“Same-sex couples are more honest about monogamy and sex, researchers say. They’re also more mature, considerate and fairer to each other than heterosexual couples. They’re funnier and more affectionate when they argue. Less controlling. They don’t take everything so personally,” she wrote.
A bit taken out of a stimulating article on “gay marriage,” that states that state-sanctioned matrimony has little if any effect on the nature of stable gay and lesbian relationships, and that on the whole people in committed same-sex relationships are more satisfied with their partners than their heterosexual counterparts.
I remember reading, many years ago, a column by Dan “Hey, Faggot!” Savage, in which he disparaged hetero sex as too “tab a, slot b” and “by the book” compared with gay sex. I wrote him at that time and stated that in point of fact I thought that guy-on-guy or woman-on-woman sex would be less complicated, because it didn’t involve the meeting of such dissimilar minds (which, you’ll note, the study’s author is careful to ascribe to differential socialization). He didn’t respond (though I did get a funny rise out of “Real Astrology” guy, once–kind of an odd hobby I had).
So, I think that some people ought to stop bitching. Yes, Andrew, I’m looking at you, you sapphic sap.
How is it that the status quo is “the radical position”?
It’s radical not to be envious, darwins.
Fags beat each other up a lot. That is pretty funny, if you think about it.
I remember hearing, many years ago, a Wright/Meeks type make a double-donger point in favor of “once you go black…” and against male gayness (as a kind of hyper-whiteness) by claiming that heterosexual intercourse’s requirement of male rhythmic aptitude for female satisfaction made white men so shitty at it that they resort to faggotry out of shame, leaving millions of desperate and disappointed white women for the bros to scoop up and go funkadelic all up in.
If I bump into Obama, I’ll ask him who said it.
Savage’s point was a common piece of anti-hetero bigotry back in the eighties. Just about every wistful memoir of the fading pre-AIDS San Francisco buttsex scene had it in there somewhere (and at least one that I remember, Eighty-Sixed, had a version of the “I’m too white-man-dance-y to fuck women” thing, too).
(Yes, I’m an expert in wistful ’80s City-buttsex memoirs. Everyone needs a hobby.)
New genre: Faghetti Western
Wistful of Collars
Minorities really suck at sociology, but god love ’em they sure give it their all.
…heterosexual intercourse’s requirement of male rhythmic aptitude for female satisfaction made white men so shitty at it…
Lucky we are such gluttons, huh?
Let’s just face it, gay people are just better than normal folks! That’s the narrative the left is trying to push on us all.
“Same-sex couples are more honest about monogamy and sex, researchers say. They’re also more mature, considerate and fairer to each other than heterosexual couples. They’re funnier and more affectionate when they argue. Less controlling. They don’t take everything so personally,†she wrote.
I think my gay nephew would get a big chuckle out of that. He just ended a long-term relationship over issues of maturity, dishonesty, and passive-aggressive attempts at controlling. From what he told me, the arguments were neither funny nor affectionate.
I suspect that gays arguing for the status quo are not that radical. It probably makes things less complicated to be able to say, “Sure, I’d marry you in a heartbeat, if it weren’t for those damned conservatives.”
How did that song go? Something about “people are people…”
because it didn’t involve the meeting of such dissimilar minds
DING DING DING
Something I’ve argued on any number of progg/rad-feminist sites (and against the canard that same sex marriage is not different that mixed race opposite sex marriage). Men are men regardless of melanin level, indeed even regardless of sexual orientation. The majority of gay men are quite happy in their maleness (transsexual is a tiny minority of either sex).
Heterosexual bonding is the ultimate in learning to love The Other.
I applaud same sex couples that are able to form long, committed and happy relationships. But they ARE a tiny minority of the gay population and are self-selected in a way because gay culture pressures are against monogamy whereas the straight community promotes marriage and expects it of couples even if they are not ready for it.
argh … should be “same sex marriage is not any different thaN mixed race opposite sex marriage”
need second cup o coffee
That seems extreme, CT. The left is just a lot enamored with gay peoples as victims. It’s a lot the Matthew Shepard thing. He looked like this, remember. Which made him a lot more valuable dead than alive. What a coup. If gay marriage can ratchet up tensions enough to make a few more Matthews than it’s a lot worth the investment.
Hitchens remark on the “controversy” over his calling Andrew a lesbian.
I feel a photoshop coming on. BWHAHAHAH.
Heterosexual bonding is the ultimate in learning to love The Other.
You’ve never dated Europeans I take it.
If gay marriage can ratchet up tensions enough to make a few more Matthews than it’s a lot worth the investment.
Give me a break. The promotion of gay marriage is not an attempt to get gays martyred for the cause. That’s just ridiculous.
And anyone who used gay marriage as an excuse for murder should be executed twice.
That was hyperbolic. Point is though it is about ratcheting up tensions. The gay marriage movement is driven by straight people. A lot of them are merely condescending, but mostly for the strategists it’s a wedge issue that plays well in the 12-24 demographic.
