[QUOTE=chalsall;379372]To share, my ex-wife claimed she was a lesbian before our wedding. But she never brought a woman (or even a man) back home.

Can you say "Bait and Switch" boys and girls?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't put it like that.:smile:

I can say "bisexual" though. Also "sexual nebulosity". Neither necessarily to be applied to your ex though: you know much better about that, and she probably even better still.

Here's another interview. This time with someone, Julie Bindel, whose views on the subject I thoroughly disagree with. She thinks homosexuality is a choice (a related topic to gay "curing" in that it is also seized upon by people who don't let LGBT people be the people who they are). In short: Bindel feels she chose to be a lesbian back in the 1970s (I don't have a problem with that) and that *therefore* everyone can choose to be gay or straight (here I break camp with her pretty emphatically).
[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/is-sexual-orientation-a-choice-9582897.html[/URL]

Changing attitudes
 

Randy Thomas, who was formerly an "ex-gay" activist [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/09/03/former-ex-gay-activist-im-glad-that-courts-are-striking-down-marriage-bans/"]according to pinknews.co.uk[/URL], has written an interesting blog post welcoming the recent spate of judgments in the USA striking down same sex marriage bans and apologising for his former role in trying to promote those bans, for example California's Proposition 8.

[URL]http://randy.today/gay-marriage/[/URL]
[QUOTE]When it comes to gay marriage as a public policy issue, I was once very outspoken on the topic. From the 2003 to 2008 I lobbied for marriage amendments in Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, California, and on other national media platforms (interviews.) I went to Washington DC more than a few times and lobbied for the Federal Marriage Amendment on Capitol Hill. I also visited the Bush White House a couple of times and sat [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11442710/ns/politics/t/bush-urges-federal-marriage-amendment/#.VAXUoktHIdI"]20 feet away from when President Bush made a statement[/URL] in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
[...]
The night that Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida (both banning gay marriage) passed I was jubilant. I truly believed what we had done was right and good. In the following days, and for a while afterwards, I repeated the talking points I had willingly adopted. I [I]truly[/I] believed what I was saying. What I didn’t make widely known was how heart-broken I was when I saw the gay community in California take to the streets. Their protests that night and in the days afterwards tugged at me. When I saw their grief-stricken faces my heart twisted in my chest. It was the first time in a long time I remember thinking, “did we do something wrong?” I quickly shoved that thought out of my mind as I joined my fellow religious activists celebrating the marriage “wins.”
[...]
The part that breaks my heart, is that the night that Prop 8 (and other marriage bans) passed, we made it very clear to the gay community that policy was more important than they are. We made it clear that we thought that investing in rules was more important than sacrificially serving in honest relationship. We communicated that we valued the letter of the law more than the authentic expression of grace in the context of humbly living our lives and loving our neighbor. The message we sent was deeply damaging to our relationships with our gay neighbors and family members.
[I]For my part in this, I deeply apologize.[/I]
[...]
[/QUOTE]When strong campaigners reverse their stance on an issue, it seems very significant to me.

The speedy change in attitudes in the USA and elsewhere on the issue discussed in this long-running, epic thread has astounded me in recent years. Living as I do in the country which was the first (in 2001) to break the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples, I was helped in my own change in attitude on the issue by my location. I probably first started to believe that marriage between two people of the same sex was not a ludicrous concept in around 1995. If I had lived elsewhere, I believe my personal change in attitude would have occurred later.

And now I'm interested to hear if anyone here has changed their opinion during recent years too. If so, what has caused this change of opinion for you personally?

[url]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_league_gays_can_t_keep_their_pants_on_may_masturbate_in_st_pat_s_parade[/url]


Okay, what is this world coming to when a man can't get pissed and then drop trou and jerk off on St. Pats?

I should point out that I live in the Irish neighborhood in St. Louis and we take our drunken celebrations seriously round here.

[QUOTE=chappy;382257][URL]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_league_gays_can_t_keep_their_pants_on_may_masturbate_in_st_pat_s_parade[/URL]


Okay, what is this world coming to when a man can't get pissed and then drop trou and jerk off on St. Pats?

I should point out that I live in the Irish neighborhood in St. Louis and we take our drunken celebrations seriously round here.[/QUOTE]
*Grin*

I'm quite glad to hear he intends to keep his pants on.

Anyway, these days I personally take lectures about sexual morality from senior Catholic figures with some contempt.

To be fair he has exactly no standing in the Catholic church hierarchy. He's just a dude who says bigoted things that speak to a percentage of mostly older and very conservative Catholics (and other like minded people).

It gives the church plausible deniability. Honestly though, there's a lot of tension between this twit and the actual church leaders (outside of New York City)--though my dealings with the laity show that they often don't realize that.

[QUOTE=chappy;382317]To be fair he has exactly no standing in the Catholic church hierarchy. He's just a dude who says bigoted things that speak to a percentage of mostly older and very conservative Catholics (and other like minded people).

It gives the church plausible deniability. Honestly though, there's a lot of tension between this twit and the actual church leaders (outside of New York City)--though my dealings with the laity show that they often don't realize that.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I should be more careful about implicating an entire religion in what one person who identifies with it says. The precedent of doing that with other religions, tarring people with the same brush, is very damaging: currently, identifying Judaism with the Israeli government's actions, or Islam with terrorists, spring to mind.

[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/05/judge_richard_posner_s_gay_marriage_opinion_is_witty_moral_and_brilliant.html[/url]

still working my way through all the extra material packed into this one article, but even so it's a worthwhile read/listen.

[QUOTE=chappy;382325][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/05/judge_richard_posner_s_gay_marriage_opinion_is_witty_moral_and_brilliant.html[/URL]

still working my way through all the extra material packed into this one article, but even so it's a worthwhile read/listen.[/QUOTE]

OMG! Just one link from original article, with many nested. The exchanges are hilarious, as Judge Posner mildly probes irrationality.
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html[/url]

Here's a report of a very special wedding. We have a female couple, aged 91 and 90, who have been together for [U]72 years[/U] and have just now married because they finally can.

Can [U]anyone[/U] find it in themselves to object to this wedding?

[URL]http://qctimes.com/news/local/wedding-vows-open-new-chapter-in--year-relationship/article_e350e94e-4eb4-551b-ad6a-d84092f7ec3f.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;382484]
Can [U]anyone[/U] find it in themselves to object to this wedding?[/QUOTE]Last Wednesday I had a meal with my brother and another man who is estranged from his gay son. The topic came around to gay marriage. I said that in business, people can shop around for the best partnerships possible without restriction and asked why domestic contracts are different.

Of course then they both brought up the frequently touted goals of marriage: family, procreation, nurturing, etc. So, some people are going always going to find a deficiency in some aspect or other, and then object. The fact that they don't object to the same deficiencies in some traditional marriages is hypocritical IMO.

I then suggested that society could offer incentives rather than restrictions to achieve general goals but my brother feels that there is no distinction between incentives and restrictions. In any case I don't like separate treatment.

I like the commitment of marriage, and like when two people who care for each other can get married. The fact that these two can now do so is nice. Some people will always object though. Interracial marriage, for example, might have been illegal for much longer if the law was only informed by popular majority.

I wish I'd been present to hear you argue with the two of them, Ross.:smile: