[*crying stars*]

”I'm a Gay Mormon and I've Been Happily Married For Ten Years”
It's an interesting read, to say the least. I can't really imagine how either man or woman feels in that relationship. I suppose their love is unique? Don't know it I'd be willing to participate in a relationship fully aware that my husband would rather I be a man.

But I guess it's similar to the love that keeps a couple together even after one turns out to be transgendered.

[Charles777]

I read that earlier and didn't know what to make of it.

[Chocolatethief]

Here's where Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't hold up from a hedonistic standpoint. Under DADT, while deployed:
(Where S=Straight soldiers and G=Gay soldiers)
Being able to discuss sexuality openly - S
Being able to engage in sexual activities - Neither
Happiness scores - S=1, G=0
Total score - 1

If DADT were abolished:
Being able to discuss sexuality openly - S,G
Being able to engage in sexual activities - G
Happiness scores - S=1, G=2
Total score - 3

So shifting the advantage to the other side will maximize overall happiness in military encampments.

And I'm not implying that they get it on in the middle of the battlefield. Just in the bunks or showers.

[Justin_stacy]

really good documentary on PBS's Independent Lens for the next two weeks called "We Were Here". Its about the early years of aids epidemic in San Francisco.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Chocolatethief

Here's where Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't hold up from a hedonistic standpoint. Under DADT, while deployed:
(Where S=Straight soldiers and G=Gay soldiers)
Being able to discuss sexuality openly - S
Being able to engage in sexual activities - Neither
Happiness scores - S=1, G=0
Total score - 1

If DADT were abolished:
Being able to discuss sexuality openly - S,G
Being able to engage in sexual activities - G
Happiness scores - S=1, G=2
Total score - 3

So shifting the advantage to the other side will maximize overall happiness in military encampments.

And I'm not implying that they get it on in the middle of the battlefield. Just in the bunks or showers.

Uh... I get that you're in support of DADT's repeal, but does anyone else get weird vibes reading it? Like he's insinuating the showers are going to become... I don't know. This post doesn't sit with me right me.

[knash9]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Uh... I get that you're in support of DADT's repeal, but does anyone else get weird vibes reading it? Like he's insinuating the showers are going to become... I don't know. This post doesn't sit with me right me.

Same here. I just tried to ignore it when I saw it.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Uh... I get that you're in support of DADT's repeal, but does anyone else get weird vibes reading it? Like he's insinuating the showers are going to become... I don't know. This post doesn't sit with me right me.

Me either. Being gay doesn't mean that you aren't able to control your sexual impulses in professional environments such as a military setting. Also, soldiers engaging in sexual relationships with each other is frowned upon whether the soldier are gay or straight.

[vaguestcargo]

Originally Posted by *crying stars*

”I'm a Gay Mormon and I've Been Happily Married For Ten Years”
It's an interesting read, to say the least. I can't really imagine how either man or woman feels in that relationship. I suppose their love is unique? Don't know it I'd be willing to participate in a relationship fully aware that my husband would rather I be a man.

But I guess it's similar to the love that keeps a couple together even after one turns out to be transgendered.

People slept on this post but I had a pretty serious e-debate on my fb over this article this week.

My take: bullshit mormon propaganda. What better for the "omg we didn't mean to insult teh gayz by funding prop 8" religion then "look!!!!! we love teh gayz so much we let them marry our straight womenz!!!" Mormon hs friends were saying shit like "what a touching and powerful story of our Lord Jesus' ability to overcome all" and so on. Marketing. And not smart marketing, since I haven't talked to a single non-mormon who believed a word the article said.

She's a beard. He's fucking guys. Or he's not gay and is a liar on the church's dime. One way or the other, no openly gay man is sleeping with a woman, unless all you straight guys here really think you could get it up for another male if the flying spaghetti monster told you to.

[Esrb99]

Interesting article on Digg today on other side of this debate, from a secularist perspective:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Excerpt:

Quote:

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person...Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals...Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children...

[Love As Arson]

The answer seems clear: Strip away the benefits of marriage.

Why should one type of relationship - monogamous marriage, for example - be elevated above any other?

[Neo Cassady]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

The answer seems clear: Strip away the benefits of marriage.

Why should one type of relationship - monogamous marriage, for example - be elevated above any other?

But it's far more likely that the public will go for "granting more rights to more people" over "taking benefits away from a majority" as a path to equality.

[sjb2k1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19293465
moscow won't be fabulous for another 100 years

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by sjb2k1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19293465
moscow won't be fabulous for another 100 years

Where's the nearest European/Asian gay-friendly city?

[sjb2k1]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Where's the nearest European/Asian gay-friendly city?

not a clue