I’ve explained before that being a virgin with regard to my gay side, I have concluded that I must be straight. And, as I’ve said before, this doesn’t mean I’m not gay. It just means I haven’t found a gentleman with whom I feel the kind of bond that includes a sexual attraction.
In contrast, lots of ladies seem to fit the bill. Not all ladies, of course. Most of those over a certain age (which seems to be about 35) do nothing for me. Neither do those sporting stupid fake tan ‘tans’, or ugly make-up and ridiculous eyelashes, of whatever age. Likewise, there’s no turn on from those without a little depth to them, or some form of ‘intelligence’ or character (regardless of the size of their breasts).
So, what I’m saying is I don’t find myself attracted to women unconditionally. There are some women I’m not emotionally and sexually attracted to, and no men I have ever found myself emotionally and sexually attracted to (yet).
I’m guessing this makes me ‘heterosexual’. It certainly doesn’t make me anti-gay.
Having had my fair share of marrying “wrong ‘uns” and consequently facing divorces, I guess I could be anti-marriage. Except, I’m not.
My overall philosophy is a simple one with regard to other people: If it works for them what’s it got to do with me?
I like the phrase ‘informed consent’. It basically means that if all parties truly know exactly what they are doing and they want to do it, and it harms nobody else, then they should do it, whatever ‘it’ is.
In the case of marriage, then two people getting married with full ‘informed consent’ is nothing to do with me. Less important is their sexual orientation. If marriage feels right, what right have I to deny it to them? None.
Indeed, based on my own experiences, I should be bitter and twisted enough to regularly throw myself in the path of those walking to the altar and I should be clawing at their legs sobbing and pleading with them not to make the mistakes I made. I should be doing my best to preach of the evils of ‘marriage’ as an instituation.
However, I am old enough and honest enough to say it doesn’t work for me, a serial monogamist, but that’s not to say it won’t work for others. Certainly, apart from snide tutting and ‘huh!’ based on my bruises, should somebody decide to marry it has nothing to do with me.
So, why has it ‘something to do’ with religions? Why are the religions obsessed with other people’s sex life, needs and desires? It makes no sense.
Indeed, the image of me prostrate and wailing on the floor of the aisle on somebody I don’t know’s ‘big day’ is as ridiculous.
Homosexuals want to marry. And?
Stop interfering in their lives, you morons.
To forbid them the same rights as heterosexual couples makes no sense to anybody. Those who are against it can never explain why. They just waffle or hide behind 2,000 year old books obsessed with controlling other people and their sex lives.
I read recently that gay politicians who hadn’t come out of the closet, alongside those who were in heterosexual marriages yet having secret gay affairs, were considering voting no to allowing gay marriage. They were happy to deny happiness to those who were enjoying similar relationships to their own, and wanted to declare a union of love through marriage.
Of all those who should understand the plight and torment of loving gay relationships, you’d think politicians experiencing gay relationships would be the ones most supportive rather than hypocritically being so negative.
It’s a bit like the politician who expects everybody to use the state education system whilst sending her own children to private school (like hypocrite Diane Abbot), or the priest who says that sex outside of marriage is wrong and yet is happy to rape children.
If two people want to marry, yet both are the same sex, and both are capable of ‘informed consent’, let them. Stop messing about and being so cruel just because they are different to you, let them marry now.