- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Never-Ending Journey

Gay marriage is only the beginning, says gay campaigner Chris Ashford. [1] Excerpt:

What then does this apparent victory look like? It looks like being ‘normal’, being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority.

We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship. We’ll aspire to have children, raising them (presumably somewhere in Islington or possibly Shoreditch) and lead a productive civilised existence. Rip up the Chariots membership card, stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.

Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure. There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalisation of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind.

The marriage Bill should be welcomed, but it is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step – albeit a significant one- on a never-ending journey.

What, you thought they meant it when they said all they wanted was to be married?

83 Comments (Open | Close)

83 Comments To "The Never-Ending Journey"

#1 Comment By Heather On January 28, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

According to liberals’ “every social conservative is a hater/racist” ideology, what makes a bad person? A homosexual who has sex with strangers and spreads deadly STDs or an upstanding citizen who opposes homosexual marriage? The upstanding citizen, obviously. The term “ethics” has no meaning for people with a homosexuality agenda.

No wonder the descendants of so many African-Americans, who went through the horrors of slavery, get upset to hear such cheap people talk about a “civil rights agenda” implying an equivalence to the Civil Rights movement against racism.

I think the way people with a homosexuality agenda structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly simplistic construct of “sexual orientation.” Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being, that result in homosexuality or bisexuality.

One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal (“sexual orientation”). Within this concept there is the implicit dogma that homosexuality is determined by genes, much like the pigment of one’s skin. Another false claim, but which does wonders to make people accept anything homosexualists say.

I also find interesting to see that people with a homosexual agenda only use this “sexual orientation” label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation, or any type of desire or attraction.

#2 Comment By pinkjohn On January 28, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

I find myself in an odd spot here. One part of me would like to say “he doesn’t represent me, I just want to equally normal,” but I am more in agreement with Ampersand I think. Heterosexual monogamy started falling apart when capitalism started giving people more options. That predated gay liberation, so shine the blame spotlight somewhere else.

I happen to choose the respectable, bourgeois monogamous norm, for which I had to both grow into and discipline myself. But I really can’t believe that it is the highest, final, most evolved form of human family relationship. It is a nice Euro-centric one, but not the only one.

I also have to agree with strongly with Geoff Guff. The real problem with lgbt equality is that it threatens heterosexual privilege. Rod certainly believes (if I am correct) that heterosexual marriage deserves a privileged place in our culture because of religious tradition and his belief that it is best for children. I disagree on the centrality of heterosexual marriage on religious grounds (the Bible does not consistently support monogamous marriage) and while I think what is best for children should be foremost, I am not convinced that our traditional model is the best we can do for kids.

But that is not the point of the post. I have minimized the slippery slope idea in the past since I have no personal interest in legalizing non-monogamous family forms. The evolution of family forms is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle. It is not “liberal social experimentation.” It changes along with other economic and social changes. If conservatives want something to blame, pin it on your beloved capitalism. That is what undermines families, both traditional and not, more than anything through its need for a “surplus pool of labor” and ever more fungible economic roles and functions.

#3 Comment By Richard M On January 28, 2013 @ 8:32 pm

Hello Rod,

“What, you thought they *meant* it when they said all they wanted was to be married?”

Alas, no.

#4 Comment By J.J. Gonzalez Gonzalez On January 28, 2013 @ 9:10 pm

“As this post makes clear, it’s the horror of treating gay people like myself as a normal and equal part of society that drives conservatism. The idea that I might occupy the same social position that is anathema. That’s the religious liberty that must be defended: the right to humiliate me and put me in my place.”

No. That’s not it at all!

The equality of gay persons is not in question. They are equal — as is. And whatever social status they may occupy is not in question either. They may happen to be born into a high status or rise to a higher status — just like anybody else.

And, just like anybody else, they are free to marry so long as it’s to a person of the opposite sex. So maybe they wouldn’t want to, but even so it’s their equal right if they did.

What’s in question is whether it’s at all possible for a man to be joined into matrimony with another man. The conservative would say absolutely not. In order for there to be a marriage, it must be consummated (see above). That means there must be a relationship involving sexual intercourse (asexual types of intercourse don’t cut it). Among two men, this cannot be under any possible circumstance. Period. Really this is not in question either.

