Comments on: Psychology Today: Do gay and straight couples split up at the same rate?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:09:01 +0000

Linda,

Every statistic Iâ€™ve ever read about the multiple partners of nearly all gay men seems to indicate that their relationships are not long lasting.

That, my dear, is because you are reading the Camerons and making the mistake of not recognizing that it’s comedy. As best I can tell, there are not any reliable statistics about partners of gay men. And there are undoubtedly those who participate at this site who would provide life examples that refute your “nearly all” presumptions.

The newer definition is misleading and unclear at best, especially for children.

You have decided that because your definition of family is easier for you, then therefore it sould be the sole definition. Marriage, blood, adoption, and that’s it, baby.

I could accept that definition. In Massachusetts I would agree that a family should consist of two married people and their children, natural or adopted (along with the various in-laws, cousins, etc.).

Except that some want exclusions to who can get married or adopt. They work backwards to get to the definition that you want. The definition that they really want is Family = Heterosexuals. THis is obvious from the numerous “family” organizations out there that have no agenda other than opposing any equal access for gay persons. Saying “marriage, blood, and adoption” is just a way of masking the exclusion when you are trying to control who has access to marriage and adoption.

But the reality is, Linda, that same-sex attracted persons develop families that are indistinguishable from heterosexual families (both the good and the bad) and that the only distinguishing characteristic is the sex of the parties. You can dance around it with your “definitions”, but ultimately it is that, Linda, which you find objectionable.

Fortunately, more and more people – including many of those in education – are realizing that you definitions of exclusion are not reality.

By: linda

linda — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:11:27 +0000

Every statistic I’ve ever read about the multiple partners of nearly all gay men seems to indicate that their relationships are not long lasting. If they have an “open” relationship where both partners sleep around and it lasts longer, well that’s not really quite the same thing .We need to watch the stats of the 5 countries that allow gay marriage and see how long lasting the marriages are. Interesting how the definition of “family” has changed over the years. Step-fathers and mothers have always been around, adoption has been around for a long time and the traditional, accepted definitiion of family has always been “people related by birth, marriage or adoption”. We are not related on a family status in any other relationship outside of marriage, birth or adoption. My best friend of 30 years is not in my family. My wonderful neighbors are not my family. The great “church family” we have at our church is not our family, though we refer to them that way sometimes, we all know that we mean we are members of the same local group of christians who meet regularly together. Today in our school system we teach that a family is “any group of two or more people who love and care about each other”. This is what the sex education class at the school I worked at for many years teaches as the definition of a family. They started teaching this about 1995 or so. For me this is far too shallow and simplistic and I prefer the old definition and believe it is more correct. The newer definition is misleading and unclear at best, especially for children. Linda

By: gordo

gordo — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:49:09 +0000

Timothy,

I’ll all for gay marriage – no argument here. What I have problem with is the way everyone here is just accepting the idea that gay relationships are less stable than straight relationships. Sez who?!

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:40:34 +0000

Lynn David – How’s that? — Not applicable to all. Whether it makes sense to you or not; it does to others and it is one that Jesus specifically spoke about. So for some it is sensible, sane and workable.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:25:45 +0000

David Blakeslee wrote:

Quite the contrary, they have created an ethic of celibacy.

Yeah, my bad. I'm always forgetting to put the words "sensible," "rational," &/or "workable' as an adjectives in that sentence, thus:

Most existing religious institutions are not at all interested in creating and promoting a sensible, sane, workable ethic for gays and lesbians.

How's that?