Love Won Out

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Not really. But there may be in certain quarters in the prison certain people who will do you harm if you do not submit to their idea of a good time. Some learn to enjoy the alternate lifestyle. Alternate, that is to the one they lived before they went to prison. It is really quite confusing but I remember a few people who liked to play both fields.

I have been aware of increased sexual activity among men in prison environments, and the high level of sexual tension, but your concept of "closeted heterosexuals" -- even in that context, is something I have never considered before.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They usually GET married before they come out to themselves (realizing they're gay).

I always wondered about this. If being homosexual is genetic (rather than just a point on the sliding scale), why wouldn't they realize they like naked men when younger?

And furthermore, doesn't that destroy your point that the men knew they were gay before they married?

And just because it's physically easier for a woman to have sex with a troll, does not mean the woman is going to enjoy it.

Who says the women is enjoying anything? The fact remains that a man MUST be arroused to have sex. A women does not have to.

Or possibly, they were brought up in a community, or a religion, or a society that 'mandated' that they get married to someone of the opposite sex, regardless of their true sexual identity. I've met plenty of gay men and lesbians from the Indian sub-continent and even second and third generation British Asians who say that the pressure to conform to what is expected of them by their families and religions is so great, the choice is limited in their minds to commit suicide or marry- and live a lie.

Perhaps, but I don't think Mr Fun was talking to people from the Indian subcontient or the Islamic world. I'm thinking that he was talking about white homosexuals he knows from Iowa. He is talking about those men in the US that dated, got married, and then came out. For all the talk about the 50s, there was no where near the societal pressure to marry the opposite gender as you are talking about (especially considering families where the kids move away).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They usually GET married before they come out to themselves (realizing they're gay).

I always wondered about this. If being homosexual is genetic (rather than just a point on the sliding scale), why wouldn't they realize they like naked men when younger?

And furthermore, doesn't that destroy your point that the men knew they were gay before they married?



Who says the women is enjoying anything? The fact remains that a man MUST be arroused to have sex. A women does not have to.

I will reiterate AGAIN -- I no longer adhere exclusively to the genetic theory in regards to sexual orientation.
But regardless of how it develops, I meant that the gay man was always gay before he married -- he just did not realize it until later.



Let's get off this "criteria to enjoy sex" argument. It's a side road that is not leading anywhere.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I meant that the gay man was always gay before he married -- he just did not realize it until later.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that argument. Maybe we should end that one either .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Perhaps, but I don't think Mr Fun was talking to people from the Indian subcontient or the Islamic world. I'm thinking that he was talking about white homosexuals he knows from Iowa. He is talking about those men in the US that dated, got married, and then came out. For all the talk about the 50s, there was no where near the societal pressure to marry the opposite gender as you are talking about (especially considering families where the kids move away).

You're going to try to make me stay up later than I want to again tonight, aren't ya?


In regards to societal pressure -- the norm has been that you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, not necessarily that you have to marry. But if you did marry, it better be someone of opposite gender.

But I still believe that even the fact that you should marry, was indeed a societal pressure until recent decades.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In regards to societal pressure -- the norm has been that you can only marry someone of the opposite gender, not necessarily that you have to marry. But if you did marry, it better be someone of opposite gender.

But I still believe that even the fact that you should marry, was indeed a societal pressure until recent decades.

Yes, it was a societal pressure, BUT you cannot argue that it as much pressure as, say, Subcontinental or Arabic pressures. One of the main reasons is because children move away from the home in the US. Also there were plenty of people who did not marry. And after the 1960s, the 'marriage' influence did decrease.

[MrFun]

Maybe not as much pressure as non-Western nations, but that was not the gist of my argument anway.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

a. No, neither are Christian, and I challenge you to find an example of where I have called for Christians to kill homosexuals.

b. I believe that you do not understand the analogy. The passage:

Matthew 7:24-7

c. Everyone who trusts in themselves, rather than God has built their house on sand. It is by no means limited to homosexuals. Besides, your analogy with ropes of sand is poor.

d. What father, who loves his son, fails to correct him when he strays? Not all correction comes from hate, but some comes out of love.

a. It wasn't an accusation- simply an example of what the 'Christian' continuum throws up. I prefer acts rather than labels, to define people.

b. You would be wrong. I know my Bible (I believe the Authorized, King James Version to be a defining moment in the English language and literature- I don't believe it to be a basis for modern society). My analogy with ropes of sand is taken from a poem by the Anglican divine George Herbert. And I believe it holds true.

c. As a humanist, I believe in humanity and mutual support as the foundations for life. I don't need religious proscription to tell me that charity and good works are good in and of themselves- to me it is self-evident. I also believe I live a moral life.

d. Do you realize how patronizing this surrounds? Whether you do it out of love or ignorance, it is incredibly condescending. I have been in a committed relationship with someone I love, and whose family loves me, for the past 19 years. I really don't need you telling me that's all an error.