Now, another thing not in question is that there are men who prefer men, and women who prefer women. They may have a relationship that involves living together, sharing the same bed, even growing old together. In other words, they may be *like* a married couple (though probably less monogamous, unless they’re women — in such case moreso). But without the sexual relationship they are not — and cannot be –married.

All right. Let us be tolerant of such relationships in a pluralistic society. Let us give them legal protections — inheritance rights, joint tax filing status if you insist, power of attorney and so on. All this short of adoption rights. Let us make laws to prohibit unjust discrimination against them — one must admit that could surely happen.

But let us not throw objective reality out the window in order to make people who already are equal feel equal. The potential of where that may lead is absolutely anywhere.

Instead, let’s base our laws and protections of their relationships in the truth of their nature. I guess you could call them a domestic union or a household contract. It could involve gay people or people of whatever sexual combination, or type of affective relationship — best friends, sisters, for example, not just gay lovers.

#5 Comment By Consequences1 On January 28, 2013 @ 9:37 pm

Until we have “annulment equality” not all will be equal.

You can mock it if you want, as you apparently do, but don’t you find it, well, humiliating, that the legitimacy of your relationship with your spouse — even after decades together — hinges on whether Tab A has ever successfully and sufficiently penetrated Slot B?

Sometimes I just don’t understand heterosexuals….

#6 Comment By Consequences1 On January 28, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

In order for there to be a marriage, it must be consummated (see above). That means there must be a relationship involving sexual intercourse (asexual types of intercourse don’t cut it).

Tell that to the 20,000 U.S. military men who have had their gonads blow off by IEDs in Iraq. And after you have, and have the full support of the people of the United States in telling them that they cannot form “sham marriages”, you may apply the same reasoning to folks like me.

#7 Comment By Paul T On January 28, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

Hi Rod, I’ve been reading for a few months now. Linked to your blog only during your trip to Paris, so I don’t have a long term perspective. Nevertheless, it feels like recently your posts have been less frequently thoughtful than hateful. Who’s “they” anyway? Do you include me in that group?

#8 Comment By MBrown On January 28, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

It’s a strange argument indeed that says that heterosexuals are motivated against SSM by a desire to maintain “heterosexual privilege.” What kind of privilege is it if all we’re doing is suppressing a relatively tiny minority? Bigotry? Sure, you could make that argument. Ignorance? Sure, if you like. But what kind of privilege is it if it is extended to 95% of the population?

#9 Comment By Gus On January 28, 2013 @ 9:57 pm

“We’ve gone from lifelong monogamy to serialized monogamy to an alternating series of hedonistic periods and monogamous periods.”

Who’s “we?” This gay marriage supporting, liberal heterosexual is happily married (in his first marriage) and doesn’t expect to ever be married to anyone else.

#10 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On January 28, 2013 @ 10:04 pm

What, you thought they meant it when they said all they wanted was to be married?

Excuse me, but who is “they”??? This is an opinionated rant by one Chris Ashford. I expect there are as many opinions on this subject as there are people who identify as “gay.”

Now, to be fair to the rampant paranoia about “they,” as a “campaigner” Ashford no doubt represents a constituency. As such, he is more dangerous than a lone pundit sounding off. But how large is his constituency? How prominent a role did he have in the nuts and bolts work to secure the “marriage bill” he refers to? What do other “gay” voices have to say about what Ashford said? Or did they pay any attention to it at all?

One reason there was a welter of confusion after the peak of the Civil Rights Movement is that most people in America who thought of themselves as “white” were quite unaware that some “black” Americans were so conservative as to dismiss Martin Luther King’s demand for integration (the president of the National Baptist Convention for one), others were apolitically but violently indifferent to “nonviolent resistance,” and didn’t want to go to any school, integrated or segregated, and all kinds of other opinions in between.

So what does Chris Ashford really count for? Who and how many people does he represent? Allowing people to announced “I represent all those who….” is always a dangerous game.

In the same spirit, Heather’s “According to liberals” fantasy needs some similar groundwork. First, who and what exactly does Heather define as included in the category “liberals”? And how does she know that each and every one of them believes what Heather likes to characterize “liberals” as believing. Christians share 66 books of sacred text in common, and you couldn’t say much accurately beginning with the phrase “According to Christians…” Liberals don’t have any common seminal documents, much less any universally accepted as sacred foundational texts.

So lets keep the cliches down to a dull roar until there are some cold, hard facts on the table.

