Some men cannot escape their drives from evolution to spread their seed as much as possible (symbolically or otherwise) - entirely understandable - and some act more like prairie voles.
Despite my inability to "spread [my] seed as much as possible" - thanks, contraceptives (not that I've had overwhelming luck with the finer sex) - I...something or other.
Everyone should fuck everyone 'til we're the same color!!!
#44 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-28 10:49 PM

Perhaps this is true, but I otherwise cannot understand how that must feel. The drive to "spread seed" seems quite outmoded by our social requirements to be acknowledged and loved.

If you had your choice between living in the deep forest with one always willing sexual partner or living in the fine city with many more potential partners, but most will not be sexual with you, which would you chose? My point is that sex doesn't/isn't/won't become the end or beginning of all things. Sex is exemplified through aspects of our existence, it's required for continuance, but it's not what motivates the city to be built, the society to chose that environment over the untamed wilderness. The reason isn't morality or even mathematical - we are greater than the sum of our parts - and some parts are larger than others..:]

Not all humans are as sexual as the next. Most are quite content with one willing partner in an environment that enables the raising of a family. That is a biological imperative, not to continually "spread seed" which is typically uncontrolled behavior and sexual objectification for the purpose of claiming it's relative to societal development. Sexuality is important to our well-being, but it's not the driving force behind human evolution. How we treat each other has much more to do with evolution than sex.

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

For the record, when I refer to "traditional values", don't assume I mean only Norman Rockwell kind of values.
I am totally in support of gay couples, and I'd like to see society put effort into encouraging gays to establish longer lasting relationships. I think it's in society's best interest to encourage gay relationships instead of the casual sexual lifestyle many gays currently have today.
I can't say I would endorse Gay Marriage, but certainly some kind of system were gay relationships would receive the same protection and support as traditional marriage.
While many conservative straight people look at what they call "sexual immorality" and lump everything together, this does not include homosexuality.
Here's why.
Pedophiles do not need children for relationships.
Polygamists do not need multiple wives, or husbands.
No one needs to have sex with animals.
Prostitutes do not need johns.
Gay people need other gay people. It's a different situation. My views about deteriorating values does not include gay sex, per se. It's the promiscuity that I personally take issue with.
#78 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-10-29 07:14 PM

You make two interesting assumptions in prior posts:

1. Liberal agenda is about sexual promiscuity.
2. Homosexuals are promiscuous.

Both are incorrect, naturally, but what kills me is how in one breath you claim to be in support of gay couples, and the next you state "but not marriage".

Wouldn't marriage equate to one partner? Solving both of your points? Instead, you would deny social acknowledgment and love from these people to suit something you've already based false assumptions upon.

I can't take you seriously, dude.

North,
"Morality isn't a fixed behavior. It changes as society's norms change."

Yea...that's right.
Morality changes with the prevailing winds....
Well...for some people.
#112 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-10-30 05:50 PM

So, you agree that the idea of gays marrying is for the common good, just not good enough for you?

Red,
I believe that long-term relationships are in the best interest of gay people, as well as society.
Those relationships don't need to be called "marriage", but they do need to be sanctioned and protected by law.
If you've read my posts, you would know I would live gay in a second if I were single.
And...I'd have no problem marrying a guy if it were legal.
But...it's not legal and I wouldn't endorse it if I had the opportunity.
I see you can't understand the nature of conflict.
btw...what is your definition of promiscuous, since you don't think your average gay men is promiscuous?
#114 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-10-30 06:42 PM

How do you come the conclusion that gay relationships "don't need to be called "marriage""?

So, you are married to a woman but want to be a single gay man, and refuse to allow other gay people the luxury of marriage because it's illegal? I think I do understand the nature of your conflict - you are one twisted queen.

.. btw...what is your definition of promiscuous, since you don't think your average gay men is promiscuous?
#114 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-10-30 06:42 PM

My personal definition is quite a bit less informative than you probably will condemn me for.

The short answer: One definition of sexually promiscuous is continuing casual encounters while involved with someone for the purpose of a long-term relationship. It might also include someone who has no long-term relationships in lieu of nothing but casual sexual encounters, depending upon the frequency.

In the gay and straight communities this label fits most people who act in that fashion. I don't condemn it - and it's no reason to deny marriage. If anything marriage would undoubtedly permit people long-term commitments and thus probably less promiscuity. But that's merely a logical assumption.

So, now will you answer my question? What makes you come to the conclusion that gay relationships "don't need to be called "marriage"?"

Red,
That's a reasonable definition.
I certainly agree that if you are involved with a man, you should refrain from having sex with other men. I assume you are including all oral and manual sex?
I'll answer your question why I don't endorse Gay Marriage.
You won't like my answer. There's more than one reason.
To begin with....it would be a mockery.
That doesn't mean gay relationships aren't valuable or worthwhile. I simply believe the word "marriage" must be reserved for straight couples.
Besides...a secondary goal as far as I'm concerned, would be that gays and gay couples might be more left alone, and not harassed by homophobes.
If gay couples could have full legal representation without walking on the toes of straights (leave "marriage" alone), then I honestly feel gays could have much better lives in the US, besides.
I understand you probably see me as a homophobe myself, because I don't believe in Gay Marriage.
Well...think what you will.
#122 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-11-01 08:09 AM

This explains nothing. What are the reasons for gays to not marry in your view. "Mockery" says nothing. Give me the details.

Why should straight couples have anything like marriage reserved for themselves alone. What makes marriage so important for you to say such a thing, while simultaneously admit that legally defined marriage would be beneficial for gay couples? What is it about "marriage" that you reserve a double-standard of such preposterous attitude for?

To answer your question - yes, "oral" & "manual" are included. All sexual contact is included in my definition of promiscuous under the conditions I've outlined - lots of casual sexual partners with or without any long-term partner.

Now, again, why don't you "believe in gay marriage"?

ON second thought, just assume that it's alright for gay people to marry other non-gay people. This might seem familiar to you. What is the fucking point?!

You are attempting to legalize sex itself. The act of. In fact, that is precisely why you squirm away with marriage - you are gay and by your own fucking "values" shouldn't even be married. Squirm.

Look. It's obvious you honestly are in love with your wife. Other people who also feel that same kind of deep affection for each other deserve the opportunity for a ceremonial, traditional wedding, in fact ANY ceremony as they see fit. It's about sanctifying the values these two people hold. It's because they want the valued expression their own parents use to define their original families. We wish to continue this tradition and be recognized as worthy adults. Let's show each other the same common courtesy that these vows accord. Marriage is our principal understanding of how a family is formed. We're human. This rule is out-dated.