Political Crossfire Forums

[Selkist]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The urge for sexual gratification is natural - though I suppose someone will try to dispute even that premise. We must be careful here not to confuse what is 'natural' with what is 'moral' - they aren't necessarily the same thing. Certainly such urges are designed around at least one obvious purpose - reproduction. But is it the only purpose? Or the only one that matters?

If we posit as truth that this urge is natural while putting aside for the moment questions about the purpose of that urge, can we continue to consider it unnatural for a person with a homosexual orientation to pursue sexual gratification with a person of the same gender, in keeping with that orientation? I would have to say 'no'.

The argument then has three dimensions:

1) Can we have a discussion about sexual drives without having to get mired in arguments about the purpose(s) for their existance?

2) Are sex acts that don't have the potential for procreation unnatural?

3) Is it natural for some people to develop a homosexual orientation?

I would assert that the answer to #1 is 'yes'. Quite clearly people act on those urges all the time with sexual gratification the only purpose in mind. That being true, I see no point in saying we have to include the question of reproduction in every discussion we have about them.

The people who would answer 'no' are most often those who approach it from a religious perspective where the focus is not so much on what is natural (the fulfillment of sexual urges), but on what is alleged to be required by one's God (the practice of restraint with regard to urges that aren't coupled with a conscious decision to attempt procreation).

The second question is fairly easily refuted if you accept that we can have a discussion of sexual drives without making procreation the central focus of the arguments. People obtain pleasure from sex and being the innovative creatures that humans are, it is perfectly natural for them to pursue that gratification via a number of avenues.

The third question is much more complex - one that has many different facets, each probably warranting it's own thread. So I will not attempt to delve into this for now.

I personally disagree with framing this question around one specific sexual act - one that isn't even the preferred act among homosexuals (most studies I've read about say oral sex is the preferred method. My preference isn't for either, but I'm not going into details because I don't want to provoke a thread lock by getting too descriptive).

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both engage in non-procreative anal & oral sex acts, as well as those that involve some other form of non-insertive friction. Not to mention plain old heterosexual intercourse that involves the use of contraceptives. Yet we rarely here the 'unnatural' argument used on heterosexuals. One must assume then that the thrust of these arguments isn't really whether certain sex acts are unnatural, but whether it is acceptable for heterosexuals to engage in them while judging such acts between couples of the same gender as unnatural.

I am forced to conclude that a double standard exists.

I completely agree.

[jimmyz]

The AntiChrist wrote: jimmyz wrote: How about sex acts with my dog?or a squid?

So animals feel natural to you, Jimmy?

jimmyz wrote: how about a latex doll?

Completely natural. Along with masturbation, also natural.

jimmyz wrote: Whacked post by a whacked poster.Melchoir,in between giving yourself a 'shocker' and posting this crap why don't you get a life.

You are a homophobic troll, Melchior is posting this "crap", after the continual assaults, from the bigots, that are saying gay sex is "unnatural".

From your use of punctuation, you should get an education.

I would expect to called bigot and troll for my beliefs.Its the usual tactic of the intolerable left.

A mans rectum has no 'natural' use for a mans penis aside from its use for gratification in homosexual sex.One can use a squid or latex doll to receive gratification as well.Is said sex natural?No.

The 'do it if it feels good' attitude of the left is one symptom of the mental condition afflicting homosexuals.However,this mental condition can be characterized as 'natural' since homosexual activity can be seen in many mammals.Just visit your local zoo and watch the monkey exhibit for awhile.

I guess a certain group of humans just haven't left their animal instincts behind.More mental pathology I suppose.

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: The AntiChrist wrote: jimmyz wrote: How about sex acts with my dog?or a squid?

So animals feel natural to you, Jimmy?

jimmyz wrote: how about a latex doll?

Completely natural. Along with masturbation, also natural.

jimmyz wrote: Whacked post by a whacked poster.Melchoir,in between giving yourself a 'shocker' and posting this crap why don't you get a life.

You are a homophobic troll, Melchior is posting this "crap", after the continual assaults, from the bigots, that are saying gay sex is "unnatural".