And yes, Gonzalez is correct that equality is not a legitimate issue here. Marriage is not a bundle of benefits offered to each citizen as their birthright. It is an attempt to provide a legal and social framework for a specific human relationship which predates the law. Nobody ever attempted to define every conceivable human relationship under the category “marriage,” or even every binary human relationship. So Ashford can keep his ranting down to a dull roar also, because he’s creating a big, empty, granfalloon as the prophet Bokonon used to say.

#11 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On January 28, 2013 @ 10:35 pm

Re: I’m interested in the idea that “monogamy doesn’t work”.

I mean, there are certainly people for whom it doesn’t work in the sense of contributing to their earthly happiness. It might very well contribute to bringing them closer to God, but for people who aren’t Christians, that argument is going to be unconvincing.

The specific societal benefits of allowing non-monogamous relationships, in some circumstances, would be to allow people who are unmarriageable or otherwise make low-quality partners, to be in a relationship. Polyandry, as it’s been practiced in Tibet, for example, was a way for poor men in a harsh environment to be married (in circumstances where none of them, individually, would make an attractive mate). Polygamy, likewise, sometimes ‘works’ for women whose partners would divorce them otherwise or just not get married in the first place. Also, there are couples who are dissatisfied with their relationships, might otherwise break up, but would stay together if they were allowed to have other partners on the side. (There always have been, at least for men). I’m not sure that it’s always better for them to break up & go their separate ways, then to stay together but have an open relationship. As a Christian, I’d say that they’re both sins, but I’m not sure that the open marriage/relationship is always the greater sin.

I certainly think monogamy is the ideal, and I don’t favour watering down our laws to allow polygamy or whatever. Polygyny, in particular, would be dangerous to society in ways that polyandry, group marriages, open marriages, etc. would not. And as a Christian, if I were married or in a relationship, it would be wrong for me to sleep with someone who wasn’t my partner. But I think we would be making a big mistake to just assume that, absent Christian revelation, there are reasons to expect everyone to live by Christian moral teachings. And we shouldn’t assume that the monogamous ideal doesn’t come with tradeoffs and costs.

#12 Comment By Church Lady On January 28, 2013 @ 10:53 pm

I had the same reaction as Siarlys to this use of the pronoun “they”. Do these commenters (and Rod) really think there’s some monolithic gay organization that marches in lockstep? That there’s some manual they all follow and take their orders from?

On second thought, I can kind of understand where they are coming from, in that most of these commentators are from the Christian right, and though there are certainly some differences in those groups, for the most part these people actually do have a manual they all follow and take their orders from: the Bible. There’s variations in the interpretation of the Bible, but for most people it’s fairly straightforward, especially in its attitude towards homosexuality.

So I kind of get the notion that many traditional Christians are just unconsciously assuming that the gays out there are pretty much like them, but opposite in their views. That they all have some sort of gay Bible they follow, and that they are bound to, and that they all follow more or less. Which isn’t the case at all. But it perhaps accounts for Rod and others here often talking as if they were negotiating with an organized body of gay folks who all basically thought along the same lines. Because that’s how they are themselves, and it’s almost a natural thing to assume that other groups must be like this also.

I guess it’s not just hard for traditionalists to understand how moderns think, but how they operate socially, politically, and culturally, without any manuals to follow, no Popes or priests to tell them how they have to think and act to gain salvation, etc. I know Rod likes to say that it really is the same out there on the left, that there are stringent lockstep rules that liberals have to follow, and to some extent, in some smaller groupings this is true, but it doesn’t reflect any organizing principle, just your basic herding instinct. Except herding liberals is kind of like herding cats. Not much success is to be found. And herding gay cats? Ferggetaboutit!

#13 Comment By Curle On January 28, 2013 @ 11:52 pm

The Gay Movement’s 15 minutes has just about expired. Which is why the desire to change marriage laws is getting so desperate.

The Gay Movement has performed yeoman-like work for America’s Left coalition giving them a ‘liberation’ movement to stoke the embers of the young romantics who would otherwise have little around which to rally (and party). When bereft of serious problems to solve why not invent a bogus social-psych one (curing the haters of their so-called homophobia).

