First of all, I don't really believe that homosexual love is necessarily more often going to be just infatuation as opposed to true love. If non-infatuated driven relationships are rare, then it is because it's rare in very many romantic relationships. As a fine arts major, I know several homosexuals in my class. There's one guy in particular whose been with his partner for several years if I'm remembering right (can't remember how many exactly, but it seems like a lot to me, and indicative of a steady relationship). Two men/two women *can* be very close, I don't doubt it at all. So my question is – why does it have to be a sexual relationship? Two women can be partners in the world, same with men, every bit as close as a relationship between a man and a woman, without being lovers. I consider my sister my best friend in the world, and I would tell her things I wouldn't tell anyone else, and I feel much more comfortable going to strange places and meeting strange people if I have her with me. But I don't feel like we're any less close because of a lack of romantic/physical relationship going on in addition to what we already have.
The physical part of a relationship is, I believe, a superficial part of the relationship. Even between a man and a woman who are married, and truly love each other – that is, if they truly loved each other, and something happened and they couldn't have sex anymore for some reason, that shouldn't change their love for each other in the slightest. They can still be emotionally close without being sexual. Sex is a fulfillment of a natural instinct and a source of pleasure, and that's not a bad thing in and of itself, but the sexual part of a relationship isn't the most important thing. The difference between two sisters or two brothers who really care about each other, and a homosexual relationship where the two legitimately care about each other and it's not just the lust that often appears in romantic relationships, is that the homosexual relationship is physical.
The question then is, is the physical aspect of the relationship necessary to have complete fulfillment in the relationship? We know that a relationship based entirely on superficial infatuation is not all that solid of a base – infatuation does not value the other person for themselves, so much as for their looks, their body. It's based on a physical desire that will only last for that one particular person for so long. Therefore, though the relationship between two homosexuals may not be superficial, the physical desire part *is* a superficial part of the relationship to some extent.
Of course, I'm definitely not saying that's a reason to ban homosexual relationships, because then we'd have to ban all sexual relationships period, lol. (And our species would die off...) So I'm not arguing for or against allowing homosexuals to marry here... Just asking a simple question: why does the love between two people of the same gender have to be physical? Or, maybe I should phrase it from the opposite point of view too – Why shouldn't it be physical, if heterosexual love can be physical?
Ok, so, you don't see the need for sex in a gay relationship? And you don't see why gays can't basically just be close friends? One word: love. Put it this way, say you had a crush on someone, maybe they're the love of your life, how would you feel if someone said "Oh, just be friends. And don't have sex either, why do you need to do that?". Personally, and I speak for a lot of people here, sex is an act of love, and if I was in love with someone I would want to have sex with them. Now, we all have "sexual urges" shall I say, maybe you have a one night stand w/e, that's infatuation, or maybe it's just someone to have sex with, doesn't matter either way. However in a loving committed relationship, which idk if you've ever been in or if anyone here has, sex is an act of love, and yes it's pleasurable but it's an act of love. Gender doesn't come into that. I agree you don't need sex for your relationship to be real and loving ect, look at asexual relationships, but if you want to have sex have it, what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is nobody's business. I really don't see the big deal tbh. Either way, what makes heterosexual love more valid than homosexual love? I don't see why you think with gay relationships it's just infatuation mostly I really don't.
So... when I was in grade school, I was really a tomboy, to the point where I actually wanted to be a boy. This was before I even knew what homosexuality was, or that there was even a word for such a thing, and I have a couple of distinct memories of saying I 'liked' a particular girl or other.
I'm not gonna say anything much to this, but it worries me. I will ask however, if you still have these feelings?
As I've gotten older, as an artist I like drawing both male and females and like the forms of both kinds of bodies (though not from a pornographic standpoint, please don't get that impression of me X3). I won't get into any more detail than that... but suffice it to say, I've always had a very strong impression that, if I allowed myself to go in that direction, I could quite easily become bisexual or homosexual. (I say 'become,' because I don't believe that differing sexualities are something innate that we are both with, rather it is an inclination that can be acted upon or not.)
So, what I'm going to say now is... Just because something is a natural inclination, does not necessarily mean it is something that should be acted upon and make a person happy. There are many, many examples of things that animals do that we as humans with the power of choice obviously shouldn't. A good example is violence – when two animals disagree, they may very well fight, while in our society, we expect that humans ought to have the self-control not to brain each other every time two guys are after the same girl or one steps on the other's ego or something. Another is looks – it's our natural inclination to judge other people by the way they look, to want to pursue people who look attractive and avoid people who aren't. As a first impression, judging on looks is unavoidable, but we know it's wrong to shun someone based entirely on how they look – yet that is often the first impulse. A man's natural inclination may be to sleep around with young beautiful women when he's away from his wife, despite the fact that he took a vow to only be hers, which hurts her tremendously, or even just to spend time looking at pornography on the internet. Our natures and natural inclinations can be very superficial, and not things we should necessarily act upon, even if they are there.
That's why I consider it worthwhile to take the effort to choose not to go down that road, I guess. I know it's good for people to learn to be themselves and follow their interests, but... I don't believe that giving in would really make me a happier person. I feel like I have the power to choose what I want to be, because I'm a human being.
I'm gonna go ahead and ask: are you sexually
attracted to men, women, both or any gender?
Also, yes, a person's brain is hardwired by birth to be attracted to men or women or both or every gender, but of course we must make the decision to act upon our feelings, much like anything - you may feel the urge to hit someone, but just because you want to doesn't mean you act on it. Now, I'm not saying that like hitting someone non-hetero urges shouldn't be acted upon, I personally don't believe in denying who you are, but that's everyone's personal decision, all I'm saying is if you have homosexual attractions you will always be homosexual and never truly satisfied by a heterosexual relationship, both sexual and romantic. Sure, you can suppress who you are and your feelings but they'll always be there, even if you kid yourself into thinking they're not. On the natural/unnatural argument:
When it comes to people saying it's unnatural, it irks me, now, I respect everyone's beliefs, believe what you want just don't force your beliefs on another person (which is why I hate it when religious believers try to ban homosexuality, not everyone believes what you do and you can't force your way of life on another person) which is why I think even if you disagree with things like homosexuality you shouldn't try to stop people being LGBT. Let them do what they need to be happy. And of course they're allowed to do that, imo screw society and its bullsh!t gender roles, and its intolerant crap, screw people who think they're better than you because of their privileges, screw everyone in society who tells you 'no', because we are all human, and we all deserve greatness and happiness. We were all born useless sacks of poop and crying, and we will all die as useless sacks of pooping and crying, so let's all just enjoy all the middle bits as much as freaking possible before god, fate or whatever ends it. Anyway, back to the unnatural thing.
In terms of reproduction, yes, it's 'unnatural'. But other than that, totally normal - it's found in every species and has been since the beginning of the human race, in Ancient Eygpt there is a painting of the first gay couple recorded, and one of their Pharaohs offered his entire kingdom to anyone who could give him 'female genitalia' although that's transgenderism and that's not what we're debating but just thought I'd say. Besides, who cares if it's unnatural (even if I don't believe it is, some do cos it's against 'god's plan' or whatever they believe). Do we reject all unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning? They're unnatural, they shouldn't be used.
Also, just adding an argument of my own, just let gay people get married, someone else's marriage doesn't affect you.