From your use of punctuation, you should get an education.

I would expect to called bigot and troll for my beliefs.Its the usual tactic of the intolerable left.

A mans rectum has no 'natural' use for a mans penis aside from its use for gratification in homosexual sex.One can use a squid or latex doll to receive gratification as well.Is said sex natural?No.

The 'do it if it feels good' attitude of the left is one symptom of the mental condition afflicting homosexuals.However,this mental condition can be characterized as 'natural' since homosexual activity can be seen in many mammals.Just visit your local zoo and watch the monkey exhibit for awhile.

I guess a certain group of humans just haven't left their animal instincts behind.More mental pathology I suppose.

You obviously missed my point. Sexual acts are natural, as they are a manifestation of the natural urge for sexual gratification.

As I said before, the argument is over whether or not it would be natural for someone to develop an urge to have sex with someone (or something) other than a member of the opposite sex of the same species - not the actual sex act itself. That you're incapable of making that distinction tells us plenty about your mindset. We can argue all day about whether the action of resisting sexual urges is natural or not. I would tend to say it is.

That brings us to the question of whether it is reasonable to demand that homosexuals resist their urges to the extent that you're inventing a double standard where members of one group must practice more restraint than the other (celibacy) or should be encouraged to pursue behavior that feels 'unnatural' to them, given their sexual orientation (homosexuals having heterosexual sex). It is my view that such demands are unreasonable.

As for your crack about 'more mental pathology' - homosexual orientation hasn't been regarded by mental health professionals as a mental illness for decades. Should we accept your opinion over their findings? I think not.

[jimmyz]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: jimmyz wrote: The AntiChrist wrote: jimmyz wrote: How about sex acts with my dog?or a squid?

So animals feel natural to you, Jimmy?

jimmyz wrote: how about a latex doll?

Completely natural. Along with masturbation, also natural.

jimmyz wrote: Whacked post by a whacked poster.Melchoir,in between giving yourself a 'shocker' and posting this crap why don't you get a life.

You are a homophobic troll, Melchior is posting this "crap", after the continual assaults, from the bigots, that are saying gay sex is "unnatural".

From your use of punctuation, you should get an education.

I would expect to called bigot and troll for my beliefs.Its the usual tactic of the intolerable left.

A mans rectum has no 'natural' use for a mans penis aside from its use for gratification in homosexual sex.One can use a squid or latex doll to receive gratification as well.Is said sex natural?No.

The 'do it if it feels good' attitude of the left is one symptom of the mental condition afflicting homosexuals.However,this mental condition can be characterized as 'natural' since homosexual activity can be seen in many mammals.Just visit your local zoo and watch the monkey exhibit for awhile.

I guess a certain group of humans just haven't left their animal instincts behind.More mental pathology I suppose.

You obviously missed my point. Sexual acts are natural, as they are a manifestation of the natural urge for sexual gratification.

As I said before, the argument is over whether or not it would be natural for someone to develop an urge to have sex with someone (or something) other than a member of the opposite sex of the same species - not the actual sex act itself. That you're incapable of making that distinction tells us plenty about your mindset. We can argue all day about whether the action of resisting sexual urges is natural or not. I would tend to say it is.

That brings us to the question of whether it is reasonable to demand that homosexuals resist their urges to the extent that you're inventing a double standard where members of one group must practice more restraint than the other (celibacy) or should be encouraged to pursue behavior that feels 'unnatural' to them, given their sexual orientation (homosexuals having heterosexual sex).

If a man was lost on a deserted island and had 'urges' but no one with which to interact.Would his decision to 'interact' with a passion fruit be considered unnatural.I think so.The urge is natural,but the act is not.

If that same man were on the island with another man and one woman and he chooses to have sex with the man and not the woman.Would his behavior be unnatural?Yes.The opposite sex genitals were present and useful in design yet the decision for the man to sleep with the other man instead of the woman did not serve the purpose of what nature intended the genitals of the man to be used for.