Science will likely soon offer an explanation, based in evolution, for this phenomenon and it is unlikely to be as romantic as gay activists hope. I’m guessing that those who believe it (homosexuality) is a periodically occurring regulator keeping fecund families from flooding the zone with their genes (when living in small isolated tribes) are on the right track. Too much inbreeding is a bad thing. Of course, this explanation makes the phenomenon more banal than ‘normal.’

And, the traditional religious hostility is almost certainly grounded in a rational concern for the spread of disease. After all, sex of all kinds is inherently dangerous from a disease standpoint but sex between heterosexuals offers the chance of population enhancement that mitigates the disease spreading downside. Homosexual sex, by contrast, is only disease spreading as far as society is concerned. Is is all that shocking that earlier civilizations would have figured this out and constrained heterosexuals to monogamy and banned homosexual relations outright?

#14 Comment By Rambler88 On January 29, 2013 @ 12:25 am

What, you thought they meant it when they said all they wanted was to be married?

Alas, no, as Richard M says. I date back from the time when the issue was tolerance, not glorification. I supported tolerance, back when such attitudes could cost you a job, not guarantee you one. I’ve seen the demands raised ever since. I spent most of the intervening years in New York City, and learned that the “Homintern” was very real, that most gays have the same feeling about coexistence with heterosexuals as the Likud has about coexistence with Palestinians, and that many or most of them have no interest in anything resembling domesticity or marriage, or any sort of responsibility at all.

The “never-ending journey” will end in a vicious backlash, and I, for one, will have more important things to do than fight that particular battle for moderation, in favor of people who have no use for moderation, tolerance, or understanding unless it directly benefits them.

#15 Comment By Charles H. Featherstone On January 29, 2013 @ 1:58 am

In the future, everyone gets to be bourgeoise.

#16 Comment By JonF On January 29, 2013 @ 5:13 am

Re: Heterosexual monogamy started falling apart when capitalism started giving people more options.

Heterosexual monogamy has always been much honored in the breach, when you look at what past societies did not at what they said. That’s OK, because sometimes vice really does pay tribute to virtue in the coin of hypocrisy, but once you admit as much it’s hard to see why gays, a minor fraction of the population, are some sort of special threat when legions of heterosexual bed-hoppers, from kings and their mistresses down to the two-penny dock whores, somehow were not.

#17 Comment By JonF On January 29, 2013 @ 5:17 am

Re: You see it in everything from the politics of the Federalists on down to the present day.

Geoff, the Federalists were largely based in New England and New York (think: John Adams and Alexander Hamilton). They weren’t a Southern party at all.

#18 Comment By Glaivester On January 29, 2013 @ 7:36 am

I tried monogamy and didn’t like it. It’s not some major philosophical thing, for me, I just didn’t enjoy it.

Hmm. I feel the same way about paying taxes. However, I don’t get a choice.

The point is, that society promotes monogamy because it leads to a healthier society and more stable families. Your way, Amp, leads directly to Roissyism. and to the kind of social dysfunction found all over Africa.

Non-monogamy is ultimately a luxury that those with high intellects and/or bourgeois can afford.

Monogamy does work, in that it promotes a better society. What is meant when it is said that it does not work is that people don’t enjoy being limited in their options and many will opt out if they have a choice.

That’s why we have society and why society recognizes and privileges certain arrangements. Because people sacrifice some of what they want in order to make the society better. Because, of course, on the individual level the overall societal benefit from any one person engaging in a particular arrangement is very small – that is, you get a tragedy of the commons effect, because a few people can flout the laws without ruining the system.

The point being, for society to recognize all forms of relationships based on what each individual wants defeats the purpose of such recognition, which is to promote socially responsible behavior. The issue simply becomes validating each individual in his decisions – in other words, the goal goes from promoting social stability to simply raising self-esteem, that is, stroking people’s egos.

So when one says, “the setup that straight people invented doesn’t really work,” what they are ultimately saying is “it’s hard and doesn’t come naturally,” which is, of course, an argument against society itself, as society involves imposing rules on people that they would rather not follow if they had complete freedom.

#19 Comment By Glaivester On January 29, 2013 @ 7:43 am

it’s hard to see why gays, a minor fraction of the population, are some sort of special threat when legions of heterosexual bed-hoppers, from kings and their mistresses down to the two-penny dock whores, somehow were not.

Because the gay movement is trying to make bed-hopping legitimate; to take it “out of the closet” so to speak. There is a difference between promoting an ideal and not following it, and trying to smash the ideal.

