What Does ‘Monogamy’ Mean To Gays

What does it mean to straight people?

I would hope that when two people, gay or straight, take their marriage vows, that they enter into such a commitment truly believing "Till death do us part". But I think the reality is that many couples, gay or straight, will break up and remarry.

As far as monogamy in a relationship.... That's up to the couple to decide, gay or straight. But I would expect that married pastors (or priests, or whoever) be in a committed monogamous relationship. I also think that pastors and priests need a little more "real world" experience. That means dating and having sex on dates, etc. I think such practical knowledge would be beneficial in giving good sound advice to his or her congregation.

Actually it's not Lutheran acceptance, its Evangelical Lutheran Acceptance. A much smaller off-shoot of the Lutheran Church. Even so, each specific congregation have the right to choose whether or not they will allow a “Gay Pastor”.

It is completely unacceptable to receive moral instruction from a sexual deviant, simply because choosing sexual deviance is immoral. Makes no difference emulating life long marriages. Same sex marriage is pretending to be what one is not, apparently to gain acceptance by validating one’s sexual deviance. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country tolerate same sex relationships to a point, but clearly they don’t accept it. It is abnormal, unnatural, and, most likely a form of mental illness. As a nation, we should strive to reduce same sex attractions through research and mental health treatment, not just give up and accept it because the problem is to difficult. The real tragedy is accepting this abnormality, rather than confront it.

"We should strive to reduce same sex attractions through research and mental health treatment."

We did. It didn't work. We tried faith cures, and counseling. We tried giving male homosexuals testosterone injections to restore their proper male sexual inclinations. Turns out when you do that, you just get a horny gay guy. But if you want to keep trying, knock yourself out.

In the meantime, there's simply no upside to giving gays a hard time, any more than there is to National Make Fun of the Handicapped Week.

Nothing will work once the habit of the fetish has been acquired. Both Dr, J and Father Time are right though. You can't re-educate an associative conditioned response very easily if at all, especially if it has had numerous reinforcements by the time the inductee has reached adulthood. It is neigh on impossible. Findings with the AI [artificial insemination] industry find with mammals that once a deviant preference has been trained, it is very difficult to break... as with a bull trained to mount steers instead of cows.

And yet at the same time, we shouldn't throw our hands up in the air and say that because we cannot fix the obsessive deviance, we should therefore hold it up as an act to follow! The logic is missing in that conclusion in a huge way.

Instead we should, as Father Time suggested, tolerate the condition in people. But promoting it by granting it "normalcy" in marriage, religion and so on, is a BIG mistake. Social contagions are real in homo sapiens and other lower primates, even rats, mice and other species. They are real and they come with consequences over time.. Monkey see, monkey do.

Dr J-

No, we gave up because we don't give a flip. We let these people languish in their confusion and humiliation. We should help them, not enable their sexual deviance and promote their personal destruction.

The down side is continued destruction of cultural morality by pretending there is no problem.

Dr._J, it makes me glad to know there are some things on which we can agree wholeheartedly.

Also, I don't know what TMV has done to deserve two regular commenters afflicted with full-blown, intractable homophobia, but if I had to choose between them, I would say I find Father_Time somewhat less annoying, because at least he doesn't clothe his hating in pseudo-scientific pretentiousness. Silhouette seems to have a need to justify or explain (or excuse) her unreasoning fear and hatred; FT is not burdened by that need.

We don't give a flip about what? Plenty of people gave a flip about preserving the so-called moral order, but they weren't able to find a viable approach, either by curing gays or by disparaging them back into the closet.

Who's pretending there's no destruction? There surely is. But again, the alternatives have simply not proved viable.

kathykattenburg--

"homophobia" is just a made up word used to attack those whom do not accept a mental abnormality as a normal and natural behavior occurrence. I am not “afraid” of these people, I’m “afraid” of their social implications. Please understand, its not the person I “hate”, it’s the abnormality, or “disease” if you can possibly understand that. However, forcing this abnormality upon me, my family and my community will do no good in reducing an emergence of hate for those of you whom wish to force your belief upon everybody else.

"It makes me glad to know there are some things on which we can agree wholeheartedly."

Thanks Kathy, it seems there are. Who would have thunk it? :^)

Oh wow. This is turning into one nasty thread. I've started wondering if Sil and F-T are the same person, actually.

