|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Now that I'm in a relationship that is pretty much everything I could ever hope for, why do I still want to be with other guys?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good question; you should ask my boyfriend the same one.
viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instinct?
You'll have a hard time getting sympathy out of me -- I haven't even managed to get a first guy yet. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... who find an all-consuming love, for most ordinary mortals fidelity isn't a matter of not feeling attraction to other guys, it's a matter of not acting upon those feelings. Str8 guys have the same problem, too!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Young gay men, in relationships tend to dip their quils into various ink wells in the hope of finding the "perfect" guy.....
Eventualy, reality and self acknowledgment of the fact that perfection is a myth. Once this hurdle has been vaulted most tend to settle down.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
That's pretty much it, I'd never do anything with anyone else unless I was under the impression that Ryan thought it was okay. And he most definitely doesn't. I've floated the idea of threesomes and the like with me but he "only wants me", and he says that he never finds any guys more attractive than me. Which makes me wonder is he lying, or is he really just that loyal and am I that "disloyal"?
I think Ryan would be an awesome guy to have a serious long term relationship with. But I also like cock. I like lots of cock, all different kinds of cock. Nonetheless I am getting more now than when I was single. "The grass is always greener on the other side" perhaps? But I don't want to leave Ryan, ever... I just sometimes wish that he was able to share me, because as long as he was open and honest about it, I think I'd be able to share him  That might just be my sex-drive speaking, though.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... maybe Ryan simply has a more romantic vision of your relationship.
If you really do foresee a long-term future together, my instinct would be to go for it. Just change your proverb from 'The other man's grass is always greener' to 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'!
Only time will tell whether you are made for each other, and time may also change Ryan's attitudes to threesomes or foursomes. You seem from all the postings you have made to be a guy with a sense of integrity; don't deceive Ryan, but if your urges to experiment elsewhere become too strong you may have to accept that you need to end your relationship.
I wish you luck and love!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian in the American QAF said it best. Gay men cant be manogomus, not because they are gay, but because they are both men.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Then again, if he does one day give in and you do have a 3som or 4som you run the risk of him planting his tree in the other fellows greener yard.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Very true Marc, wouldn't that just be irony for you..
Still, it's pretty much what I've concluded myself, I just needed to vent what was on my mind and get a little reassurance that I'm not a totally awful boyfriend for having these kind of thoughts. Ryan doesn't think I am, either, but when finds monogamy so "easy", I sometimes wonder if I'm the norm or the exception.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> Very true Marc, wouldn't that just be irony for you..
>
I do not understand what you mean by "irony for me"......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think "for you" is the impersonal second person -- i.e. "wouldn't that just be irony for a person".
Sorry for butting in! Saben, feel free to flame me if I'm wrong.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
(Geez, did I actually say that?)
It's an increasingly common usage in both British and Australasian English, but I can't find any information on American practice. It's a development of usages such as 'you never can tell', 'you can't help liking him' and so on, where the strictly correct pronoun is the impersonal 'one'. A 1960s commentary on my bookshelf says the practice is bad but tolereable, so long as you don't mix 'one' and 'you' together, but later sources show that as 'one' is increasingly viewed as old-fashioned and stilted, 'you' has become an increasingly acceptable alternative. Wouldn't you say?
I'd be interested to know if this usage doesn't apply in the USA.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings whip-
Perhaps the idea of 'Monogamous' is just another attempt by gays to pass in the straight world.
As in: My relationship is just as meaningful as your marriage because we have been monogamous for....
If statistics are ever a good indicator, it would seem that failure at monogamy is rampant in both your world and mine.
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I would have been monogamous. I knew at 14 there was only one boy I wanted to spend my life with. It had nothing to do with a micturation contest over relationship definitions.
Some people are monogamous, others serially monogamous, others play where they please
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hear all the stuff about gays being alowwed to get married and all. What it boils down to is that gays want the same legal standing as str8ts. It has nothing to do with the monogomy issue. 60 percent of str8t marrages wind up in divorce. do gay men think they are going to do any better? Actually it will probably be worse. Im sure it would work for some gays, probably like Marc and Kevy, who by the way are awsome friends and a couple I admire very much. the issue isnt monogomy and never was.
