The Official "Ask-a-Gay" Thread

[CharminTide]

However, the separate but equal clause was used in that case as merely an excuse for hanging on to the old segregationist ways without being illegal.

Perhaps, but its legacy is tarnished. Regardless how the concept was used back then, it has a definite perception now and would not be accepted.

2) Good point. I hadn't really considered that. However, why can't you have a wedding for a civil union? I mean, I had my wedding in a church, but before that I went to the courthouse and obtained my marriage certificate to be signed by the minister and then filed afterward. Why does it matter whether it is a "marriage" certificate as opposed to a "civil union" certificate?

Because perception does matter. No doubt plenty of families would feel that their "civil union" between one son and his husband would be less than the "marriage" between their daughter and her husband.

I mean, as long as you can have the same type wedding ceremony, the same type legal status, and the same tax advantages what difference does it make whether it's a marriage certificate or a civil union certificate?

Although, as far as the original question is concerned, I think we might have answered that a while back indirectly. It appears to me that your definition of tolerance would preclude society from condemning your homosexual lifestyle. Is that fair to say? And I would assume that most homosexuals would have a similar definition?

I'm not sure that's exactly how I would phrase it. Tell ya what: once all straight couples line up to rename their "marriages" to "civil unions," then I'll have no problem adopting the term. Until then, we're talking about making a separate institution that, in the eyes of most gays, will be formed with the strict intention of defining gays with a label meant to be less meaningful than straight "marriage." It's a subtlety, absolutely, but one that many would continue to oppose. Which is probably why these things tend to happen in stepwise manners.

 

[bamanut_aj]

I gave part of it earlier, but I'll expand.

I was pretty typical for someone coming from a disapproving background. Once I realized I was gay when puberty hit in elementary school, I was confused and second-guessed myself. Maybe I was doing it wrong and getting aroused took some kind of concentration that I was missing but everyone seemed to get? I hoped it would go away through high school as all my friends began pairing off and I was too closeted to do anything at all. Small towns tend to have that paralyzing effect, inspired by the fear that if one person knew, soon everyone would, and ultimately my family would know. So I got no action in high school--it was too big a risk. There were a few girls who were interested in me during that time, and I really tried to acquire some kind of attraction with one of them. We tried to get close, and I just felt nothing. I got frustrated, called it off, stopped returning her calls, etc. She point blank asked me on several occasions if I was gay, and I didn't even have the decency to tell her then. I still regret that.

Fortunately, UA was far enough away from my family so that the small town isolation and fears vanished. I lived with the same four guys for three years and we were great friends. They were totally shocked when I came out to them 2 three years in. But they're my age and didn't seem to care too much. I finally got my first boyfriend around that time, and over the course of that relationship confirmed that I was indeed gay. Like, finally. One of my roomies confided that he was bi about six months later, and we remain great friends. The other two were highly religious and, after enough alcohol, they admitted that while they still valued us as friends, they deeply disapproved of gays and bis. We were/are still on friendly terms, but we found fewer occasions to hang out after that. So my bi friend and I grew apart from the other two and ended up getting a separate place the next year.

About a year later I told my sister, who took the news without a beat. To this day she's the only one in the family who can comfortably talk me about gay things, which is clearly attributable to the age difference. My parents did not handle the news so well, and I'll just copy what I wrote in an earlier post for the sake of convenience: My parents were not pleased, of course. Especially since both had expressed anti-gay sentiments consistently while I was growing up. I couldn't tell them until I was 21, and it was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. You just never know how someone will react when you tell them you've essentially been lying to them for over a decade, especially when it involves something they so vocally disapproved. But my mom eventually came around, and she can now talk to me about boyfriends and the like. I can see that it's still a struggle for her, but I love her to death for trying so hard. My father and I don't speak anymore, however.

Thanks for sharing....and I am truly sorry to hear about you and your dad.

 

[Croaker]

Perhaps, but its legacy is tarnished. Regardless how the concept was used back then, it has a definite perception now and would not be accepted.


Because perception does matter. No doubt plenty of families would feel that their "civil union" between one son and his husband would be less than the "marriage" between their daughter and her husband.


I'm not sure that's exactly how I would phrase it. Tell ya what: once all straight couples line up to rename their "marriages" to "civil unions," then I'll have no problem adopting the term. Until then, we're talking about making a separate institution that, in the eyes of most gays, will be formed with the strict intention of defining gays with a label meant to be less meaningful than straight "marriage." It's a subtlety, absolutely, but one that many would continue to oppose. Which is probably why these things tend to happen in stepwise manners.

'Course, if the government would just butt out of the institution of marriage - as it is a contract between two free consenting adults- then we could just call marriage a civil union as far as the govt is concerned...simply a document of a contracted agreement. Then if the two adults wanted a 'marriage' then they could go to a church and let a preacher type do up a pretty little marriage certificate. To me marriage is between two people....the government has no or should have no role in deciding who can or cannot enter into said agreement (consenting adults of course...gotta be an consent clause as there is with any binding contract), but maybe i'm too much of a libertarian...meh

 

[buzzincuzzin]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government. Two people can null-and-void any contract, burn it, and scatter the ashes without a trace.

 

[AngryEwok]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government. Two people can null-and-void any contract, burn it, and scatter the ashes without a trace.

Too bad you can't do the same to the government.

 

[Croaker]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government. Two people can null-and-void any contract, burn it, and scatter the ashes without a trace.

And it's a bloody shame too

 

[BamaBrass]

I always thought marriage was a vow to God and your spouse. Sad to say that many people nowadays don't say what they mean and mean what they say.