Polimom -- I've definitely had that thought on various occasions too! If in any way possible, we really should try to get those two together. I'm tired of their thread-jacking, personally. There's only so many times you can tell someone that they're a bigoted and hate-filled person before you just have to ignore everything they say. "We don't give a flip" -- ha! That must be why they always show up vociferously on the gay-themed threads to spread their talk of "deviance" and "morality".

Anyway, back to the post. From what I've seen, manogamy for gay people means roughly exactly what it does for straight people, minus some of the legal stuff that goes along with marriage and divorce. Most gay people eventually find the one they want to be with forever, and if they cheat on their partner, they tend to find themselves kicked out of the house. In the case of church traditions, I think it's been fairly common for the church leadership to have a spouse and a family, and if the marriage breaks up because of infidelity, the church generally removes that person from a leadership position. I have no problem whatsoever with the Lutheran church taking the same stance for gay people. If the Lutheran church has traditionally held with leaders who are "true" monogamists and not "serial" manogamists, I don't see why anyone would expect anything different from their new gay leaders.

"I am not “afraid” of these people, I’m “afraid” of their social implications."

It's precisely because of the social implications you should adopt a softer line.

There is no play that puts the genie back in the bottle; gays aren't going anywhere. For a variety of reasons they've evolved an unhealthy subculture rich in promiscuity, drugs, and disease. The only choices are to perpetuate that lifestyle by continuing to marginalize them, or to accept them into mainstream culture and institutions, with the rights and responsibilities those imply. Which do you figure serves society better?

I'm confused by this post. Why should monogamy mean anything different to gays than it does to straight people? Should only gay theologians and researchers define what monogamy means for gay people? What other words do we need separate definitions for?

I'm not trying to be critical, I just don't get it.

Father_Time: "..."homophobia" is just a made up word used to attack those whom do not accept a mental abnormality as a normal and natural behavior occurrence. I am not “afraid” of these people, I’m “afraid” of their social implications. Please understand, its not the person I “hate”, it’s the abnormality, or “disease” if you can possibly understand that...."

FT and Sil: I guess when you say "normal" you mean those people which consists of the majority. Anything less than the majority is viewed as an abnormality. That's what I've gathered in the many, many postings you've done on this topic.

If that is the standard you are applying to what constitutes "normal" then I guess you'd agree that Asians are normal in the world (since they make up roughly 2/3 of the world's population) and other races are abnormal. I thinks "whites" are about 14% of the world's population, Africans about 12% and Hispanics about 8%. I understand all the complications of determining what "race" someone may be so these are general numbers.

So following your definition of "normal" I guess you'd agree that whites are an abnormality in the world, as are Africans and Hispanics and other, non-Asian races.

Sexual preference is not a mental "state of mind" that one chooses. Anymore than one can choose one's race. So if you believe that gays and lesbians should should change because they are not in the "majority" then you also must believe that every non-Asian should start eating rice and have plastic surgery so we all look like the majority of people in the world.

So, FT and Sil (assuming that you're non-Asian).... when are you going to follow your own advice and start acting like the majority of the world's population and not be the minority that you are? I know some very good plastic surgeons. These are abnormal characteristics you both have which that you CAN change. I'm sure that the plurality of the world's population will welcome you under their wings once you realize that you are just another minority in the world and want to join the ranks of the majority.

Crap, I had really always hoped it wouldn't come to this!

It's always been clear to me that, while I believe homosexuals should be entitled to their preference, it's clearly not something that appeals to me. In fact, my emotional reaction to the thought of performing that act has always been, basically, "Yuck!"

But now I learn from Silhouette that, if I were to actually do it, I'd become hopelessly addicted. I don't believe so, but I guess there's only one way to prove my point.

Crap, I had really always hoped it wouldn't come to this!

Very interesting suggestion from Polimom. I ran comments from each of them through the "gender genie" (http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php) and it suggests that both are female. Hmmm...

I remember a common word used for a woman by a gay man is "breeder".

Even if the law grants Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and, Transsexual people everything they want, they will still not be happy. The will still resent normal people and they will still engross themselves in self loathing.
Regardless of what laws are created, true acceptance will never come, just as it has never existed.

The destructive social subculture, mentioned by DR J, will not go away by so called legitimization of their abnormal behavior into a normal behaving society. These are choices made by those whom do not want to behave responsibly, not because they have no choice but to behave irresponsibly.

Stock boy's analogy is ludicrous. It’s abnormal as is disease is abnormal to the healthy, not abnormal as a mathematics exercise. No matter what the “percentage” is, it is still abnormal.

