Sex Proves Sexuality?

[disposablechild]

In America, as I can't speak for other countries, gay marriage has become a huge issue. I'm all for it. Follow your heart. In my opinion, seems like the two major reasons people oppose it are pretty stupid close(d?)-minded opinions. The first, most prominent, is "for the bible tells me so" Leviticus 18:something says gay is bad. more specifically, gay sex. Major problem with backing that for laws is separation of church and state. pretty clear there. the other issue is the people hate gays because they find their culture, well sex nasty. And a thing to think about, you don't have to have sex to be straight, or gay sex to be gay.  Your natural attraction to one sex is what makes your sexuality, not whether or not you have sex with them. Sexuality does not require sex. So... gay marriage yes or no?

[Will]

The Bible is, as always, a pretext. If religious homophobes didn't have dogmatic Christian scripture to hide behind, they'd find some other half-baked excuse. They might even try to make something up. It's fear and loathing of what's different that truly motivates homophobes regardless of their excuse.

Homosexuality is simply a way of being. I don't feel that a particular kind of sexuality is something that can be judged let alone should be judged, because we're really still just scratching the surface of what it means to be human. If a man, woman, or transgendered individual can find a life-defining, consensual love, they should pursue it regardless of its gender incarnation.

[rlrose328]

gay marriage:  YES!  Overwhelming YES.  It's no one's business who you sleep with and if the law is worded correctly, it won't include animals, children or any of the other crap that religious folks throw out there in their straw man -- slippery slope arguments.  Their god has no right to tell me who I can and can't fall in love with or who I can or can't devote my life to.  Period.

[thiolsulfate]

What any number of consenting adults want to stick into each other in privacy is of no concern to me.

[Heretical Rants]

I honestly don't like the state marriage contracts as they currently exist, but since we* have them, they should be available to any and all.

*EDIT:  I just realized I left the subject out of that phrase

[Sophus]

I think the rights for gays to married will be given across the US eventually. It's unconstitutional to say they can't, so it's just a matter of spending time and money to fight religious nuts. It's a shame folks are more concerned about pleasing some unobservable tyrant than granting rights of actual people.

[JillSwift]

Human sexuality is a continuum, with social mores and expectations making the "mostly straight" folks appear "totally straight".

So far as same-gender marriage, I just have to wonder why government is there defining marriage at all. People should have the freedom to choose how they wish to live with others. They can define their relationship legally though contract law if they feel the need to define it legally at all.

(OffTopic: This is one of those things about these neo-Republicans that confuses me. They say they want small government, then go and start defining people's relationships for them - does that not smack of totalitarianism?)

[thiolsulfate]

This is only really an issue because of the special rights that we give to spouses: e.g. spouses cannot be subpoenaed to testify against each other, spousal privilege to visit each other in hospitals, spousal power of attorney when one or the other is incapacitated, inheritance rights in the absence of a will, legal authority over each others children and a whole host of odd benefits that don't make any sense but exist.

The only reason why the state is involved at all in any of this is for those odd benefits that don't make any sense -- like a tax break for being married -- as though that had any effect on the public goods that each individual consumes.

I don't like it, but if that's the way the game is played then let the gays play too.

On the topic of the spectrum of sexuality, I consider myself as a male-lesbian or male-tomboy. Not homosexual (man who is attracted to men), not transsexual (man who wishes to be a woman and is attracted to men), a male-lesbian (man who wishes to be a woman and is attracted to women). It's an obscure sexual minority. I had always been envious of girls, still am jealous of them and was rather confused as to my sexuality for quite a while. It confused me for a long time, I know I'm quite effeminate so I thought I might be gay, but I am still very attracted to women. It wasn't until I heard Eddie Izzard explain that that's what he is and that's what it was that I could finally have a better idea of my identity.

(On the OffTopic: They are theocrats.)