Sex, Homosexuality, Marriage, Biology, Religion, and America
The American people have been in denial about the reality of human sexuality for far too long. The infant science of Sexology [the biological, neurological, and psychological study of human sexuality] has [in only the 50 years since it's beginning] provided undeniable evidence that the simplistic view of sexuality, gender roles, and gender identity proposed by Christianity and Western Society is just plain WRONG! There is a far more complicated and [in many ways] beautiful spectrum of sexual and gender behaviors, preferences, and identities.
The Christian Right continues to support only one kind of sexual behavior, sex between a married heterosexual couple for procreation only.
The Late Jerry Fallwell, again demonstrating his crass lack of respect and sophistication came up with a motto for his disciples on this issue:
"It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
The ability to choose to remain abstinent until marriage AND to choose to be in a heterosexual marriage is fine as far as it goes... but once again... the Christian Right continues to ignore science and civil rights.
Dr. Alfred Kinsey became the father of sexuality research when he conducted several thousand interviews of individuals in the 50s. He published 2 books that would shock the world and send many conservatives flying into a rage. The first was "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and the second "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female."
Apparently much of the public [as usual] had issues with the truth.
20 years before the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from their book of psychiatric disorders, Kinsey proclaimed that homosexuality was a normal behavior.
BTW... The Kinsey Institute - located at Indiana University - would be a very interesting place to visit for anyone interested in learning about Dr. Kinsey's research and the continuing research of scientists who practice at the institute.
Their website is quite facinating:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/
Kinsey showed that sexuality was not a set of 2 different categories [Heterosexual, and homosexual] but rather a spectrum with the vast majority of individuals falling somewhere in between.
He also demonstrated that pre-marrital sex and extra-marrital affairs were common among the subjects he interviewed.
We owe a huge debt to Dr. Kinsey. If not for his research it is doubtful that human sexuality would be as understood as it is today.
Kinsey demonstrated that homosexual encounters were common among males and females that identified themselves as "strait" as well. [What this means is that just because you "made out with" or "had sex with" someone of the same sex as you once on a whim... doesn't mean you're gay... ]
If you want to know more about kinsey's research, please read his books.
So what point am I getting to?
The religious right are holding on to archaic ideas about sexuality that are destructive to human culture.
1. It seems to make more sense to them for a couple that hates eachother to stay in a heterosexual marriage instead of a homosexual couple that loves eachother to get married at all.
2. They can't seem to live with the undeniable statistic that 90% of modern individuals are not virgins when they go to their marriage bed.
3. They can't seem to accept that women are sexual at all.
Anyone else think this is insane?
People that are as deluded about modern reality as these wack-jobs should NOT be allowed to dictate to the public by legislation what they can and can't do with their bodies and who can and can't get married.
The fact that "sodomy" is still illegal is insane... because many people do it... even straits.
And the fact that homosexuals only have 1 or 2 states left that will recognize a marriage between them is insane because their behavior is quite common and as natural as any heterosexual relationship.
So... I propose this to people against gay marriage... if you refuse to support gay marriage, then I demand that you outlaw heterosexual marriage as well! That makes as much sense as outlawing gay marriage... afterall.
Tags: , gay, marriage, sex, Dr., glbtq, homophobia, homosexuality, institute, kinsey, laws, research, truth
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael R on -
Hmm, I wasn't aware of the Kinsey findings. It does shed some light about my daughter. She came out as a lesbian right after high school, then as bi-sexual during college. She is now married and has a baby. The husband is worried that she'll dump him and go after another women. I don't think it will happen...she fell in love with his brain.
I see the gay marriage issue as strictly a religious one. If this country is moving toward a more secular government, I think that gay marriage will eventually be legalized via civil union. That is much more likely than outlawing heterosexual marriage. If we are moving to a more religious controlled government then all bets are off.
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on -
Michael! Seriously Read Kinsey's books! And, visit the Kinsey Institute if you can! I have learned more about human sexual behavior in the last 3 months in my human sexuality college class [based on findings by researchers like Kinsey] than in any other part of my 21 years of life!
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on
-
I wasn't SERIOUSLY proposing we outlaw heterosexual marriage. I was trying to show the "protection of marriage people" how ridiculous they are. I was proposing an outlandish and unfair thing in an attempt to get them to say something like "no way! You're insane!" And then I would respond with... am I? Why is it more insane to outlaw marriage between two genders than between one? Give me a reason... other than the bible, or the church, that this is any more insane.
-
Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on -
It was a rhetorical proposition... she wasn't serious.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on -
Since when do you need to be married to have kids?
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on
-
Here is a quote from you:
"We haven't created artificial baby making machines yet! If we do, then what you say will be acceptable. Until then, we certainly need heterosexual marriages."
So I ask again, why do we need marriage to reproduce?
-
Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on
-
I don't understand why it needs to be proven; I don't understand why we can't just agree to disagree and live our own lives the way we choose. Marriage works for some people, and it doesn't work for others. The divorce rate should be proof that marriage doesn't necessarily work. And if we consider the marriages of decades past, we should remember which of those were arranged or forced; which were maintained despite the infidelity of one partner; which of those marriages subjected one partner to abuse and humiliation. Just because those marriages last does not make them success stories or a testament to the workability of the institute.