Hows that for a whipper snapper grand dad ?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Whip
Are you calling me 'grand dad'? Perhaps 'great grand dad' would be closer to the truth, but my foster kids say that when (if) that time comes I'll only be 'medium good' at very best.
You are changing the terms of the discussion in mid-stream, hardly fair. Without doubt Human Rights should apply to all with no basis of discrimination at all. If that were the case; than legal rights would have to follow. Unfortunately this country was founded by puritans who believed that it was their god given right to dictate to others what to believe and how to act (at least in public). Three hundred years later we, as a nation, are only somewhat removed from that founding point of view.
The original thread was one of desire and it's impact on monogamy. I commented that it was hardly the norm in either the straight or gay world. Why are you willingly admitting that gays would do worse at it than non-gays? Is that some sort of a bias?
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's entirely possible for two men to enter into a legitimately monogamous relationship. I plan to.
viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah sorry, I should have qualified the grand dad. I have adopted Cossie as my grand dad. Hes the one who started the whipper snapper thing.
I pick up bits and peieces as I go along. I lurked in chat rooms a lot and watche what people are saying and how they behave. Do I have a Bias, I dont think so, its just the truth. Most gay men think that sex and romance are the same thing, and they arnt. I read somewhere that said that most gay unions only last 6 years. I have watched how they have absolutely no idea what real love and romance are. Guys my age are even worse. All they want is to see who can get off first. When I have a relationship I want the romance. I want the walk in the park, the nice meal with candles and all the trappings. I want the tenderness and caring and belonging with one another, NOT, the sex, that will come later.
the first gay couple to get married in Vermont! They are also the first to file for divorce. Sure didnt last long.
My point, it dont work for str8t people, so why should it work for gays?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt say that gay men couldnt, or that a realtionship wont last, what I am saying is that they are far and few between.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the magazine section of my weekend newspaper there was an article by a lesbian woman. Her basic claim was that religious politicians should approve same-sex marriage (because it would lead to less promiscuity) and that liberals should oppose it because it limits the freedom of the individual. It's an interesting thought - but not worth discussing IMHO. But there is one paragraph in her article that has set me thinking. I reproduce it here in the hope that some of us may 'discuss' it:
Love will live in the moments of longing and at the moment of meeting, in the moments of touch and in the moments of separation. Because in any event, Eros - this is a well-known fact - springs from what is missing. Eros is the yearning for what is not attained. The moment the desired is attained, Eros ceases. And the desired is desired again. And the yearning is yearned. And Eros comes back to life. All is constantly in motion.
Is "eros" really just a yearning? Please discuss.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
> Love will live in the moments of longing and at the moment of meeting, in the moments of touch and in the moments of separation. Because in any event, Eros - this is a well-known fact - springs from what is missing. Eros is the yearning for what is not attained. The moment the desired is attained, Eros ceases. And the desired is desired again. And the yearning is yearned. And Eros comes back to life. All is constantly in motion.
>
> Is "eros" really just a yearning? Please discuss.
It is.... and it isn't....
Just as there is a surge in the moments of meeting, touch, separation and so on.....
There is even more erotic pleasure in the gentle subtelties of coming together and enjoying the moment of all the intricate aspects of being in love.
One can touch for the meer feel of the sensation..... And then. one can touch to such a subtle degree that there is a coming together so to speak, a touching of the essence of being..... It is something deeper than just the act it's self.... Something personal, individual, unique to each encounter and the perties that experience it.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Replying first to JFR, my view is that the piece is far, far too cynical. If the sentiments expressed truly reflect the columnist's personal experience, she has only scratched the surface of love. Yearning and desire may exist within a loving relationship, or they may exist independently of love, but I regard either sentiment as something separate from - and, in a sense, inferior to - genuine love between two people. Love may have its ups and downs, but I think it is entirely superficial to suggest that it is diminished when it is attained. The columnist's use of 'attained' is of course ambiguous; it could refer to the formation of a relationship or to sexual consummation or indeed to pretty well anything in between. I'm afraid that I see this as yet another piece of superficially clever but intellectually bankrupt journalism.