The decision to engage in homosexual sex is 'natural'.The act of homosexual sex is not.In science an event or occurrence may be observed,this does not automatically make it natural.Possible yes,but not natural.

When we get right down to it,the gay lobby is trying to re-define the definitions of words to fit their agenda.First 'marriage' and in this discussion 'natural'.

I am not going to go as far as saying homosexual sex is something that should not occur or be outlawed.I would prefer that it not be taught that it is equivalent in occurrence in nature and equal in terms of benefit to heterosexual sex.By benefit I mean to the procreation of our species.My small school aged children need the definitions in black and white before having to make their own personal choices down the road.

[jimmyz]

SkepticalMystic wrote -

"As for your crack about 'more mental pathology' - homosexual orientation hasn't been regarded by mental health professionals as a mental illness for decades. Should we accept your opinion over their findings? I think not."

What happened to the APA in 1984 to change 150 years of learned opinion that it WAS a mental condition.Some new findings or proof?No.Pressure on the board of governors from the same gay lobby machine we see today being defeated by us traditional level headed 'bigots'.

That decision also made a lot of gay shrinks able to quit their own shrink once the torment as to their damage was legitimized as 'natural'.IMO

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: If a man was lost on a deserted island and had 'urges' but no one with which to interact.Would his decision to 'interact' with a passion fruit be considered unnatural.I think so.The urge is natural,but the act is not.
The keyword here being 'considered'. You may not consider it natural for him to act in this way, but he would be fulfilling a natural sexual urge. Your mistake becomes more obvious below:

Quote: If that same man were on the island with another man and one woman and he chooses to have sex with the man and not the woman.Would his behavior be unnatural?Yes.The opposite sex genitals were present and useful in design yet the decision for the man to sleep with the other man instead of the woman did not serve the purpose of what nature intended the genitals of the man to be used for.

I've emphasized the word purpose in your quote because this reflects exactly what I said in my post. You want to introduce discussions regarding the purpose of sexual activity as a requirement for deciding whether or not those acts are natural. You are clearly rejecting the idea that it is possible to have a discussion about sexual acts without linking that dicscussion to an examination of their purpose. You go on to fulfill another of my points still further below:

Quote: The decision to engage in homosexual sex is 'natural'.The act of homosexual sex is not.
Nonsense - how can the decision to engage in an 'unnatural' act be 'natural' if the act itself is not? That makes no sense at all.

Quote: In science an event or occurrence may be observed,this does not automatically make it natural.Possible yes,but not natural.
This does nothing to support your argument, though.

Quote: When we get right down to it,the gay lobby is trying to re-define the definitions of words to fit their agenda.First 'marriage' and in this discussion 'natural'.
Rhetoric with no foundation.

Quote: I am not going to go as far as saying homosexual sex is something that should not occur or be outlawed.I would prefer that it not be taught that it is equivalent in occurrence in nature and equal in terms of benefit to heterosexual sex.By benefit I mean to the procreation of our species.My small school aged children need the definitions in black and white before having to make their own personal choices down the road.

Voilá - the procreation argument. We're back to a claim that the purpose of sex is procreation. So that would mean that any sex that is not an attempt to procreate is unnatural, then.

Followed by the usual distraction of throwing the protection of children into the mix. What are you protecting them from? I am not advocating that we teach small school aged children anything about sexuality. Red herring if ever there was one.

Instead of refuting my arguments, you're attempting to argue the very points that I warned against in my initial post. Thanks for making my case!

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: SkepticalMystic wrote -

"As for your crack about 'more mental pathology' - homosexual orientation hasn't been regarded by mental health professionals as a mental illness for decades. Should we accept your opinion over their findings? I think not."

What happened to the APA in 1984 to change 150 years of learned opinion that it WAS a mental condition.Some new findings or proof?No.Pressure on the board of governors from the same gay lobby machine we see today being defeated by us traditional level headed 'bigots'.
Let's see here - pressure from a small minority vs. the fallout from a much larger group of people who hate homosexuals - which do you think would carry the greater weight?

Get back to me when you actually convince the APA to rescind their decision.