Sex and drugs are not exactly unique to gays, Father Time. But fortunately we have institutions like marriage with a centuries-long track record getting rebellious youth to settle down into lives of civic responsibility and decreasing amounts of sex.

Father Time- Breeder is used not for women but for straight people that plan on or are breeding. Its a term I use as well, me and my girlfriend actually, because though I am straight I am not a breeder. Other than that I think I will stay out of this fight since science and brain studies do not seem to be part of it but just opinion.

Father_Time, "Stock boy's analogy is ludicrous. It’s abnormal as is disease is abnormal to the healthy."

You're entitled to your opinion. However the truth of the matter is that homosexuality is not a disease. Your opinion is as fact challenged as Sarah Palin's death panels in the healthcare legislation.

Just FYI: because you and Silhouette continue to insist on these absurd arguments every time the word "gay" is mentioned on TMV you both come across as idiots. It doesn't enhance your credibility on your other comments as well.

My advice is this. If you don't like homos, then that's fine. I could care less what you think of my sexual practices. I know I don't give a darn what you and SIlhouette do. But stop spouting nonsense based on "facts" that the two of you have created.

"Sex and drugs are not exactly unique to gays"

Wait a minute.... You mean straights have sex too? That's a relief. I guess I'll convert to being straight.

Disease, abnormal, deviant...it's all semantics, which you could argue back and forth forever. What's definitely fact is that it's not a contagious disease as Silhouette fancies she has proved. Gay epidemics, you know, often sweep through the nation's cattle. Next time you see a barn with striking but tasteful window treatments, you'll know why.

Don't worry, StockBoy, we'll find you a nice girl. Well, not *too* nice.

Gay epidemics, you know, often sweep through the nation's cattle. Next time you see a barn with striking but tasteful window treatments, you'll know why.

Okay -- now that's just downright funny.

"Don't worry, StockBoy, we'll find you a nice girl. Well, not *too* nice."

LOL!

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it. ;)

The strange thing about the "amoral" argument is that everyone has their own morals. What are morals, really? They're the qualities you look for in others so you can hang around with "good" people. They're the ideas you want to teach your kids so that they will be kind and good. They are things you feel good about when you display them. So, if it is in the moral code of Sil and FT to think they are superior to certain groups of people, if they want to teach their children to shun others and work against equality, if they want to find friends that can distain the "diseased" homosexuals, fine. It's part of my moral code to do exactly the opposite. I want to teach my kids to love people even when they are different from "normal". I want friends who are diverse and keep an open mind. I want to work for equality. So, I guess by your definition of "morals", gay people are bad or unworthy or less-than. By mine, YOU are bad and unworthy and less-than.

Maybe through treatment you can become good and worthy and "normal", but it's gonna be tough -- I mean, you've been trained like cattle to be like you are.

no, not that small. There was a split in the Lutheran Church- and as a result some went with the Missouri Synod, and some ELCA. THe ELCA, in the merger of '88 outpaces the membership of MS. Basically it's like Irish Catholic and Roman Catholic. Small differences, but the ELCA has been on the more progressive side.

FWIW F_T you should sit down and shut up and do some research before you prestidigitate your own facts.

The real tragedy is incurious stupidity and intolerance. Pity the Flood didn't take care of that.

Father Time quote:
"Please understand, its not the person I “hate”, it’s the abnormality, or “disease” if you can possibly understand that."

Isn't that the same as "hate the sin, not the sinner?"
And we can see how far that has gotten the evangelical movement! Hate, hate and more hate.

As for your use of the term "sexual deviant," according to the Medical Dictionary, a sexual deviant is,
"paraphilia
[per′əfil′yə]
Etymology: Gk, para + philein, to love
sexual perversion or deviation. A condition in which the sexual instinct is expressed in ways that are socially prohibited or unacceptable or are biologically undesirable, such as the use of a nonhuman object for sexual arousal, sexual activity with another person that involves real or simulated suffering or humiliation, or sexual relations with a nonconsenting partner. Kinds of paraphilia include exhibitionism, pedophilia, transvestism, voyeurism, and zoophilia.

I guess you're trying to put homosexuality in the "socially prohibited" catagory whether it fits or not.

The fact is, as long as the human race has existed, homosexuality has existed. There have been and are, numerous societies in which homosexuals have been accepted, praised, and in some societies, homosexuals are considered to be "holy."

