - something transient that changes and mutates over time?

So, the scientists think it is unlikely that people are born heterosexual, but in some cases it is a conscious choice. Or, to be more precise, maybe we should say that there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual orientation, and no findings have emerged to permit scientists to conclude that heterosexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many of the scientists think that nature and nurture both play complex roles in determining whether or not you are heterosexual.

This is so confusing.

[Cognoscente]

Are we talking only about those who have an uncontrollable urge. In which case many of those who think they are heterosexual may be mistaken, since they may not have an uncontrollable urge either.

As soon as I read this I got Devo stuck in my head. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeahyeahyeahyeahyeahyeahyeah YEAH!!!

[Waldorf and Sauron]

This is so confusing.

I think this analogy might be a little helpful (so long as it is not carried too far).

I was "born in the church." How did I become Mormon? Was I born Mormon, or was I made Mormon? Well, I can't remember a time NOT being Mormon, but that doesn't mean I was born Mormon; I think we can agree that though the veil seems thin when you look at a baby, it nonetheless is, in psychological terms, a blank slate (or maybe, an empty sponge). It's not religious, it's not atheistic, it's not agnostic; it's areligious, meaning outside the sphere of religion.

Right now, my religious orientation is not a matter of choice; my religious affiliation and behavior is, but I have an innate affinity and bias toward membership and fellowship in the Mormon church—a testimony. (This is where the analogy needs to be bounded, since the persistence of my testimony is currently very connected to my actions—I know exactly what I can do to lose my testimony, and what I can do to keep it. I can't really choose whether to have a testimony, but I do have choices of what patterns of actions to take in order to strengthen or weaken my testimony. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is NOT so fluid as a testimony; regardless of what you do, you probably won't significantly change your sexual orientation. Therefore, I have control over my testimony, but I don't have control over my heterosexuality)

So, how did I change from an impressionable, blank-slate baby to a Mormon-oriented person? My religious orientation was formed through the interaction of hundreds of thousands of events—family home evenings, church meetings, scripture reading, personal and family prayers, youth activities, feeling the spirit, keeping many many commandments, breaking a few, and even interacting with non-religious and even anti-religious things. But it also has a lot to do with how my <b>genetically-determined</b> mind reacts to that particular (and unique) set of events. There are tons of possible factors, and we know that lots of them are actual contributing factors. No explanation that includes only a single factor will suffice, especially when it's proposed as a general rule for everybody, crossing the enormous breadth of human experience. It's sort of a paradox: A final answer is ultimately unknowable, and yet, we do know some of the factors, and many of those factors have to do with the society, and particularly the family, in which I was raised.

That's why I scoff when people say the social institution of marriage is somehow not going to affect anybody but homosexuals. Sure, most of the arguments tossed around on both sides are debatable and debated. What's not debatable is that we humans are to a large degree formed by the institutions of society, as they mix with other influences. And though most of it happens in a way we can't quite explain, in a way where we can't identify the nuts and bolts of the process, it nonetheless happens. The question isn't WHETHER it will effect society; it's how, and nobody can really truly say how. We can speculate into eternity, but anybody who says it just won't have wider effects (good or bad) is speaking from belief and not rational reason.

[Portia]

crmeatball mentioned a couple of things.

One was that "this is not an issue like health care." Is this no less a moral issue? The Catholic Church, for instance, has made an official statement on it. I think that we can agree that there are more people who will fall ill at some point in their lives in the US than there are gay people.

Second, werf said that God personally instituted (presumably monogamous, implied heterosexual) marriage "with His own hand." At what point do you believe this happened? Between Adam and Eve (whom I then assume you would take as historical figures?)? I see no clear answer to this, honestly, and people seem to say it as if it is prima fascie.

[Gay Blade]

I think this analogy might be a little helpful (so long as it is not carried too far).

I’ve never heard before the idea that sexual orientation may be likened to a testimony. That is a very insightful idea, and I thought your answer was great. And good job bringing it back to the topic of this thread, gay marriage.

When my brother was a teenager he asked me how he could know whether or not he had a testimony. We talked for a long time about the elements of a testimony. He still seemed uncertain about how it would feel. I told him that knowing you have a testimony is like knowing you are in love. Today, years later, he still doesn’t think he has a testimony. And he never fell in love, either. I hope the two facts are only coincidental.

In looking at the reference given from the American Psychological Association (APA) I saw some interesting ideas about what the scientists think is sexual orientation, and how people determine what their orientation is. Here is what the APA says about “knowing”:

How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or othersex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

The idea of “patterns” may have been what Nanti-SARRMM was referring to when he said “plagued.” And we see here the idea from The Black Sheep that knowing your sexual orientation does not imply that you have had a sexual experience. Since patterns may change over time, or change abruptly due to some dramatic experience (a testimony destroying, or on the other hand a sudden “see the light” (come-to-Jesus) moment), we see what imogen was talking about when she referred to the fluidity of sexual orientation.

The thing that disturbs me is the shakiness of “knowing” your sexual orientation. Here are my thoughts on how you might be mistaken in knowing your sexual orientation:

“Emotional” attraction can be between any two people. Men often have an emotional attraction to other men and still think of themselves as neither gay nor bisexual. Women also can feel an emotional bond to other women without being lesbian.

“Romantic” attraction is often something you deliberately cultivate, or choose to have, unless you believe in “love at first sight.” But romantic feelings are often confused with other feelings, such as non-romantic love, lust, infatuation, gratitude, and affection.

Same-sex “sexual” attraction might be a momentary temptation, mistaken gender (“Oops! I thought he was a girl.”), transference (in a prison, in the absence of women, any fresh tender young man might be sexually attractive), or the same feeling someone gives you that you could get by stimulating yourself.

[Damasta]

Imogen said:

sexual orientation isn't fixed. it can be fluid. it's more complex than just gay, straight, and bi.

I think this goes back to the Kinsey Scale. The fluidity of sexual orientation relates, I think, to people whose lifetime score is anywhere from a 1 to a 6 on the Kinsey Scale. So they're really just bisexual and they 'focus' on male partners or female partners at different times in their lives.

Mr. Blade misunderstood when he wondered if the Kinsey Scale was based solely on experience—it's based on experience and reaction. So even though he's never actually had a sexual encounter with another male, feeling attracted to one may indicate that he is other than a 0 on the Kinsey Scale.

I also feel that the Kinsey scale is related to 'homosexual recidivism'. There are often reports from people who claim to have overcome homosexuality in their lives. I suspect (though I have no evidence to back me up) that they probably only rated as a 1 to 4 on the Kinsey Scale and they have enough heterosexual attraction to maintain them. I think it is 5s and 6s on the Kinsey scale that inevitably slide back into homosexual behavior.

[Whistler]

For my sex and gender class, we read this great article about the flexibility of sexual orientation in some women. It went over a few case studies where women had no trouble switching their orientation (i.e., having more homosexual desires at one point in their life and later more heterosexual ones). So I think types of sexual desire is something that isn't fixed for all people at all times.