You are 110% correct. I should have moved on and my comments were gratuitous. I mean this sincerely.

I find that no matter how much I try be tolerant, I do not like eavesdropping on gays discussing their sexual intimacy.

And by “eavesdropping” you mean “reading a thread that has Sex right there in the title, on a blog that has Gay right there in the title, although no one is forcing you to read the (free of charge) blog or the particular thread therein.”

P.S. Although I enjoy watching “gay pr0n,” I don’t enjoy watching anal sex scenes — it’s just not very erotic to me. So my utterly revolutionary solution is to AVOID VIEWING pr0n that has a lot of futtbucking in it.

Jody, you can argue til you’re blue in the face about common values between the two men who decide to open up a relationship…

Actually, I pointed out that neither having and open or closed relationship is an assurance of intimacy or by extension success. When looking at couples who have been together a long time, research-wise, neither open nor closed relationships dominate.

but as soon as the relationship opens, it begins to involve other human beings.

Yes, it does.

Other human beings who have a choice?

Presumably, yes. Those human beings have choices, too.

Yes, of course, but the more open relationships there are, the fewer the available highquality choices there are out there.

G, that doesn’t follow.

I say that thinking you are trying to argue that people in open relationships suck the life out of other relationships, be they closed or just with single people. I’m drawing on your endo and ecto thermic idea here. But that’s an assertion offered without support; an opinion. I disagree.

There are closed couples that suck the life out of other closed relationships all on their own. They manage to do it to other single people, too. Some open couples do it. Some single people manage it as well. Some people are just assholes. Some couples are, too. That’s just life.

Do you really believe that exclusivity inexorably leads to intimacy?

I think that part’s a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

HOWEVER, Jody, sexual expression can’t possibly be entirely be separated from *some* kind of emotional meaning/intimacy. There’s no such thing as “it’s just sex”.

Anyone who tells you “it’s just sex” is lying to someone, usually themselves.

All the same-sex relationships I’ve been witness to (yes, this is anecdotal, but extensively so with uniform results), when they go from exclusive (monogamous) to open cross a fundamental line in how they interact with the rest of the world.

If such relationships can be thought of as organisms, these relationships go from being endotherms, that is, capable of producing their own energy, capable of keeping themselves going, to ectotherms, that is, relying on taking energy from the outside world in order to keep themselves going.

I’ve seen it a million times, individuals in these “open relationships” taking emotional energy from other people, usually single people, in order to get what they’re not getting from the other in the relationship they’re in.

I’m as hardcore a Leftist (in your parlance) as they come, but I see what I see. Just how much of one’s own humanity does one really have to give up in order for the physical closeness of sexual actiivity with another human being to mean absolutely nothing on a level higher than simple friction?

Sex always mean’s *something*. It may mean simple camaraderie and nothing more. It may mean comfort. It may mean something intense but temporary. It may mean tenderness or yes, even kindness to a stranger, but it always means SOMETHING.

Sex meaning nothing is a choice to ignore or deny that whatever-something it meant.

Jody, you can argue til you’re blue in the face about common values between the two men who decide to open up a relationship, but as soon as the relationship opens, it begins to involve other human beings. Other human beings who have a choice? Yes, of course, but the more open relationships there are, the fewer the available highquality choices there are out there.

Couples in open relationships are never about just two people.

As to whether or not gay men are serious about marriage, I’d argue we’re about as serious as straight people are, the Goessleins and the Milford’s included.

Problem is, gay liberals support the Gosselins and insist that the Milfords are dysfunctional.

From the research I’m familiar with, for long term male couples, its pretty much a wash for sexual monogamy. Some are and find that to be a key value in their relationship but others aren’t, and still report a corresponding level of emotional intimacy.

Sexual exclusivity and emotional intimacy aren’t the same thing. One doesn’t necessarily lead to another and teaching that they do isn’t correct. Building intimacy requires a lot of work in a lot of areas, not just in the bedroom.

Main one? Common values. What does seem to work is that a couple has to share the same value, either for sexual and emotional monogamy or emotional monogamy only. M/M relationships just won’t work if both parties aren’t on the same page with that — as well lots of other things, too.

As to whether or not gay men are serious about marriage, I’d argue we’re about as serious as straight people are, the Goessleins and the Milford’s included.

Listening to anyone talking about his sex life is not a zone of comfort for me. However, I will say what you want to hear. My tolerance for gays is challenged when a gay starts talking about his sex life. You see, I am clearly a borderline homophobic bigot. But, if you feel more comfortable dropping the “borderline” qualifier, please be my guest.

I feel that way about my coworkers. Talking about it with friends is different, but I’m… odd that way.

I think it is wrong to base sexual morality on human norms or what each individual thinks is right. The only source for sexual morality is God, who speaks to us through Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (the Methodist 4-legged stool, which I think most mainline Christians would agree with). By prayerfully examining those 4 sources in a believing community, we can find God’s will for our sexuality, and not be led astray by our own misguided attempts at morality.

I agree with you about the condom part. In all the quotes I have seen, Jennings did not advise or suggest that sex was okay as long as he was using a condom. It was after the fact. More like it was bad enough that he had sex with a predator, and was hoping he did not make it worse by not protecting himself.

I give Jennings more of a break than you do. Sure, in his book, he should have been regretful of his decision. If I were to interview him, I would question him on what he would do now if he was in the same situation.

StraightAussie, I somewhat agree with you. Perhaps the best route is to get government totally out of the marriage business. We can call any license given by the government to two consenting adults a civil union. And then we can leave it to the churches to decide who they want to marry (including same sex couples). And obviously we each get to decide whether we want to call anyone else’s civil union a marriage or not.

Second, sexual activity itself is overrated. For too long there has been this emphasis upon the sex act which in reality turns us into “animals” because the act itself becomes something that is mechanical. I think that this is the problem with the Jennings types in this world.

Third, as a straight person, I reiterate that marriage is between a man and a woman. That continues to be my position. However, that is really a position that takes in the more religious viewpoint and I do believe that there is another side – that of the civil law. From the civil law point of view, a partnership between two consenting male or female can be accepted under partnership law. The issue of a civil license is quite separate from the sacramental view of marriage. The granting of a civil license is a different matter. It would be far better to discuss this in the form of civil union, rather than the use of the word “marriage”.

Since there are a lot of heterosexuals who live together without the civil license I do not understand the constant push for a change in the civil law. If this was just about getting recognition by insurance companies and the like, then there would be some ways of working to get a broader definition of a partnership. If, on the other hand the whole thing is based upon “breaking down a barrier”, then yes, I will continue to object to this particular push.