 

[TexasBama]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government. Two people can null-and-void any contract, burn it, and scatter the ashes without a trace.

Exactly. And by denying non-heteros you deny them the right to freely contract. It puts them in the same category as minors.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Relayer]

Exactly. And by denying non-heteros you deny them the right to freely contract. It puts them in the same category as minors.
Posted via Mobile Device

I have to disagree with you and with buzzin's premise.

Marriage is a contract between two people, licensed by the government.

If a gay couple wishes to make a contract between themselves they are not prevented from doing so. They can declare it a marriage contract, if they wish. Freedom to contract is not restricted.

 

[Crimson Cat]

In regards to gay relationships, is there always one "masculine" personality and one "feminine" type personality (which in some ways mimics a typical hetoro couple), and seems to be what most gay couples are perceived to be like, whether intentional or not; is this typical or does it just happen that way? Does this really matter and which do you prefer?
I'm a big Jackie Warner fan (she has her own fitness center SkySport in LA) and used to have a reality show on Bravo called "Work Out" which I hate they took off the air...anyway she is openly gay and projects a strong personality, and seemed to always be drawn to women who were typically a bit more feminine/like more girly things/flirty etc.

You may have already addressed some of this already and I missed it, if so I apologize.

 

[CharminTide]

Two more questions for Charmin.

1) Do gay guys, when they do their thing, take turns as the "pitcher" and the "catcher"? Do certain guys find they have a preference for either position?

2) A friend of mine told me that not all gay guys are into anal intercourse, some prefer just oral. Is this true as well.

I am really curious. Mods, I apologize if this sounds crude.

1) There's tons of variation here. Most guys have a preference for one position over the other (called "top" and "bottom" in gay lingo, btw), but despite the preference, I'd describe most guys as "versatile" in the bedroom. I think it makes sex less boring if you can experience both sides, personally. But some guys are exclusively "top" or "bottom" and never enjoy the other position.

2) This is very true, and it can be somewhat dependent on the size of one's endowment. Ignoring the world of sexual fetishes for a moment, most guys (and girls) have an upper limit to what size they can tolerate during anal intercourse. For some guys, this threshold is very low, and they might choose to only pursue oral intercourse. This might also be why some guys consider themselves exclusive tops.

In regards to gay relationships, is there always one "masculine" personality and one "feminine" type personality (which in some ways mimics a typical hetoro couple), and seems to be what most gay couples are perceived to be like, whether intentional or not; is this typical or does it just happen that way? Does this really matter and which do you prefer?
I'm a big Jackie Warner fan (she has her own fitness center SkySport in LA) and used to have a reality show on Bravo called "Work Out" which I hate they took off the air...anyway she is openly gay and projects a strong personality, and seemed to always be drawn to women who were typically a bit more feminine/like more girly things/flirty etc.

You may have already addressed some of this already and I missed it, if so I apologize.

This, I find, is the most common misconception people have about gay relationships. My mom asked me the same question, actually. The answer is sometimes yes, but not typically. If I wanted a woman, after all, I'd be straight. More seriously, I'll make the distinction between personalities in the bedroom and those outside. (Again, we're having to generalize here, so beware.) Roles can sometimes get more clearly defined in sexual situations, where one partner might take charge; but it is not always the same person, and I find that gay guys are usually fairly smooth with switching between the more active and passive roles. In fact, I was having this conversation with one of my bi friends, and he said that he always found gay relations to be more interesting precisely because there was more comfortable back-and-forth than with the women he's normally with. I don't know if that feeling is more widespread or just indicative of the types of women he chooses, but there it is.

Outside the bedroom, I don't usually see defined "masculine" and "feminine" roles in the way you probably mean. There's tons of variation in this question, of course, so addressing the generalities really cuts out a lot of the interesting variation. I'd say a small percentage of more masculine guys are attracted to more feminine types, but most gay guys seem to be attracted to masculinity and thus try to exude that type of personality. You guys just notice the Perez Hiltons of the world more readily.

 

[Bodhisattva]

This thread crossed into gross territory a ways back.

 

[ValuJet]

Surprisingly, it stayed on a proper course. I had my doubts when CharminTide started the thread. Kudo's to him for honestly answering questions in a respectable manner, and to other posters asking questions in a decent manner.

If we're at the point of the discussion turning to the intricate details of gay lovemaking, maybe it's run its course.

 

[rizolltizide]

This thread crossed into gross territory a ways back.

Why do you hate the gays? Homophobe.

 

[Relayer]

Agree.

This conversation has gone off the deep end.

 

[cbi1972]

It's slightly harder for us to find one another because probability is against us, which is why I like to think of the gay pickup experience as more of an art than the straight one.

Could this be a reason for the affected, stereotypical mannerisms?

 

[CharminTide]

Could this be a reason for the affected, stereotypical mannerisms?

That might be a consequence, but I don't think it was the reason. But regardless, we have iPhone apps now.

 

[cbi1972]

That might be a consequence, but I don't think it was the reason. But regardless, we have iPhone apps now.

Virtual handkerchief code?

 

[TommyMac]

What is your opinion of O'Bama's sexual orientation? I've always thought that he could be Gay, or at least Bi. I know I'll get flamed by the libs for asking this, but he just seems to be a tad out of plumb to me.

 

[CharminTide]

What is your opinion of O'Bama's sexual orientation? I've always thought that he could be Gay, or at least Bi. I know I'll get flamed by the libs for asking this, but he just seems to be a tad out of plumb to me.

An odd question... I definitely haven't seen anything from the man that makes me think he's gay or bi. And if he were, he probably wouldn't have been so keen on pushing the LGBT issues mentioned during the campaign onto the back burner once in office.