Jump to content


Recommended Posts

Guest Dabeagle

That IS sad. I agree that the politicians don't care about us, except as far as it translates to votes, but I don't understand gays who don't think they should have the same rights as everyone else. I don't understand the people who want to appease the religious noisemakers and say 'let's just not call it marriage' as if religion owns the term.

I do understand that people are trapped by their upbringing and that change is hard, staying the same is easy and most people are like water - following the path of least resistance.

Link to comment

One of the commenters quotes: “No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” ---Immanuel Kant

The 'if' is the important thing here. Not everyone does it, and certainly even if they do, they don't do it at the same time as everyone else, so society is safe.

In the case of people who are beset with an attitude that fails the test of logic and evidence, one must be either patient with them whilst they evolve, or realise that no amount of effort or setting of an example will help them, and they are best left to their own thoughts. The difficulty is often knowing when to be patient, or when to abandon a lost cause.

In my promiscuous days long past, I wondered with awe at the idea of gentle love being expressed by men who might in fact be brutes, except during our joyous encounter. Now, it seems we have to pass a test of appropriate political and religious attitudes. That would have been awkward, to say the least, if it had been a requirement on the beat to fill in a questionnaire before proceeding with the evening's activities.

Link to comment

It still amazes me that arguments against same-sex marriage so often focus on 'children need the presence of both biological parents'. Children are a different issue - if it's an argument at all, it's a argument against same-sex adoption, not same-sex marriage, and generally in adoption cases it isn't a choice for the child between being brought up by two men or being brought up by both biological parents. The choice all too often is between being brought up by one or two adults who love them and do their best to nurture them, or being brought up in a children's home or succession of foster homes. Many straight marriages don't involve children, and many children are brought up in single parent households. We don't denigrate such families, and we shouldn't denigrate same-sex marriages either.

Link to comment

But Des, wasn't the point not to be merely looking at short term frivolity, but long term stability with love?


I really hope not! The primal urges should be controlled, of course, but long term stable relationships should not be confused as replacement for the casual liaison between consenting adults. I merely note that in terms of the comment at the linked article that the Kant reference doesn't even apply to casual encounters let alone long term ones that have grown from love and respect. I would never assume that my long term relationship of monotony, oops, sorry I mean, monogamy is superior or suitable for everyone. I can make a very strong case for making the effort to build a loving relationship that lasts for the longest time, but experience of watching others tells me that long courtships or dating games are not essential even if they do seem to romance the relationship for better rather than worse.

Hopefully, the younger generations in America and Australia, Canada etc., do not need to accept the labels or conditions which our generation suffered, but neither should they grow up thinking that the straight dating game is the only way to meet the love of one's life. There are many ways to find a partner, and our stories reflect that.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...