Thanks, ILC. Same here.

Thanks for the report from the Hello Kitty and Precious Moments World you live in, Pat

Ashpenaz, I kind of wish that were true right now. I spent the last two hours desperately trying to get my 15-year-old puppy to eat something.

Ok, that was snarky. I’m sorry. And I do have my own little glass house to take care of.

I appreciate that, Ashpenaz. I heard a little maxim once that went something like this. You end up with a person (or people) that has the qualities of what you expect from people. This supposedly applies to relationships, friends, etc. I don’t know if I believe it, but it does seem to happen quite often with people.

Again, I’m not saying that gay people are always nice, responsible people. And even if one does seem to be a magnet of persons with behaviors one abhors, it doesn’t excuse the bad behavior of others. I have met plenty of class A jerks out there. I simply choose not to hang with them. Heck, it seems more like they don’t want to hang with me.

sex… as a means of… release

I never understand what that expression is supposed to mean. Release from what?

I offered that if gay people talked more about the potential of sexual contact as an opportunity to connect with our fellows, we might lessen the loneliness, so ubiquitous in our community… [GPW's partner in the conversation] wondered if state recognition of gay marriage might help foster that understanding.

I’m having trouble following that, as well. It sounds as though the type of gay men who have sex with near-strangers are supposed to (at your say-so, GPW) try to make something better of their tawdry encounters… and, according to your friend, the passage of gay marriage might persuade them to. Somehow I doubt it. The ‘hookup’ types are, by definition, those least ready or willing to marry, hence those least likely to be influenced by gay marriage. Anyway I don’t think it’s a great way to approach (or converse about) the “meaning” of gay marriage.

That may be true, Ashpenaz. When my mother’s cousin, who is gay, found out I was gay, he invited me to give him a call, when I was ready, as a show of support. When I was finally about able to begin the dating thing, I called him to go out for lunch. I was thinking this was going to continue into him introducing me to people, whatever. He cut me loose, and I was on my own. My mother’s (and cousin’s) uncle, also gay, also encouraged me, but was not helpful in establishing connections. I first resented it, but soon realized I had to get out there myself and make a go of it. It had nothing to do whether I was going to choose to be promiscuous, or be very selective. In fact, we didn’t even have that discussion. In other words, we have to rely a lot on ourselves to get things going, and to do things the way we believe is right.

If you are waiting for marriage to have sex, you don’t get invited to the parades.

This is also true, somewhat. I never got invited to parades. Just as well, I never really wanted to go to one. Still may, someday. I’m not waiting for an invitation. I’ll go when I damn well want.

If you want to encourage young gays to wait until marriage to have sex, you are mocked.

Hmm. Okay, I never advocated for any person to wait for marriage to have sex, although I always advocate being selective and responsible. People may have disagreed with that, but I don’t recall ever being mocked for it.

That’s what I mean by monolithic.

Even if the above were completely true, that doesn’t make the gay community a monolith. There’s more to being gay than sex, marriage, and monogamy. And even with your definition, I find it hard to believe that, where you live, 25% of the gay people either don’t share your values regarding monogamy or at least do not mock you for your values. All I can tell you is that I can say the majority of gay men I know either share my values, or if they don’t, respect my values.

Livewire, my younger brother feels the same way. Actually, he’s still married, almost 20 years. But he says he still doesn’t understand women. But no, he would never marry another man, even if he was single, and it was non-sexual.

Pat amplified my original observation to your claim that the gay community is monolithic by asking, ¨Are we all Democrats? As Pat so rightly staes that we have differing opinions on a variety of issues. To say we are a monolith is indefensible. We don´t all go out dressed in leather nor wear a little moustache.

Pat.

The fact that you care about monogamy is fine. As I continued, ¨People will fo what they think will bring joy and fulfillment into their lives. It is not my place to judge which is better.¨

AE

Would you mind explaining how I am being asked to subsidize gay or for that matter, human relationships. Thank you.

I can’t speak for him, but I’ve said if it wasn’t for loving women so much, I’d consider it. I can at least understand other men

Joseph, are you saying that if you had difficulty finding a woman to marry, you would consider marrying a man?

Anyway, good point about sports. It’s a shame your wife doesn’t get it, because more and more women are getting it, and playing/watching sports.

Ashpenaz, I’ll try to answer it, by giving a non-answer, since I don’t know. It is some positive number. It’s not 0, because there are people who do support multiple partners/open relationships as the norm. But it is also not positive infinity, because there are posters, e.g., you, me, and several others, who do not support multiple/open relationships as the norm. Now to get back to your other question.

This is about my comment that the gay community is monolithic. Your answer will be helpful.

I’m not sure how the answer to the previous question would prove that the gay community is monolithic. If the answer is even as high as 4 to 1, then 20% (not 0%) view monogamy as the norm. And even if the answer is 100 to 1 or higher, there are other issues in the gay community. There are consistently about 25% of the gay voters who vote for Republicans. On this blog, we see varying opinions on issues such as health care, taxes, gun laws, to name a few. So I just don’t see this gay monolith.

I do, Roberto. The only thing I want to change about marriage is the restriction on genders. I believe that a monogamous, exclusive relationship is what the ideal should be and what all marriages should strive for. On the other hand, while we can punish adultery if one of the party is aggrieved, there is nothing stopping opposite sex couples from having open relationships either, and many apparently do. This issue is separate from whether or not there should be same sex marriage.

evidence please.

AmericanElephant, let’s assume for the moment that you are correct that marriage is in decline in countries that have same sex marriage. Then the question is, Is having same sex marriage contributing to the decline? I don’t think we have an answer to that question, but whatever the answer is, it’s pretty sad. If no, then the decline has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If yes, then that’s pretty damning, too. Because the vast majority of marriages in those countries are opposite sex marriages.

In any case, I am more interested in how same sex marriage will affect marriage in this country. And we have zero evidence as to how same sex marriage will benefit society, unless you have a crystal ball that can look 100 years into the future, in this country. If marriage continues to decline, you can scapegoat same sex marriage all you want. It will still be a small majority of marriages.

It is not my place to judge which is better.

Why on Earth not, you are being asked to subsidize it.

This is about my comment that the gay community is monolithic. Your answer will be helpful.

Ok, maybe you’re right. Now, let’s look at my question.