Quote: That decision also made a lot of gay shrinks able to quit their own shrink once the torment as to their damage was legitimized as 'natural'.IMO
:roll: (and I'm not in the habit of applying the eye-roll lightly)

[Melchior]

jimmyz wrote: The opposite sex genitals were present and useful in design yet the decision for the man to sleep with the other man instead of the woman did not serve the purpose of what nature intended the genitals of the man to be used for.

This circles right back to my argument...

Explain to my why "God" designed man to be that way if homosexuality is an unnatural sin.

[jimmyz]

Melchior wrote: jimmyz wrote: The opposite sex genitals were present and useful in design yet the decision for the man to sleep with the other man instead of the woman did not serve the purpose of what nature intended the genitals of the man to be used for.

This circles right back to my argument...

Explain to my why "God" designed man to be that way if homosexuality is an unnatural sin.

I have never talked about "unnatural sin" in these posts.I have tried hard to keep religion out of this thread.

You are opening a can of worms here.I cannot go into whether or not homosexuality is a sin or not.I leave that to each person.I was raised Catholic and we all know what I might have been taught.I personally do not think it is a sin.

I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

[jimmyz]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: jimmyz wrote: SkepticalMystic wrote -

"As for your crack about 'more mental pathology' - homosexual orientation hasn't been regarded by mental health professionals as a mental illness for decades. Should we accept your opinion over their findings? I think not."

What happened to the APA in 1984 to change 150 years of learned opinion that it WAS a mental condition.Some new findings or proof?No.Pressure on the board of governors from the same gay lobby machine we see today being defeated by us traditional level headed 'bigots'.
Let's see here - pressure from a small minority vs. the fallout from a much larger group of people who hate homosexuals - which do you think would carry the greater weight?

Get back to me when you actually convince the APA to rescind their decision.

Quote: That decision also made a lot of gay shrinks able to quit their own shrink once the torment as to their damage was legitimized as 'natural'.IMO
:roll: (and I'm not in the habit of applying the eye-roll lightly)

You misunderstand our differing opinions as hatred by me of you or homosexuals.That could not be further from the truth.

As always in this type of discussion we must agree to disagree.

PS: If I am not mistaken you stated some months back that if you could roll back the clock and had to make the CHOICE to be gay or not that you would choose NOT to be.Can you clarify your reason for us all.

[Jezebel]

jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: PS: If I am not mistaken you stated some months back that if you could roll back the clock and had to make the CHOICE to be gay or not that you would choose NOT to be.Can you clarify your reason for us all.
I believe what I said was in response to a question that if there was a 'cure' available that would make me heterosexual, would I opt to be 'cured'. My answer was to the effect that at my present age and circumstances, I would not. If I were a younger person without the associations and life experience that I have now, I might be tempted to take the cure simply because dealing with the harassment etc. doesn't make for an easy life. Nothing to do with the specifics of homosexuality - everything to do with the crap I have to put up with from other people because of their inability to treat me as an individual and a human being.

I want to be clear here that I don't view sexual orientation as a matter of choice and I don't believe there ever will be a 'cure', so the question is moot.

[jimmyz]

Jezebel wrote: jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

You will have to ask the dolphins your question. :lol:

[John Galt]

Jezebel wrote: jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

Donkeys and horses make mules. Tigers and Lions make ligers. Reproduction can happen between two like-species, although it is rare and often ends up in sterility. Just a little FYI.

[jimmyz]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: jimmyz wrote: PS: If I am not mistaken you stated some months back that if you could roll back the clock and had to make the CHOICE to be gay or not that you would choose NOT to be.Can you clarify your reason for us all.
I believe what I said was in response to a question that if there was a 'cure' available that would make me heterosexual, would I opt to be 'cured'. My answer was to the effect that at my present age and circumstances, I would not. If I were a younger person without the associations and life experience that I have now, I might be tempted to take the cure simply because dealing with the harassment etc. doesn't make for an easy life. Nothing to do with the specifics of homosexuality - everything to do with the crap I have to put up with from other people because of their inability to treat me as an individual and a human being.