JFR, your reference to Thanatos implies that you see some kind of parallel between love and death. I'm not sure that I see the connection - but that may simply be because I haven't had my daily ration of whisky yet!
Going back to the dialogue between Simon and Brian, I instinctively think that Brian is likely to be right in his suggestion that gays are possibly even less monogamous than str8s - whippersnapper, you sure done good! However, having originally qualified as a mathematician I think that this is an area in which the statistical evidence consists solely of lies and damned lies. It's easy to extract information about the average length of a str8 marriage in a given population, because both marriage and separation are legal events. But how can you draw up comparable figures for gays? Without legal unions, there are no legal records. There have been studies of the average length of gay relationships, but that's not a valid comparison because the str8 equivalent would neet to take account of str8 relationships between partners who do not formally marry, as well as those who do. Besides, to get a meaningful figure there needs to be a 'lead time' before a relationship is counted as a partnership. Str8s don't immediately bond on first meeting; they may go out together for a considerable time before deciding that they wish to make a life together. Why should gays be any different? It's rather like life expectancy; if you make it to 40, your life expectancy will be sizeable longer than it was when you were born, simply because you have survived the high-risk periods of early childhood and young adulthood. I'd therefore suggest that the really meaningful statistic would be the length of time for which a gay or str8 relationship endures after, say, the first twelve months. So far as I know, that hasn't been researched in depth.
The UK now has strong anti-discrimination legislation and civil unions between same-sex partners confer the same rights as marriages between str8 partners - but even here there is opposition to using the word 'marriage' for a same sex union. That has been discussed on another thread, and the distinction has been defended. Regular visitors will know that I am highly unlikely ever to be involved in a same-sex union, so I have no personal axe to grind, but I do regard this attitude as unjustifiable discrimination. Marriage is only a word, but it is being used by the usual suspects to hammer home the notion that same-sex union is inferior to conventional marriage. True equality will surely come - but it isn't here yet!
And finally, the romantic bit! Again, there are no reliable statistics, but my own experiences and those of my friends would strongly suggest that a relationship which begins with romance is much more likely to endure than one which begins with sex. Sex-based relationships may be fun and are obviously sexually fulfilling, but there's an inherent element of selfishness. It isn't enough to ensure that a partner is sexually fulfilled; real love seeks to provide fulfillment in every aspect of a relationship. The most successful and most enduring of my own gay relationships was essentially a loving friendship. There was sex a-plenty, but we really enjoyed each other's company. We often went away for weekends, and would cram so much into our days that we were much too tired to do anything but cuddle at night - the fulfillment was simply in being together. So, Brian - you hold out for the walks in the park and the candle-light dinners; they are valid steps on the road to real love.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Saben, cool name you have..
I tend to agree with all that's been posted in this thread to date. I don't think your desires are wrong or bad, but it sounds like your partner desires you don't act on them now. Our care & treatment of others produces the wake we leave behind us in this life & the reputation we're known by. All on this post including you seem to be truly concerned for the partner involved & no more could be expected than that. You may have to either reign in the feeling you have or extricate yourself from the relationship if you can't change his mind.. Most relationships struggle to some extent, so it is normal that you two have a challenge of different feelings on this matter.
I'd say you are feeling a natural desire, whether for adventure, a longing for a different or unsatisfied spark, or whatever. Feelings vary from person to person depending on their mental/emotional makeup.. But one thing remains, we must all curb & control our minds in proper ways to keep ourselves from hurting ourselves or others.
A wild fling may seem exciting but undesired consequences may be hiding there as others have noted here. It is good to let logic & reason rule over emotions, feelings & eros love so that we may maintain what we have if it is good, or that we may be a generally more stable & planted individual, guiding our lives logically to attain the results we desire.