Ards – How about cutting the PC out of that and just say anyone that murders be executed. Does the reason really matter?
Hitchens is brilliant.
I had drinks with a writer once that was bitching about having to work gay marriage into the cable show he was working on. He was a liberal, but point was it really didn’fit… it was all too “a very special episode” no matter how he tried to do it. I saw it and it really ended up being ridiculous but orders are orders. That’s gay marriage in a microcosm.
Ards – How about cutting the PC out of that and just say anyone that murders be executed. Does the reason really matter?
I was matching hyperbole with hyperbole in order to emphasize the fact that that would be a really lame reason for murder. “Two women in tuxedos… what the hell was I supposed to do?”
*didn’t fit* … You have to remember that gay marriage is pitched a lot to people who lack the context to full appreciate how contrived it is, and those that do know are supposed to keep their mouth shut.
“They both looked fabulous in them, the cows!”
*fully* I meant
Same-sex couples are more honest about monogamy and sex, researchers say.
Translation: they don’t hide their cheating, even if they know it’s hurting their partner’s feelings.
Honesty. That’s exactly what we all want in our relationships.
“Studies” where the measure is a “self-report” are generally considered to be the least reliable and least valid type. There isn’t even any hard data mentioned.
That’s oversimplifying. The data is as valid as any other when interpreted directionally. This study looks like it was designed to produce a baseline.
I will give credence to gay marriage as soon as you can demonstrate to me how a same-sex couple can beget a child.
Confessions of an out of work Pittsburgh Steelworker (I see it as inspiration for an off broadway musicial):
“Thirty years ago, I had a good job in the mill in Pittsburgh. I was bringing in a good income, going to jazz clubs, discussing Proust over white wine and brie, with my gay friends of all colors. I was all for free trade, so that we could sell the steel overseas, and I never bothered to go to church, let alone actually believe in God.
“But then, the plant closed down, and I couldn’t get another job. I went on unemployment, and found odd jobs here and there, but they barely paid the rent on the loft, and the payment on the Bimmer. I couldn’t afford the wine and brie any more, and had to shift over to beer and brats.
“Of course, as a result, I started hanging out with the wrong crowd–the beer drinkers.
“And it wasn’t just the beer. Some of them actually went out in the woods in the fall, and shot animals. And kilt ’em. With real guns!
“I was shocked, of course. For all their diversity, none of my gay friends would have ever thought of doing anything like that. But with my job loss, and lack of money for pedicures and pommade, they didn’t want to hang with me any more. So I borried a twelve gauge over’n’under, and went out with my new beer-drinking animal-killing friends in the woods. And I’ll tell you what, when I shot down that eight-pointer, I felt a sense of power over the helpless in a way that I hadn’t since I’d been looking down on the rednecks when I had that good job in Pittsburgh, driving around town in my 528i…”
“But it didn’t stop there. Soon I was attending Wednesday night revivals, and huzzahing and hossanahing, and babbling with the best of them. After a few months I’d graduated to juggling garter snakes, then rattlers…”
“I have hit rock bottom.”
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/04/you_go_into_the.html
H/T to Ace for finding that nugget above.
I will give credence to gay marriage as soon as you can demonstrate to me how a same-sex couple can beget a child
Same way my wife and I did, adopt one.
irongrampa
A lot of gay people have children — from heterosexual liasons prior to their “coming out”.
I had drinks with a writer once that was bitching about having to work gay marriage into the cable show he was working on.
Saved By the Bell, right darwins? I saw that episode and it was very special.
Obviously, you may deduce from my comment that I don’t agree with same-sex marriage. That said, I refuse to engage in ridicule of the situation, as I consider that to be an individual choice, made betweeen individuals. But my question still remains.
irongrampa,
I have no idea what your last post is trying to say. Ridicule?
I’m serious about the adoption thing. My wife (a woman) and I (a man) are no more able to reproduce than any same sex couple. Taking your insistence on the ability to procreate as a pre-requisite for government sanctioning of marriage (or union or whatever) to it’s logical conclusion, then we would not be able to be married. Now, some days that may be amusing to mull over, but on the whole I suspect that would not be the result you intend.
Patrick, you and your wife are an unusual instance of a institution that is generally reproductive in nature and is an optimum vehicle for the preservation and even furtherance of values and wisdom. Men
who do not propagate make what they will of their time on earth and then, in the large majority of instances, acquiesce in their ultimate relegation to the dust bin of history.
The greatest victim in this whole unwillingness to recognize homosexuality for what it is — a deviancy — are the young men and woman who are taught effectively that it is nothing other than a condition to be embraced.
The greatest victim in this whole unwillingness to recognize homosexuality for what it is  a deviancy  are the young men and woman who are taught effectively that it is nothing other than a condition to be embraced.
Not embraced, merely tolerated. I am a deviant, also. A fertile man who has never found a partner and reproduced. Should I be forced to procreate? Or ostracized by society for my choice?