I want to be clear here that I don't view sexual orientation as a matter of choice and I don't believe there ever will be a 'cure', so the question is moot.

Choices,we all make choices.Kind of like a fat person shirtless in a skinny world,or a black person living in a white one,or the ugly guy attending the dance...or the vocal gay who shouts from the hilltops that they are gay,need special rights,and will force their sexuality front and center in any discussion or daily life.

Skeptic,if you had kept your sexuality PRIVATE you would have received no 'crap' from the likes of me.To make your private life public you have to expect a certain effect.Surely you are not that naive.I cannot ever remember forcing my personal sexual orientation or sexuality front and center to strangers.If I had,I certainly would expect some crap from somebody.This is not to say that you have 'forced' anything.

I consider you one of the finest posters in PCF and have much respect for you as an individual and a person.

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: Choices,we all make choices.Kind of like a fat person shirtless in a skinny world,or a black person living in a white one,or the ugly guy attending the dance...or the vocal gay who shouts from the hilltops that they are gay,need special rights,and will force their sexuality front and center in any discussion or daily life.

Skeptic,if you had kept your sexuality PRIVATE you would have received no 'crap' from the likes of me.To make your private life public you have to expect a certain effect.Surely you are not that naive.I cannot ever remember forcing my personal sexual orientation or sexuality front and center to strangers.If I had,I certainly would expect some crap from somebody.This is not to say that you have 'forced' anything.

I consider you one of the finest posters in PCF and have much respect for you as an individual and a person.
Have you ever held hands with a girlfriend or kissed here innocently in public? A lot of heterosexuals take such actions for granted. I cannot, however. Doing so could literally get me killed - no exaggeration.

People talk to me about their heterosexual spouses/significant others every day in casual conversations. They think nothing of it. But if I do the same, I'm suddenly making my sexuality a public issue. Well, pardon me for living.

That said, thank you for your kind words - they are appreciated. Don't take my rhetoric above too personally, but do at least give the double standard some careful thought. It is really unfair that straight people get to be who they are without giving it a second thought while I have to second guess my very word and deed for fear that I might offend someone by being too open about my sexuality. I get supremely irritated by arguments that everything would be just fine if I'd just keep the difference in my sexuality hidden from view, all of the time.

[jimmyz]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: jimmyz wrote: Choices,we all make choices.Kind of like a fat person shirtless in a skinny world,or a black person living in a white one,or the ugly guy attending the dance...or the vocal gay who shouts from the hilltops that they are gay,need special rights,and will force their sexuality front and center in any discussion or daily life.

Skeptic,if you had kept your sexuality PRIVATE you would have received no 'crap' from the likes of me.To make your private life public you have to expect a certain effect.Surely you are not that naive.I cannot ever remember forcing my personal sexual orientation or sexuality front and center to strangers.If I had,I certainly would expect some crap from somebody.This is not to say that you have 'forced' anything.

I consider you one of the finest posters in PCF and have much respect for you as an individual and a person.
Have you ever held hands with a girlfriend or kissed here innocently in public? A lot of heterosexuals take such actions for granted. I cannot, however. Doing so could literally get me killed - no exaggeration.

People talk to me about their heterosexual spouses/significant others every day in casual conversations. They think nothing of it. But if I do the same, I'm suddenly making my sexuality a public issue. Well, pardon me for living.

That said, thank you for your kind words - they are appreciated. Don't take my rhetoric above too personally, but do at least give the double standard some careful thought. It is really unfair that straight people get to be who they are without giving it a second thought while I have to second guess my very word and deed for fear that I might offend someone by being too open about my sexuality. I get supremely irritated by arguments that everything would be just fine if I'd just keep the difference in my sexuality hidden from view, all of the time.

Valid points.I lived most of my life in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas and gay lifestyle is everywhere there.So I have not really seen first hand the barriers that prevent your living a full 'out' life.I know they exist but until your post I kept that reality in the back with the cobwebs.My mistake and insensitivity I guess,sorry.

I will hope that you one day are able to feel comfortable always.Sadly you and I will probably not live to see it.