And as a question to you, would you really want people such as, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Sappho Alexander the Great, Gertrude Stein, Cole Porter, Radcliffe Hall, Socrates, Leonardo Da Vinci, Colette, Valentino, George Sands, Tchaikovsky (to name but a very few), tossed out on their ear because of their sexual orientation?

Sol and FT, both of you babble off your opinions a mile a minute with no facts to bear your suppositions and expect people to take you seriously. It's honestly grieves me to think that there are people like you, so bound up in their twisted version of hate and bigotry that they can speak of little else.

Ghost

PS Just an FYI for ya, if you look at the statistics, it's not the gay people who are bashing straight people, it's the other way around and usually the straight people that are so violent are people who are preoccupied with their hate... kinda like you two (FT and Sol).
Ta ta

DR J

--[But fortunately we have institutions like marriage with a centuries-long track record getting rebellious youth to settle down into lives of civic responsibility and decreasing amounts of sex.]--

Thank You for making my point.

StockBoySF
--[...credibility]-- This is something You need. I don't need approval. My opinion is perfectly correct. Offer something besides rhetoric please.

Ghostdreams
I have nothing to do with religion and many of your references are unverifiable. Even if so, completely irrelevant. Your Dictionary reference is quite laughable. Law determines what sexual deviance is, not medicine and there is no medical reference making same sex coupling Normal or Natural.

Same sex coupling is Abnormal, and Un-natural Deviations from what nature has produced in order to reproduce the human species.

NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN PRAISED FOR THERE HOMOSEXUALITY except from another homosexual.
That fact totally destroys your "acceptance" argument.

"Thank You for making my point."

You're welcome. Gay marriage is really a conservative movement, and I have to think conservatives opposing it because they disapprove of gay sex just haven't done the math. If you dislike gay sex, you should be lobbying strenuously for gay marriage.

Father (before the ice age) Time,

I don't support my statements?
In this case, you're right. Considering that you yourself have nothing but "rhetoric" to toss around, I didn't think it was needed (not to mention that you can type in anything I've said in my above post in any search engine and find the evidence for it in vast numbers).

No one praises gay people except gay people. (btw, using caps to make your point will never, in and of itself, make you right).

What about the thousands (at LEAST) of people that belong to PFLAG (parents, families and friends of lesbian and gay people)? What about the Unitarian Church (which is predominately comprised of straight folks) a church that supports GLBT people? What about the thousands of ancient graves where the poetry of Sappho, the writing of Plato, was found with the dead (the dead hoping that what was in the grave with them would accompany them to the other world)?
And you know what? The list on THAT statement is endless.. Go look it up yourself if you wish further evidence.

If you don't know about the Holy people of the American Indian tribes that were considered "Sacred" solely due to their sexual orientation (and they're far from the only people who had this designation for gay people but it's a subject I've studied at length so I'm using this particular illustration), then you're just not doing your homework, are you? Most the people I know are well aware of what a "two-spirit" person is (over 150 tribes had such a designation and some tribal reps say it was far more than that).
Then again, I hang around people who try to educate themselves before they speak so....

As for the definition I quoted, it's evident to me that homosexual wasn't in the list of "perverts) however, if you want to find out more from the medical society concerning homosexuals, try contacting the American Psychologists Association or the American Psychiatric Association. Either one will tell you that there is nothing abnormal or sick about gay folks.

What other part of my commit is not verifiable? Thus far, I think I've covered most of it ..
Oh! Gay bashing?
That's easy. Go to the hate crimes section of the FBI site and you'll find the numbers and they ain't pretty. (btw, do you support those kinds of people? The kind that go bashing other people because they don't like the way they look, act, dress, etc?)

And Father Time, I never accused you of being religious.. as a matter of fact I said, "I guess you're trying to put homosexuality in the "socially prohibited" category whether it fits or not."
You should try reading the whole post thoroughly before replying to it.

I cannot help but wonder what happens with you, Father.
Do you read the word "homosexual" and just starting screaming out anything you happen to feel at the moment? I ask because I have yet to read one single comment of yours that has anything to it, save your opinion. No statistics. No science. No medical or sociological surveys...
Nothing.
You just rant away as if someone cares.
Science...Sociology....Medicine....??
Can you quote or give any reliable information except your opinion?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Ghost

PS Who is it that is forcing their "abnormalities" on you? My suggestion is this: The next person that tries to "force" themselves upon you ... Call the cops. Assault and battery is illegal.
:D