Do any non-religious women object to male homosexuality?

I'm sure I know some, sadly.

On what grounds?

Being ignored.

Good point well made.

Nah, homophobic, stupid, bigoted shits.

But if they were to focus on their disapproval, what kind of thoughts would be swimming around? Squeamishness at the act? Love of mainstream masculinity? Distrust of any minority?

I know someone who's not religious and thinks homosexuality is a disease, or rather a fashion statement.

you should tell her you know someone who caught homosexuality a few years back, and they had it for about 8 weeks, but then they managed to cure it, and now hes ok, bar one relapse

and that you were diagnosed with a minor case of it, but that its dormant in you at the moment, and the doctors are hopeful that it wont become active as long as you maintain a healthy diet with lots of vitamin b12 and rivoflavin

my mom thinks any form of sexuality except 100% vanilla straightness is a sign of mental illness and requires therapy. actually she thinks most kinds of behaviour require therapy, maybe that counts as religious

xpost I actually try to avoid the subject. How do you really argue with such a person? You can only joke - something she won't understand - or scream - which she won't listen to anyway.

i have no idea why women view homosexuality more favorably than men do. maybe it's because women are touchy-feely while men tend to look at the facts.

the facts being that homosexuality is not favorable? what?

The only non-religious objection I've heard directly from heterosexual women is "eww", really. I think more women would object to going out with a man who was bisexual, and that's probably a confused mix of "eww", feeling threatened and prejudiced ideas of homosexual tendencies being un-masculine.

Also, according to wikipedia: Several studies have also suggested that heterosexual males exhibit slightly more negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians, and some (but not all) have found that heterosexual females exhibit slightly more negative attitudes toward lesbians than toward gay men.

Perhaps that suggests there's more of a squeamishness factor for people when they're not attracted to the gender in question?

i think so. i mean i'm a gay man and the thought of a vagina kinda ewws me. although so does the thought of a penis too early.

still with the women i think it's more squeamish, with the men i think it's more like, about masculinity and gender norms, which is far more aggravating

i mean i'm a gay man and the thought of a vagina kinda ewws me.

sounds kind of stupid and bigoted but i don't want to intrude on this afternoon o' self righteousness overmuch.

stupid and bigoted?? i don't see that at all. it's like not liking a certain food, only it's a vagina. you're not stupid or bigoted for not liking mushrooms.

but thanks for calling me stupid and bigoted before noon, for no apparent reason :-) ur the best

is a penis too early like a bridge too far?

i meant too early in the morning........ :-)

i was just following trayce:

Nah, homophobic, stupid, bigoted shits.

-- Trayce, Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:09 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

i mean maybe i'd like a vagina more than i like mushrooms, i don't really know

i meant too early in the morning........ :-)

what does that even mean? when is it too early?!?!

lol true nuff. okay but try thinking of a flacid penis right when u wake up. it's like kindof too much, right? i mean thinking of justin timberlake's erect penis is a totally different story.

chanterelle >>>>>> cep >>>> shitake >>> vagina >>>>>>>>>> button mushroom >>>> death cap

omg

i haven't tried all those varieties of mushroom, and by analogy, louis...

vagina's ok, i mean, i'd at least give it a go if i were you, but for me the simple joy of nibbling upon a fine french chanterelle, fresh-picked and lightly heated, is practically insurpassable.

such things are beyond mere sexuality

WILL YOU NEVER LEARN?

Well, I was trying to see what analogy you meant. Now, with my hypothesis safely tested, I can return to the shades.

Chill, dude, I'm not being entirely serious!

LJ the vagina expert

the facts being that homosexuality is not favorable? what?

not really. but those critical of gay marriage (or, i guess you could say, exorbitant acceptance of "alternative lifestyles") point out that while it's great for the couples involved (whose divorce rate is very low) it dilutes the notion of marriage into some "anything goes" concoction, which increases the divorce rate among heterosexual couples. call it the pomo malady. the point being that while catering for each individual's needs is important, sometimes the freedom of a few shackles a great many, begging the question whose freedom is most important and why.

i dunno i find gay 'squeamishness' about opposite gender parts more understandable than straight 'squeamishness' about homosexuality, because the former involves much less familiarity?

i don't think that makes sense.

well i dont think squeamishness about sex makes sense

i have no idea why women view homosexuality more favorably than men do. maybe it's because women are touchy-feely while men tend to look at the facts.breasts

only BIG HOOS aka the steendriver can save this thread

not really. but those critical of gay marriage (or, i guess you could say, exorbitant acceptance of "alternative lifestyles") point out that while it's great for the couples involved (whose divorce rate is very low) it dilutes the notion of marriage into some "anything goes" concoction, which increases the divorce rate among heterosexual couples. call it the pomo malady. the point being that while catering for each individual's needs is important, sometimes the freedom of a few shackles a great many, begging the question whose freedom is most important and why.

