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 Misty: Baytheist Living! on -
Why should your mom have to take care of your dad?
Is he disabled?
If he isn't, then the idea that another able-bodied human being needs to be 'taken care of' by another able bodied human being is utterly absurd, and does amount to a form of exploitation.
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on -
Okay, sorry. I'm looking at that post I made, and I think I was being overly dramatic. I have nothing against housewives. I guess I was trying to say that I didn;t want to become my mother. She does pretty much all the housework and never gets much appreciation for it. I try to help her as best I can, but being a full-time college student and being only 1 person... theres only "so-much" I can do to help.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael R on -
I don't think marriage has been destroyed...we'll maybe the "once and forever" type. Like the saying goes...they don't make them like they used to and they probably never did. No matter what people say, this type of marriage never was the norm anyway.
There are just too many variables involved in any relationship to see what will happen. My wife and I have been married nearly 31 years. We still love each other and there is no sense of feeling trapped or needing to cheat. I don't know what it is...we just click. My wife is what I would call a flaming feminist, and she made sure that our daughter is as well. There have been many times I've heard her state "a women should never have to depend on a man for anything!" ...and yes, you could actually hear the exclamation mark. I don't have not problem with this as I feel that no person should be made to be dependent on another. If they want to enter into a relationship it should be voluntary.
With that said, I hate seeing marriages that exist only because of a sense of obligation. Everyone is miserable. Some stay together for their kids to provide a sense of stability. Sometimes this works and sometimes not. If a relationship is over, then it should be over.
-
Permalink Reply by Apple on -
This is exactly why I put so little value on marriage. It's just a piece of paper with little meaning. If two people are in love then they will go to no end to be together and enjoy their time together. Even if distance separates them, they can overcome this. By the same token, if there is no love, no warm feelings and no appriciation for the partner's company then a flimsy piece of paper doesn't somehow make it ok. The relationship is either real or it's not, and you can't find that in writing anywhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on
-
Sir,
I am opposed to this 'flimsy' piece of paper equaling commitment for two reasons.
1) Said piece of paper does not stop people from getting a divorce.
2) NOT having said paper does not insure people will end the relationship.
There are many, MANY long term relationships, both gay and straight that do not have paper. There are many that do have this paper, and over half of them end in divorce.
Your argument holds no water.
-
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on
-
Bingo!
-
Permalink Reply by Cynical Soldier on -
I still don't see how marriage is anything but a bloody trap. It's a relationship on steroids and when something goes wrong there stands the possibility of losing hard earned money and/or property in a court of law - not to mention any kids you may have had.
Most relationships these days, marriage or not, end in breakup (at least that's what I hear and see from observation). It seems to me that it doesn't matter how "devoted" or "lovable" you are, as you need to find someone that will actually appreciate that and look at you for who you are. Good luck with that, some people are luckier than others in this regard and there are many people who only think they're lucky for the moment. I say give 'em five years tops.
The romantic idealist has his hell cut out for him. These days, prospects of "true" love seem plastic and fake. Perhaps in the olden days a fulfilling romance was more feasible - maybe it was never so. Either way, (most) relationships are a farce and marriage is just a ship that's harder to abandon. It seems to me that marriage is the equivalent of putting oneself in between a rock and a hard place when "dating" is bad enough as is.
Marry some woman that's had 20 boyfriends or husbands before you, exchange empty vows and allow her to screw you over (or vice-versa gender wise) in a number of years or less? No thanks, the emotional/economic anguish isn't worth it - masochism just isn't my thing.
-
Permalink Reply by M on -
I believe in marriage, too. I recognize people don't "need" to get married to be in a committed, loving relationship that will last forever and ever. However, if you know you're going to do that, anyway, why not get married and reap the governmental benefits and reduce confusion that comes with children, deaths, property, etc.?
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on
-
Because I don't believe that it's the governments business with whom I have sexual relations.
Because I begrudge paying $60 to the court house to file said paperwork of marriage.
Because I resent the fact that the government has designed marriage as a taxable institution. Because I resent the fact that the government has dictated that I need this piece of paper to ensure my wishes are followed after my death or while I'm incapacitated. Why can't I just have a living will? Why can't I just have estate planning? Why can't I simply pick a person I trust without being blood related or marrying them?
-
Permalink Reply by M on
-
Didn't you get married recently?
I will readily admit that I have always just liked the idea of getting married. I recognize I don't need a "piece of paper" to truly make my relationship anything more (or less) than it's going to be. I admire your firm and valid stances, but I myself headed to the alter for the most simplistic of reasons: I wanted to get married and have babies and live happily ever after.
For that matter, I think everyone should have that right no matter what the sexual orientation might be. You want to marry your left Nike running shoe? Fabulous.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Berman on -
There's nothing but ignorance and bigotry behind the rejection of homosexuality.
Some of the ignorance and bigotry is willful. Most of it is not.
This will largely be a matter of waiting for the older generations to die off.
-
Permalink Reply by Cynical Soldier on
-
I don't see how "most" ignorance isn't willful. In this day and age with technology, there is almost no excuse in not continually examining what you hold true. If you refuse to do so, you are being willfully ignorant. The only people who I see as "accidentally" ignorant are those who are very old and those who are very young (or in bad circumstances). As soon as I began to near my teens I began to research my faith. If my life thus far hadn't been so hectic, I would have became an atheist much sooner.
What's new today
Forum
Are people stupid?
Started by Elon Johnson in Miscellaneous Sciences. Last reply by dataguy 1 hour ago. 61 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 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.