Marriage shouldn't necessarily be abolished, either... just allow people to insure their chosen partner and leave their assets to them in case of an untimely demise. Why is it any of the government's or society's business who I choose to live with? What if I choose to live with my best friend for the rest of my life and, even though we don't have a sexual relationship, still want to be partners. I should have that RIGHT. It's no one's business what the nature of my relationship is with anyone, or what of my property I want to leave to them.
Also, I don't believe a divorce should be difficult to attain. Regardless of how selfish a person, or how much ego, or how unreasonable they are, no one should be bound for life to someone they don't like. Maybe marriages should be commitments that are renewed every five years! There are no other types of commitments that are life-long... not your phone service provider, not your cable provider, not your home lease, not Apple's contract with AT&T... there are no permanent relationships in the business world, so I don't know why a person should be expected to maintain a relationship with someone for life if that relationship grows undesirable.
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on
-
If in the current scenario, it is proven that civilization will be better without marriages, then we need to abolish the practice and I will certainly support the process of abolition. But the question is, has it been proven?
Pleasant Pillai - sorry I don't mean to pick on you, but I wanted to point something out... my point throughout that discussion post was that it is rediculous and harmful for the government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private lives.
I will admit, some people think the world would be better without marriage. There is an even greater number of people who show no interest in personally getting married [I'm not interested in marriage]. But the point is... what works for you, may not work for others....
and when someone starts evoking either morality legislation or elitism legislation to "force the people into what's best for them..." in the end we will have huge problems.
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on
-
Marriage is an artificial construct. If it's primary function is to create babies... then why have marriage at all? Marriage is supposed to be about love of another person and committment toward their happiness. If all you're after is creating offspring, why not follow the lead of the other animals? Other species of animals that are close to us in the evolutionary chain have sex simply to have babies [with no particular long-term strings attached]. Marriage should NEVER be just for having children... that's a recipe for disaster. A couple that marries just to have a baby will most likely split up before 10 years have passed.
And besides... to claim that the purpose of keeping heterosexual marriage is for procreation is unfair to those who cannot have children. There are couples out there where one or both of them are sterile, and/ or the woman would die if she went through childbirth.
This is a heartbreaking scenario for couples who want children of their own flesh and blood. And since I have an aunt and uncle who are in this situation it seems almost insulting to posture that they "can't fulfill the reason for their marriage."
Human beings are more complicated than most animals... marriage is more complicated than procreation. Ideally, when you get married you are making a commitment to a life-partner.... you have to have more than just a single-minded desire for children [or sex].
-
Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on
-
I totally agree that it's an "artificial construct". It's something someone came up with thousands of years ago, so why can we not change the rules or definition of marriage? Why is the opinion of people from so long ago sacred? Why do we not think we could improve upon their idea? Why do people want so badly to control the lives of others?
Marriage is an institution just like religion; neither are above scrutiny. Just as religion has done a lot of good over the years, so has marriage. But so what? Does that negate the bad things those institutions have caused? No! Just like we can allow people to believe what they want and practice their religion how they please, we should allow people to approach marriage the way they want and fulfill whatever purpose they feel is important.
Like I said in a previous post, I don't think it should be anyone's business if I want to live with my best friend and have non-sexual relations, yet still insure them or put them in my will. If someone wants to marry the same sex and enjoy all the privileges marriage bestows on a couple, they should be able to. Why are there so many rules regarding the nature of relationships? It's no one else's business!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on
-
Also I am disturbed by his [Pleasant Pillai] claim that "arranged marriage is good and it works." I have heard countless stories of young ladies and young gentlemen going through [scarring for life] trauma when they are forced into a marriage by their parents, especially if it is to an older partner. Because in many of the countries that sanction "arranged marriages" or as I think they should be called "forced marriages," there are high levels of spousal abuse, infidelity, and unhappiness... I think that is proof unto itself that arranged marriages are not good and don't work. In fact, I would consider Forced Marriage [along with female genital mutilation] to be a human rights violation.
I have heard stories of young women [especially those betrothed against their will to a much older gentleman] making desperate attempts to escape it. I have heard of suicide attempts, and suicide completions [clear evidence that forced marriages can be extremely harmful], as well as young girls making a desperate escape attempt. I have heard that in countries that sanction forced marriage there are also high levels of sexism and the women are not just often abused, but also forced into a life of drugery in being confined to the house with all the housework and forced into multiple pregnancies [whether they want them or not].
Arranged Marriage is NOT a good thing. Usually the parents are more concerned about their family's honor and reputation than the welfare of their children.
-
Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on
-
Yeah, I completely agree... there is no part of me that is convinced an arranged marriage is good or healthy. I think a woman being satisfied with her betrothed is the exception, not the rule. And men may forget that the women in those countries that sanction arranged marriages won't necessarily vocalize their discontent!
What's new today
Forum
Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Started by G in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by archaeopteryx 1 minute ago. 296 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Seen a FB about Tornados today in KS and OK.
Posted by Matthew on May 20, 2013 at 8:14pm 1 Comment 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