Imran- I suugest that you read some 'gay' history of the 1950's- personal testimonies from gay men and lesbians of what life was like for them in the Eisenhower/Churchill/Eden era. Reaction in the United States and Great Britain was swift after the end of WWII- a period when uniting against a common danger had meant that many gay men and lesbians were able to serve in the armed forces, be more open about who they were, and when the fear of imminent death meant that many people thought why not have sex? I might be dead tomorrow, so hang the consequences.

The pressure to conform was severe- the most renowned casualty in Great Britain being Alan Turing.

And what a loss to science that was.

[Ben Kenobi]

a. It wasn't an accusation- simply an example of what the 'Christian' continuum throws up. I prefer acts rather than labels, to define people.

Fair enough, although you asked me whether I considered such behavior 'Christian'. Most Christians would be appalled by such behavior and would discipline their participating members if such actions or comments came to light.

My analogy with ropes of sand is taken from a poem by the Anglican divine George Herbert. And I believe it holds true.

What do you know, I found the piece. I owe you an apology. Besides, the shackles I think he refers to are the Puritans of his time.

George Herbert

THE COLLAR.


I STRUCK the board, and cry’d, No more ;
I will abroad.
What ? shall I ever sigh and pine ?
My lines and life are free ; free as the rode,
Loose as the winde, as large as store.
Shall I be still in suit ?
Have I no harvest but a thorn
To let me bloud, and not restore
What I have lost with cordiall fruit ?
Sure there was wine,
Before my sighs did drie it : there was corn
Before my tears did drown it.
Is the yeare onely lost to me ?
Have I no bayes to crown it ?
No flowers, no garlands gay ? all blasted ?
All wasted ?
Not so, my heart : but there is fruit,
And thou hast hands.
Recover all thy sigh-blown age
On double pleasures : leave thy cold dispute
Of what is fit, and not forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands,
Which pettie thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw,
And be thy law,
While thou didst wink and wouldst not see.
Away ; take heed :
I will abroad.
Call in thy deaths head there : tie up thy fears.
He that forbears
To suit and serve his need,
Deserves his load.
But as I rav’d and grew more fierce and wilde,
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling, Childe :
And I reply’d, My Lord

You would be wrong. I know my Bible (I believe the Authorized, King James Version to be a defining moment in the English language and literature- I don't believe it to be a basis for modern society).

Why not a basis for society?

c. As a humanist, I believe in humanity and mutual support as the foundations for life. I don't need religious proscription to tell me that charity and good works are good in and of themselves- to me it is self-evident.

No, you don't need God to tell you everything that can be moral. In fact, without some sense of right and wrong, we would be lost.

I also believe I live a moral life.

Who doesn't?

I really don't need you telling me that's all an error.

You think I make this up myself? Perhaps you ought to examine your KJV just a little more carefully.

[Zero]

Why cant we just let gays do their thing... Whatever it is that they do in private. I really dont wanna know much details.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

leave thy cold dispute
Of what is fit, and not forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands
Which pettie thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw,
And be thy law,
While thou didst wink and wouldst not see.
Away ; take heed :
I will abroad.
Call in thy deaths head there : tie up thy fears.
He that forbears
To suit and serve his need,
Deserves his load.

Why not a basis for society?

You think I make this up myself? Perhaps you ought to examine your KJV just a little more carefully.

I don't need to examine the Bible more carefully- I'm aware of its moral prescripts and proscripts, I hold that I can do without them- or at least that I can provide and hold to my own. Without being deemed an immoral person, simply because I love another man.

So call in your death's head- I will suit and serve my need, without Bible sanctioned fears.

And I would have thought the tenor of my posts enough to indicate I don't think you make this up- but I do think you are wrong, and that you and these people are ultimately doing harm to a section of society.

As for the Bible not being a basis for a modern society- well, I believe it lacking for the same reasons I believe the Egyptian Book of the Dead lacking, or the Mahabharata, or the Koran, or the corpus of the Graeco-Roman myths.

I'm glad you found the reference to Herbert- in the spirit of Luther's 'why should the devil have all the best tunes?' I hoped I could point you to his writing. In an age riven with religious intolerance, Herbert was a voice of moderation- I value his writing greatly. A pity his example is not followed by more 'Christians'.

[Ben Kenobi]

spirit of Luther's 'why should the devil have all the best tunes?'

That's a good quote, one of the big reasons for the importance placed on singing hymns in church. How can I disagree with such good music, loud and joyful?

Herbert was a voice of moderation

With the Puritans of his age, I would probably be a moderate. Remember the time that he writes when looking at his literature, because this will often lead to greater understanding of why he writes what he does.

I believe it lacking for the same reasons I believe the Egyptian Book of the Dead lacking, or the Mahabharata, or the Koran, or the corpus of the Graeco-Roman myths.

Hard to believe, eh? A man dies, lies in the ground for 3 days and then returns and appears to his disciples? Pretty far out. I asked for evidence too when I first heard the story.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Hard to believe, eh? A man dies, lies in the ground for 3 days and then returns and appears to his disciples? Pretty far out. I asked for evidence too when I first heard the story.

What is truth? What is evidence?

All truths and evidences are mutable.