Ever thought of moving to a more 'friendly' local?Frisco is a blast and West LA is happening.

[F'losrix]

jimmyz wrote: Ever thought of moving to a more 'friendly' local?Frisco is a blast and West LA is happening.
Well, there are a number of factors to this. Neither I nor my partner want to live in a major urban area like that - if anything, we'd much rather retire to the countryside.

We have to balance our need for 'freedom to be openly gay' with a lot of other things, and so far the gay part is losing. We both have elderly parents that we don't want to leave, not to mention that most of both our families are in Michigan. The idea of leaving them all to move across the country tears at us terribly. If anything, we'd probably move east, as I have a friend in the Boston area that I've known since 1st or 2nd grade in elementary school.

Then there's the question of which way the political winds are blowing. If they become a hurricane of anti-gay sentiment we may leave the country entirely - it would totally suck but we're that afraid. As it is, things are so unstable that no place in the U.S. looks very attractive to us right now. Why uproot ourselves if we just end up having to move again?

Things are definitely heating up here. If the people fighting the court battle to preserve our domestic partnership benefits lose and our elected representatives manage to pass the conscientious objector law for physicians we'll have a lot more incentive to leave. I fully expect our side will lose the court case - I'm pretty convinced our benefits are going to be 'toast'.

I can see the time approaching when we'll have to make some really hard decisions about how and where we want to live - and I'm not looking forward to it in the least.

[Jezebel]

John Galt wrote: Jezebel wrote: jimmyz wrote: I think the design of our bodies is conducive to natural functions.The decisions to use the body for non-reproductive purposes is a human decision with no basis in instinct.

God might say it is free will,regardless of the non-effects of the alternate uses.The same can be said of a sin.I could pluck out the eye of a man and copulate with the socket to get sexual gratification.Our two bodies are products of nature.However,the act is unnatural.The fact that God gave us bodies capable of alternate uses doesn't mean that those uses are what nature intended.They(the acts) are products of human free will.

Did you know the dolphins frequently engage is sexual activity with other dolphins, even dolphins of different species (obviously making it impossible for reproduction to happen). Are these actions products of dolphin free will? Is this act unnatural?

It seems a lot of people like to change the definition of the word natural.

Donkeys and horses make mules. Tigers and Lions make ligers. Reproduction can happen between two like-species, although it is rare and often ends up in sterility. Just a little FYI.

The dolphins in question do not do it for reproductive purposes. The animals you've listed would never produce a hybrid in the wild and only do so in captivity because of human intervention.

[Valdimar]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Well, there are a number of factors to this. Neither I nor my partner want to live in a major urban area like that - if anything, we'd much rather retire to the countryside.

We have to balance our need for 'freedom to be openly gay' with a lot of other things, and so far the gay part is losing. We both have elderly parents that we don't want to leave, not to mention that most of both our families are in Michigan. The idea of leaving them all to move across the country tears at us terribly. If anything, we'd probably move east, as I have a friend in the Boston area that I've known since 1st or 2nd grade in elementary school.

Then there's the question of which way the political winds are blowing. If they become a hurricane of anti-gay sentiment we may leave the country entirely - it would totally suck but we're that afraid. As it is, things are so unstable that no place in the U.S. looks very attractive to us right now. Why uproot ourselves if we just end up having to move again?

Things are definitely heating up here. If the people fighting the court battle to preserve our domestic partnership benefits lose and our elected representatives manage to pass the conscientious objector law for physicians we'll have a lot more incentive to leave. I fully expect our side will lose the court case - I'm pretty convinced our benefits are going to be 'toast'.

I can see the time approaching when we'll have to make some really hard decisions about how and where we want to live - and I'm not looking forward to it in the least.
Totally understandable. I fortunately have had more optimal circumstances to make such decisions earlier in my life. I'm from Northwest Ohio. I felt I had to leave solely because I couldn't live my life to the fullest because I am gay. I was in DC and ultimately moved to San Francisco. I feel extremely liberated now, though my political inclinations make me unpopular anyway, lol