#20 Comment By Gus On January 29, 2013 @ 10:43 am

Mr. Dreher, nutpicking is beneath you. This is a far out fringe opinion of a person who holds essentially no political power, certainly none in the U.S.

[Note from Rod: I don’t know if you meant to say “nutpicking” or “nitpicking,” but I think “nutpicking” is a delightful word. — RD]

#21 Comment By Gromitt Gunn On January 29, 2013 @ 11:27 am

And, again, who is “they,” Rod? Who exactly comprises this “gay movement,” Glaivester? In what world is the only definition of a gay person “A homosexual who has sex with strangers and spreads deadly STDs” that stands diametrically opposed to “upstanding citizens,” Heather? What the heck is a “Homintern,” Rambler88?

None of these caricatures you’ve conjured resemble my life as a 40-something gay man in any way at all. After I get done with my day job, prepping for and/or teaching my night class, taking care of the dogs and cats, taking care of my elderly mother and (until recently) my elderly father (RIP), trying to find the time to walk for 30 minutes, and doing the shopping, I barely have the energy to do the laundry and the dishes before hoping into my own bed, let alone anyone else’s.

I seriously do not understand what has led people to create these boogeymen that bear no resemblence to my life or that of any of my friends, and then judge us based on caricature rather than reality. It truly boggles the mind.

#22 Comment By Consequences1 On January 29, 2013 @ 12:02 pm


most gays have the same feeling about coexistence with heterosexuals as the Likud has about coexistence with Palestinians

Yes, but instead of bulldozing your homes, we break in at night and redecorate them, thus rendering them uninhabitably tasteful for anyone but namby pamby metrosexuals….

#23 Comment By pinkjohn On January 29, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

Charles H. Featherstone says:
January 29, 2013 at 1:58 am

In the future, everyone gets to be bourgeoise.

This is, at the end of the day, the only concrete vision of liberation that really exists. All others are either someone’s utopia or dystopia, depending on your point of view.

#24 Comment By Church Lady On January 29, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

So when one says, “the setup that straight people invented doesn’t really work,” what they are ultimately saying is “it’s hard and doesn’t come naturally,” which is, of course, an argument against society itself, as society involves imposing rules on people that they would rather not follow if they had complete freedom.

Exactly what our coming Scientologist Overlords will tell us, when we tell that it just doesn’t feel natural to follow their theology and practices. So you want to be a Christian? Well, that’s just some personal inclination of yours we will have to “clear” from your system. Eventually, you will see the light, that there’s only one true Way. The Way of El Ron.

#25 Comment By Judith On January 29, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

Grommitt Gunn: Your life sounds exactly like mine: work all day, take care of animals and the last surviving parent, try to maintain a semblance of household, and do it all over again the next day. And I’m a straight single woman…

Consequence1: Thank you. I do believe that the most successful way to deal with belittling comments is intelligent humor, said with no animosity. (But for it to work, one must actually feel no animosity.)

#26 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On January 29, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

Re: And, the traditional religious hostility is almost certainly grounded in a rational concern for the spread of disease

It may well be grounded (in large part) in a fear for the spread of disease, but I’d assume at a sub-rational, nonrational level, not at a rational one. The mediating factor is probably more of a sense that homosexuality is unnatural and impure (which probably does have roots, to some extent, in disease avoidance).

Also, prostitution contributes *much* more to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases than homosexuality does, and many Christian clerics argued for a relatively lax legal approach to prostitution, though of course it was still considered a sin. (And, of course, suppressing premarital sex generally encourages more prostitution, which is why prostitution was much more common in the recent past than it is today).

#27 Comment By Glaivester On January 29, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

Who exactly comprises this “gay movement,” Glaivester?

Mostly Ampersand.

More seriously, I am referring to the people who seem to take the lead in defining the goals of gay social issues, such as Dan Savage. There is not an easily definable specific group of people, but I do not think that it is unreasonable to argue that the more militant and radical amongst gays who are politically active on gay issues seem to be the ones directing what direction it goes in.

#28 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On January 29, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

The Gay Movement has performed yeoman-like work for America’s Left coalition giving them a ‘liberation’ movement to stoke the embers of the young romantics who would otherwise have little around which to rally (and party).

