Young men and women that love each other should live together because they love each other.
We should be able to accept that, discuss that, seek relevant information about that culture, behavior and find studies about that relationship.
On another thread it has been constantly brought to my attention that a loving homosexual relaionship in the living room and not in the bedroom should be accepted and discussed. The topics include discussion of:
Committed Homosexual relationship
Studies of Homosexual behavior
It was stated I am a homosexual in a 14-year faithful and committed relationship with a wonderful Lutheran (yes, wonderful Lutherans do exist!) man.
I believe an understanding of “gay culture” is relevant …in particular–because culture influences thought and thought influences action.
I cannot accept a loving homosexual relationship that is said to be in the living room and not in the bedroom.
Studies of homosexual behavior modern and ancient were thought to be relevant…
A study of the behavior and attitudes of same-sex attracted men at the turn of the 17th century would have little to say to same-sex attracted men now. A study of industrial workplace accidents in 1835 would have little to say regarding the efficacy of industrial safety conditions and precautions that obtain in 2012. The attitudes and daily habits of American women in the Northeast in 1930 are unlikely to prove definitive or broadly characteristic of the generation of women born in 1968. Populations change. Social conditions change. Behaviors change.
My contention is that while behaviors may change the bottom line is that as humans we think and we act. Studies will not change that common fact.
I proposed the following…
Say you are one happy homosexual in a loving relationship and you are the exception.
What is the point in engaging a dialogue about your loving relationship after pointing out that you are the exception to the rule?
The answer was this…
By the way, I’m not an exception. That’s part of the point that you will apparently, and perhaps willfully, keep missing.)
The discussion on the high rate of suicide in homosexuals was not relevant to the discussion of a loving homosexual relationship in the living room and not the bedroom. If I missed the point then having drawn a parallel as noted in the opening I thought it was relevant to bring this discussion to a thread where this could be discussed.
Elizabeth502 posted the following in that thread and I thought it was relevant to the discussion.
(1) Many in the Gay Lobby have said often that they “cannot” be “happy” unless society allows them to be “married” and recognizes those “marriages” as being fundamentally interchangeable with true marriage (heterosexual).
(2) They have gone further in demanding emotional acceptance of their “marriages” and their un"married" relationships as good, wonderful, life-giving, essential to society, etc. (As if such emotional acceptance could be forced.)
(3) They have gone further in lobbying for religious acceptance of their “marriages” and their non"married" relationships – both from religions open to that and from religions fundamentally and permanently opposed to their arrangements.
(4) In doing all the above they have turned responsibility for individual happiness from the individual to society.
(5) All the above also equates the label “marriage” with the state, happiness. In doing so, they fail to understand that there is no such equation.
(6) They connect all the above with “rights,” but there is no government-granted or society-granted right to happiness. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees individual happiness. The Declaration the right to pursue happiness, not to attain happiness, and certainly not the assumption that other people are the source of any individual’s private happiness.
Is living together in a loving relationship, in the living room, acceptable, God’s will for heterosexual or homosexual? What did I miss…?