There certainly is a difference between eros (sexual) love & agape (selfless) love. I think we must look out for others pleasure & well being in true outgoing love. This is a logical conclusion because a society made up of mostly selfish individuals would be unpleasant, in turmoil & unsettled to say the least. It is here that philia (brotherly, familial) love ought also to come into play.
That said, the lesbian writer mentioned elsewhere made an interesting description of erotic, romantic, sensual love. To me the word romantic indicates the proper, loving give-&-take intercourse (sexual & otherwise) of a fine relationship. Each looking out for the needs & desires of the other. This is a quite mature & adult form of relationship not founded on selfish desires to gain one's own satisfaction. Some are more inclined to this by nature & some others have to learn it.
BTW I don't mean to sound preachy or condescending, but my speech & vocabulary seem to largely reflect my preachy, condescending father whether I want them to or not. My nature is loving & humble I think, if a bit awkward socially still.. Please don't take my tone negatively. You seem a nice guy & your pertner is lucky to have you.
Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Whip
I guess that the question is: What is your goal in a relationship, romance or sex? Sex is easy, romance not so. Sex is self centered and romance is other centered. Sex is a one night stand and romance is not. Sex can be achieved with your hand, romance can not. And love stands proud from either.
Most people want romance, straight or not, and settle for sex because it is so much easier to obtain. The question is: does either require or involve Love? Love is harder to obtain than romance, but like salt in the soup, it makes all the difference in the world. You can have both sex and romance without ever crossing Love's threshold.
I still think that there is folly in patterning gay relationships on those that exist in the straight world. We are both willing to admit that the rules are different between us, but the straight world is the template that we were all bred and born with.
In the straight world a proposition is never out of place, and is often flattering, even when dismissed by the pursued party. There is almost never a risk, provided the participants are both on the same side of the age of consent line. However; in your world the proposition runs a significant risk of offending the the pursued party unless the circumstances preclude error (if you're both standing in a gay bar).
Love is a much more complex issue. Self love is a prerequisite in loving anyone else, and the case studies on gay identity indicate that it (or the lack of it) is the under laying issue in the relationship with self, family, then friends, and finally lovers.
Simon
My perception is that after that initial invitation,
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont want someone to tell me they love me the minute they meet me and the next question out of their mouth is lets go to bed. I want the romance and see if it leads to love, and then sex will take care of itself. If the realtionship doesnt lead to love, then there were some good meals and some fun.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Whip
What is your contribution to the illusion? How do you construct romance? Are you living on a one way street?
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do you thik love and romance are an illusion? If you like someone you date. You get to know each other, if real feelings develop, you will become more attentive to your partner. My idea of romance is a candle light dinner. Not going to the next drag race event. a pic nic in the park, where you can spend time and talk and not be rushed, Not going to the superbowl. I know how I feel may be very old fashioned. Probably what I feel is a fantasy and will never happen. If someone wants my heart they are gonna have to earn it. If they do my love will last beyond eternity.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Yes, romance is an illusion. It is the dress or suit coat that we put on the spark between people. Love is something altogether different. Romance can exist, without difficulty, at the drag races and the dog show and all the mundane things or places that you can think to list. It is not a state of mind, but rather a state of interacting. It can become a habit, but that happens rarely, and when (if) you meet the octogenarians who still have romance in their lives - you look on in awe.
Love... I'm not anywhere near enough a good writer to attempt.
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Simon, that romance, though it inspires FEELINGS as young Whip stated, can be identified as the special THINGS WE DO & the WAYS WE ACT to entice, interest & entertain our partner in a relationship. In this way it is a show, game or illusion because we'd better be knowingly practicing these things to keep the spark alive or the relatinship may fail. Granted some people need this more than others.
I'd suppose young Whip, as we all did, has happy dreams of good FEELING from our relationships, but maybe not yet identified (thru practice or whatever) the real ACTIONS required to propegate these feelings.