“Should I be forced to procreate?”
No, by no means.
“Or ostracized by society for my choice?”
If by ostracized you mean seen a someone who is making an unwise decision — most certainly.
And they are taught to embrace it, certainly. In fact, there are people who have in them homosexual tendencies to one degree or another who fight against them and raise large, healthy, and, in some cases eternal, families. Young people are taught that there is no ideal, that one embrace what ever is easiest.
If by ostracized you mean seen a someone who is making an unwise decision  most certainly.
I mean the common definition, to exclude from a group by common consent. As for the decision, it was mostly made by women, and I personally wouldn’t question their wisdom.
“I mean the common definition, to exclude from a group by common consent.” It depends on the group, of course; some yeah, some most definitely no, just like with everyone else.
“and I personally wouldn’t question their wisdom.” That sounds harsh.
Have to step out, but I”ll check on the thread a little later.
Naftali
That sounds harsh.
Just an honest self-appraisal, I have been a bit of a wild child most of my life, to put it mildly.
Speaking of honesty, thanks, Naftali, for the honesty of your posts. I don’t agree with you at all, but whattayagonnado.
That’s not really the question, B. It’s something more like: Do you need a great big societal hug? A parade? Laws passed to modify institutions you’ve rejected so that they include you? Do you feel that anyone who thinks you’ve chosen unwisely is a phobic of some sort? Do you demand their approval? Not tolerance, mind you, but validation.
You sound bitter, B Moe.
Not an accusation — I’m pretty much in the same spot. I, admittedly, am bitter.
Not really bitter, I don’t think. Kind of sad sometimes, but I can’t say I would do it much different if I had a second chance. Bittersweet, maybe.
Laws passed to modify institutions you’ve rejected so that they include you?
This is the sticky wicket for me, and the reason I advocate the complete separation of social marriage and legal civil unions. Most gay couples I know have obviously rejected the traditional man/woman institution of marriage, but they do not reject the idea of a legal commitment. And as Darleen has pointed out, often children from previous relationships are involved. This is one case where I think “for the children” has some merit in reasons to work out a compromise.
And frankly, a parade would be kind of nice.
I just watched Baracky say, on CNN, that he fully believes that algore won the 2000 election.
This thread went to a not fun place really. I think I like the fun threads more better, least today anyway.
You don’t like parades?
I sure as shit could live without the Folsom Street Fair, or Sydney’s G&L Mardi Gras, you know? Gah, what travesties.
You gotta figure, this is not soomething difficult. What is tolerance? Well, let’s look at the standard definition, which is ‘put up with’. In engineering, especially civil or mechanical engineering, the maximum tolerance is the maximum load a structure (or whatever is under discussion) can handle without losing integrity. In biology, human tolerance for chemical compounds, or extremes in temperature are measured the same way – i.e. how much you can put up with before you break down.
In other words, when we speak of, say, religious tolerance, we’re saying that we have to be able to put up with it. Islam, for instance (not to sidetrack), does NOT tolerate any polytheistic religion – as proven by Talibans destroying the old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. Racial tolerance means having to put up with… oh, those (ugh) Blacks across the street. Or (ergh) those Latinos next door. Or (eww) those conniving Chinese up the road. Your relationship with them will probably never progress beyond the rare civil word as you walk past each other, but you will not escalate it into violence, or outright discrimination.
Which, by and large, homosexuals had achieved decades ago. By the original meaning of tolerance. But now, you’re asking me to put up with it in the schools, in the media, in ads, even as I cross the street, in my churches even, in my workplace… look, if boinking another guy up his ass or using some plastic double-headed strap-on dong on your girlfriend is supposed to be nobody’s business because it’s all in the bedroom, WHY THE HELL DON’T THEY JUST KEEP IT THERE????
And by the way, I feel that way about all this sleeping around and fornication and allathat crap too. Keep it private. I do NOT need to see Linday Lohan’s naked ass splattered all over a magazine. If I did, I’d download it off the Net, not off my newsvendor’s shelf. Kanye West’s ‘paedophilic rape’ (arguable, I know) on stage and in his music videos is over the line for me.
I believe Irongrampa was making Camile Paglia’s point that ‘the primary purpose of the sex organs is reproduction’ which again as Paglia’s also points out has been ignored since the early days of the sexual revolution.
No matter what emotional appeal is made there is no other way around this biological reality; it’s not about the orgasm or the climax, even the adopted require a sperm and an egg to be alive.
“the primary purpose of the sex organs is reproduction”
I think that’s overstated somewhat. The unification of Man and his Wife comes to mind.
OMG! I’m not sure I will not be banned forever for this, but…
No! No! No! Never mind! I will just sit here and laugh in solitude.
Lost Dog,
very lame.
Were you trying to make a point, why don’t you just flesh it out. Will check the thread later and possibly repost content from it at the ‘Pub’.(Hey, you could even do it ;)) I think seats are free and there is no drink minimum.