"not really" = not good enough!!
"anything goes" does not equal gay marriage. gay marraige is not anything, it's humans, marrying. it's common sense, not anything goes.

seriously i can't believe that's like a standpoint? that gays shouldn't be allowed to fucking get married why? because straight people will think ANY OLD SCHMO off the street can get married, and divorce will happen to everyone more?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... that is some contrived way of defining bigotry, i tell ya.

gay marraige is not anything, it's humans, marrying. it's common sense, not anything goes.

well, i would dispute that for two reasons. first of all, marriage is not commonsensical at all since it's a man-made cultural construction--a remarkably stable and long-lived one, but a construction nonetheless. secondly, when you write "humans" i assume you're thinking of two humans, but why stop at two? i cannot think of a single rational reason why not three persons should be allowed to marry one other. it may sound yucky and medieval to our ears, but there's hardly some natural law that prevents it. speaking of polygamy, why is that illegal in the first place? it's considered highly natural in some cultures but not in ours. what i'm getting at is that if you're reviewing the institution of marriage with sober and unbelieving eyes it's hard not to come to the conclusion that, as far as human constellations are concerned, anything should go. the problem with this laissez-faire attitude toward marriage, however, is that most people feel good about having strict rules of conduct to follow, to believe that marriage in its western incarnation is sacrosanct--it makes them happier (religious people are consistently polled as being happier than their atheist counterparts)--and conversely, by making marriage a more fluid thing, these people's firm beliefs are upset, and they become less happy. for a while, anyway.

key point is 'for a while' because, as you point out, cultural constructs change over time, and in different societies

i dunno i find gay 'squeamishness' about opposite gender parts more understandable than straight 'squeamishness' about homosexuality, because the former involves much less familiarity?

I think there are many straight people who sadly assume that gay male sex involves scads of poo. These people obv need to get butt-fucked somethin' fierce.

they might, but from what ive read about straight people, some of them have anal sex too?

well, yeah, but some of them don't also thing gay sex is gross.

venndiagram.jpg

well, i would dispute that for two reasons. first of all, marriage is not commonsensical at all since it's a man-made cultural construction--a remarkably stable and long-lived one, but a construction nonetheless. secondly, when you write "humans" i assume you're thinking of two humans, but why stop at two? i cannot think of a single rational reason why not three persons should be allowed to marry one other. it may sound yucky and medieval to our ears, but there's hardly some natural law that prevents it. speaking of polygamy, why is that illegal in the first place? it's considered highly natural in some cultures but not in ours. what i'm getting at is that if you're reviewing the institution of marriage with sober and unbelieving eyes it's hard not to come to the conclusion that, as far as human constellations are concerned, anything should go. the problem with this laissez-faire attitude toward marriage, however, is that most people feel good about having strict rules of conduct to follow, to believe that marriage in its western incarnation is sacrosanct--it makes them happier (religious people are consistently polled as being happier than their atheist counterparts)--and conversely, by making marriage a more fluid thing, these people's firm beliefs are upset, and they become less happy. for a while, anyway.

2 ppl getting married, gender notwithstanding, is very different from 3 ppl getting married and should not be considered as a "well if 1 is allowed then another should" kindof a thing. denying one person a privilege simply because of their gender is pure discrimination. and no matter how many variations it would/would not be beneficial to include under the umbrella of Marriage, you're still saying that fundamentalist American beliefs should be allowed to derail the happiness of a significant portion of the population for the comfort of those privileged enough to have turned out Normal.

2 ppl getting married, gender notwithstanding, is very different from 3 ppl getting married

from a strictly culturally unbound view, why is it so?

3 people = different interpersonal dynamic than 2 people doncha think?

3 people = hott

and it just seems like 3 ppl is more intrusive on the legality of marriage, technically and contractually speaking.

not really, given marriage's close and binding relationship with religions which tend to rule out man-on-man marital action.

it dilutes the notion of marriage into some "anything goes" concoction, which increases the divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

Can this really be seen as a "fact"?

"Oh, well, if two guys can get married, I guess we should get divorced."

I mean, if your initial stance is "maybe it's because women are touchy-feely while men tend to look at the facts"...sociologically speaking I'm not entirely convinced that there's enough (or indeed any) studies that can prove that this would happen/is happening, especially taking into account the scads of other factors that have contributed to rising divorce rates amongst heterossexuals in the past fifty or so years. Yer intial sentence pointed to something a bit more concrete and John Wayne-ly than "it might contribute to the dilution of a social construct, possibly", is all I'm sayin'.