I was once in a relationship where the other person, though older than me, was immature in their mind. They desired a romance but were expecting it was something I would provide for them. Lacking the skills or desire to satisfy Me, the relationship became quickly one-way street as I was only giving & they were only getting. It was an exercise in futility because my endurance only lasted seven years after which I needed much time to recover. I won't ever try that dumb trick again. If the partner's not interested in me I'm mature enough to realize it much more quickly & back off.
Oh Simon, you are so right too about seeing octegenarians that still have true romance alive in their lives. These are the ones we all can learn from. I lived with a couple in their 90s that still had it. I say still. but they may've developed it along the way. Not all can know these things from birth can they?? I sure didn't. I'd like to study more about this most important aspect of human relations that we all should know if we want to perpetuate a lasting live-in relationship.
Wow! What a thread that would be!! I love you all, thanks for being friendly. Teddy 
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, JFR, eros is sensual, lustful, the need & desire to be touched & loved physically. I think eros combines the need for physical contact, sexual expression & the basic attraction to another person.
There is a real strong need in me for loving physical contact, but perhaps there isn't necessarily so in all people. I separate here somewhat my need to be held from my need for sex. The sexual need can be satisfied about as easily as blowing one's nose, a woman observed.
To the extent we desire this eros, we also yearn for it, so yes it's in part a yearning unless of course fulfilled. I'm pretty sure it can be satisfied, but I'd love a chance to prove it to myself again. To this extent, I think it cannot be fulfilled in self-love or auto-eroticism.
I long for a close, cordial, emotional relationship as much as I do for a sexual relationship. Self love cannot fulfill this either.
Thanks for asking intriguing questions! Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Cossie I tend to agree with you on the matter of statistics as I have a sort of mathematical mind. You brought up points about str8t relationships which are hardly ever, if even never, considered. I am against gay marriage but not against legal gay unions which would have all the same benefits and restictions/responsiblities as str8t marriage. I just dont think it is right to force people to accept marriage as between same sex people. I find it hard to accept the cries of same sex couples that it has to be called marriage when the civil union can be made to give every same legal benefit and would probably be ok with most who are religious.
I know that there are a lot of bigits who will not be happy in any case, but I am not one of them! I also would caution my fellow gay audience that be careful what you wish for as you may get it. Think carefully about asking to have such legal and binding ties with another person as it can have some unintended consequences too.
But anyway, I only wanted to affirm what Cossie is saying and really agree with him mostly. I have some reservations about same sex unions because in my own case I am not sure I am capable of more than lust for someone. I know my own life is a bit screwed up and I am not sure I ever matured enough to enter into a loving relationship of any kind. I always knew I would need to have love in my life to be complete and it is the same for us all, but in my case I never thought I could attain it. Sometimes we are so selfish we enter into things with little thought to how it could hurt someone else and so if we try to avoid those things we tend to remain alone and depressed.
I want to also thank David for taking some time to write me personally.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... there are just a couple of points I'd like to make.
Looking first at your doubts about same-sex civil unions, expressed in the third paragraph of your post, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that the lust/love thing is any more relevant to same-sex unions than it is to str8 marriages. Lust without love would not be a sound foundation either way.
On the use of the word 'marriage' for same-sex unions, it's not something I regard as hugely important in itself. I simply can't see the need to deny this comfort to those who want it. Conventional marriage is not in any way affected by this, except in the sense I have already mentioned - that denial of the word as a description of a same-sex union implies that such a union is in some sense inferior. In the UK, same-sex unions confer the same civil rights as conventional marriage, but even in UK society - which is vastly more secular than US society - there seems to be considerable resistance to this final step. I can only see this as needlessly discriminatory. 'Marriage' is only a word; it didn't even appear in English with its present meaning until around 1300, and it descends from an Indo-European root of uncertain meaning, derivatives from which appear in many languages from Sanskrit to Welsh, with meanings ranging from 'young man' through 'married man' to 'daughter' or 'brother's wife'.