WHAT “Left coalition”??? There is plenty of hard work a “left coalition” could be doing. This country has grossly maldistributed the wealth its laboring classes produce, to be enjoyed by the plutocrats. Those preoccupied with “gay marriage” don’t have the slightest interest. They want an easy “liberation” movement with plenty of cocktail parties. Liberation would take effort and sacrifice.

JonF: You are half right, but there WERE southern federalists. They were the ones who saw defense of their extensive landed and chattel properties in strong authority, rather than in a vision of liberty that would not allow the government to interfere. Jefferson and Adams were both a bit out of step with at least portions of their own parties.

#29 Comment By Heather On January 29, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Gunn: “None of these caricatures you’ve conjured resemble my life”

Perhaps one day you may realize that there are plenty more people in the world and that people aren’t nicety clones. People who only think of themselves aren’t really in a position to discuss any problems in society or to determine what is a caricature.

People having sex with strangers are not caricatures, they are real. Same for people spreading STDs: 200 million new cases in 10 years in the US alone. And then there is violence, harassment, drug addiction, crime… These are real problems of real people.

Regarding the media representation of LGBT people, although there are a lot of movies and TV programs that I don’t have time to watch, just from the small sample of what I do watch, it is extremely rare to see any homosexual character involved with violence, specially sexual and domestic violence. It is also rare to see portrayals of homosexuals sexually harassing others, and it is rare to see portrayals of homosexuals who are simply slime of people, concerning any ethical matter related to daily life. Obviously, I’m talking about TV and film made by people who normalize homosexuality.

I would say that, by and large, it is not the degree of stereotyping that has changed concerning homosexuals, it continues to be as intense as ever, but it’s the type of stereotype that has currently shifted practically 180 degrees. Characters that reveal that among people with a homosexual mindset, we will find monstrous, or violent, or repugnant, or disgusting people, are considered to be “stereotyping” homosexuals in a negative way, and characters that show homosexuals to be only nice are considered to be portraying the “full” or “correct” reality about homosexuals.

It is interesting to note that current nice-only stereotypes are not deemed to be a stereotype by many. It is only when there is a negative portrayal that, all of a sudden, we are supposed to be dealing with a “stereotype.”

That’s the narrative.

#30 Comment By J.J. Gonzalez Gonzalez On January 29, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

No, tab A successfully penetrating slot B is not humiliating. It’s the very essence of intimacy. It’s the way two become one flesh. It’s how life comes into being. It’s the inspiration for poetry, music, art.

Certainly there are many ways to corrupt this unitive act, but it is by definition making love.

Now, putting tab A into A hole – THAT is humiliating. If in doubt, take a step back; look at what it is. Then using reason, make a judgment.

As for men who become dismembered in war, that too is an impediment to marriage, but perhaps they can become legally married as the state only demands a blood test, not a physical exam.

The mechanics really do matter. Just ask a plumber.

#31 Comment By JonF On January 29, 2013 @ 8:41 pm


That particular horse has been out of the barn a long time before the gays got to the closet door. Exalting adulterers goes back at least to the medieval troubadours hymning Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristan and Isolde. Literature (and more recently film and TV) is full of that sort of thing.
Nor were those mistresses and two penny whores guilty secrets known only to a few. The position of royal mistress was practically an official one. The demimonde was about as hidden as a full moon on a cloudless night. Everyone knew where the local bawdy house was (and it was usually a legal business). Even Church Fathers justified the tolerance of prostitution. Gays don’t do anything that their straight brethren haven’t done, often in the full light of day, for centuries of millennia.

#32 Comment By Consequences1 On January 29, 2013 @ 9:21 pm

It’s the inspiration for poetry, music, art.

Love is the inspiration for poetry, etc. Penetration is the inspiration for pornography more than anything.

And you purposely misrepresented my question. I didn’t ask if “tabbing” is itself humiliating. I asked if other people asking questions about whether you have, how you have, might be humiliating.

#33 Comment By J.J. Gonzalez Gonzalez On January 30, 2013 @ 6:16 pm

Nobody asks that question. When you get married, others just assume success. And if that’s not the case, well, nobody knows. Once the wife is expecting, the man’s success is confirmed.

In cases in which a woman is in need of an annulment and your husband’s lack of success is the grounds for it, inquiries would need to be made. For the man who failed to succeed – yes, it would be a VERY humiliating question.