It is true that the entire contract law aspect of marriage is built around the assumption that it involves two people (and not so much around the assumption that one and only one of those people has a wang) (esp since castrated guys can still get married). So it would be a bit more work to get a three-way marriage functional in this country than to just remove the sexist language from the marriage laws.

Also I mentioned this on the gay thread but gay guys proclaiming that they are squicked out by vajayjays is the most lamest boringest thing evah.

serious question: how does the 'surname' thing go in gay marriages?

well how does it go in straight marriages!?

enrique youre 1 of my favorite dudes but youre bordering on roger adultery style 'im just asking questions!' bullshit here

Also I mentioned this on the gay thread but gay guys proclaiming that they are squicked out by vajayjays is the most lamest boringest thing evah.

-- Casuistry, Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:53 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

so redhanded =P

dunno about surnames

'how do you decide who takes the other persons last name in a marriage where neither of the participants is of the naturally subordinate female gender?'

BIG JAG aka the vagdriver

right

whaaat

well how does it go in straight marriages!?

-- 696, Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:57 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

either the woman keeps her name, or she doesn't. and then they make a decision on what name the kids will have, but that has to go either way. this only just came to me, i'm not adulterizing.

or, if they're lame,* they do the double-barrelled thing.

*i.e. when their double-barrelled kid wants to marry up with another double-barrelled kid...

i guess the double-barrelled has a thread already?

serious question: how does the 'surname' thing go in gay marriages?

-- That one guy that quit, Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:55 PM (10 minutes

either the woman keeps her name, or she doesn't. and then they make a decision on what name the kids will have, but that has to go either way. this only just came to me, i'm not adulterizing.

or, if they're lame,* they do the double-barrelled thing.

*i.e. when their double-barrelled kid wants to marry up with another double-barrelled kid...

3 people = different interpersonal dynamic than 2 people doncha think?
3 people = hott
and it just seems like 3 ppl is more intrusive on the legality of marriage, technically and contractually speaking.

neither of these make a particularly forceful counterargument, i have to say, but Surmounter's reply is interesting as he brings up the issue of legality, which is the aspect i didn't bring up earlier as i thought it crystal-clear that there's no reason whatever for restricting marriage from a legal point of view. still, my question remains: from a strictly culturally unbound view, how is three people getting married any stranger than two people doing the same thing?

Can this really be seen as a "fact"?

i would guess any causality is hard to prove, but they point out that the divorce rate among heterosexual couples is higher in regions with thriving gaydoms than in others.

"it might contribute to the dilution of a social construct, possibly"

which 2 look more different from one another:

These 2: MF, FF
or
These 2: MF, MFF

i think i wanted to bring up finances, conracts and settlements in considering 3 ppl marrying - far more unwieldy.

but the MAIN difference between 3 ppl getting married and 2 ppl is that discriminating between couples is far more personal and corrupt than setting a number limit.

i would say that the second one looks more different than the first one because of how i've been raised culturally. otherwise, the difference is purely numerical.

but the MAIN difference between 3 ppl getting married and 2 ppl is that discriminating between couples is far more personal and corrupt than setting a number limit.

this is sensible, but why set a number limit in the first place?

FF's in the second case aren't married to each other right?

Most regions that are now thriving with gaydom most probably lost a lot of the social restraints/taboos re: divorce long before they allowed gays to marry, and I think it'd be a pretty hard case to state that *that's* actually the main reason divorce rates are higher in those regions, as opposed to homosexuals marrying.

err, insert a "not" after the emphatic "that's" there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Mormonism

regarding the number limit, you could argue that because gay people make up such a far larger part of the population than polygamously inclined people do, their saying carries more weight, and that sounds right. but does that not mean that the opinions of the numerous evangelicals should matter too?

Most regions that are now thriving with gaydom most probably lost a lot of the social restraints/taboos re: divorce long before they allowed gays to marry, and I think it'd be a pretty hard case to state that *that's* actually the main reason divorce rates are higher in those regions, as opposed to homosexuals marrying.

probably. but the opposition toward gay marriage is but part of a larger fight, so the deconstruction of (some) social taboos is seen as pernicious too.

shootingfishinabarrell.jpg

Yeah, well, best of british luck to them, then! :)

"They're breaking our social constructs!" is a pretty touchy-feely grievance, at the end of the day. I mean especially if the ultimate goal is making people happy, or making people go into denial enough to say they're happy in polls.

xpost

i guess it is on one level. but the inclusive option is easier to argue for on an emotional level, as you can highlight individual sufferers longing to get married (5-10% depending on whom you ask), while the other one is more technocratic ("if these specific individuals get their way things may change for the worse on a statistical level").