I know I perhaps climb on my soap-box too often, but in a lifetime of organisation and management I have developed an absolute commitment to one core principle - if someone says 'Can I .... ?' the answer will ultimately be 'Yes' unless I can put forward a compelling argument to the contrary.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back to you rutlust..
I think you're right on about love, romance & sex.
I may try to save it because it's so true.
whether it's love, romance, or just a sexual relationship, it's got to go both ways or it will flicker & fail. loving ourselves may be an issue too, but I think even abused kids can love others even if they sorta hate their own life at times.
Teddy
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote (and I dont deny the reference here at all):
'Marriage' is only a word; it didn't even appear in English with its present meaning until around 1300, and it descends from an Indo-European root of uncertain meaning, derivatives from which appear in many languages from Sanskrit to Welsh, with meanings ranging from 'young man' through 'married man' to 'daughter' or 'brother's wife'.
Gee I guess that is only about 700 years we have referred to marriage as between man and woman!! Well maybe some of the gay advocates can see that it might take some time to remove that distinction and blur the meaning of the word. If you are patient, it will probably happen and who knows, it might only take about 350 years.
This word has really a pretty specific meaning to it, in my opinion; and if gay advocates would just ease off pushing those who are fairly religious from swallowing a very different connotation for the word, perhaps there could be better feelings between the two groups. I do not personally feel good about calling a same sex union the same thing as marriage; it makes me feel uncomfortable. I already stated many times I have no problem giving same sex unions the same rights. I only see it from the religous point of view where it invokes some emotional issues with most people and the state should not be imposing beliefs on religions in my opinion. You may not see a problem with forcing religions to define marriage in a different way, but I see it as the state interfering with religion.
This is an issue not easily settled and each side has a point which I think is valid and you make a good one too when you say that the idea of same sex unions having the same rights as marriage but not being called marriage makes it to be less equal. I understand what you are trying to say there, but I dont see it as "seperate but equal" like was tried with blacks in the South. It is as I see it, a way for churches and religions to keep their own view of marriage as one of their sacred rites. In most places, not only do you perform a ceremony for the church but it is not what is recognized by the state as making you "married"; it is the piece of paper given by the state which makes it legally a marriage and a same sex union could be made to have the same legal status as that paper does for marriage.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we have the christian churches deciding what marrage is and forcing it down everybodys throat. NOT, everybody is a christian. NOt everybody believes that stuff. The state is the people and they should decide the meaning. This whole church thing reminds me of Muslim holy men. a whole bund of them interpriting scripture, and each one different.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Marriage is, as I said in my previous post, just a word. It isn't restricted to Christianity - Muslims marry, Jews marry, Hindus marry, agnostics marry, atheists marry. I can't therefore follow your logic in suggesting that extension of the term would constitute state interference with - presumably Christian - religion. If anything. I would take the opposite view, and argue that the Church has no right to attempt to influence the development of language by claiming a proprietorial interest to which it has no lawful or logical entitlement.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, what he said!!!
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... don't push your luck, or I won't take you for walkies!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that my attempts at trying to get you guys to see the other side of this gay marriage issue is met with real hostility and I can see that point of view; why is it asking you so much to just try to see the other side of this issue?
I would like to see if anyone can point out a society (whatever it is called as I only took one semester of socialogy) where Margeret Meade or someone has found that the idea of marriage would ever conjure up the idea that it would be between persons of the same sex. Yes, dont bother to tell me that, for instance, the Amercian Indians were quite tolerant of homosexuals as I already know that.
I am just trying to say that for the majority of people, the word marriage conotates a union between man and woman and not persons of the same sex. For many people, trying to force them to accept marriage as being between any two people is not going to come easy for them. I can't really blame them as it doesnt feel right to me either although I will not vote against it if that comes up in some kind or referendum.
You fellows just don't seem to understand me at all as most of you assume I am hostile to all you believe. Most of my life has been an oxymoran of sorts so it doesnt surprise me I guess.
I will make a post later when I can feel I have some way to express who and what I am, but I want to try to make it coherant so it could take me some time to compose it.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
