Why is there so much talk about “sex” around here? What is this “sex” thing that we are saving for marriage? And what is this marriage thing?
The whole conversation is based in hetero norms and assumptions. Dictionary.com mainly defines “sex” the way we talk about “gender.” It also links to Coitus, which it defines as hetero intercourse – a penis penetrating a vagina. According to all that, I don’t have any gay friends who have ever had sex (coitus) in their lives (though most have had sex (gender) since birth or soon after).
So much for promiscuity. By hetero norms, Gay and Lesbian people are generally celibate, and it all gets confusing when you start talking Trans-gendered.
And don’t say “you know what we mean” because I don’t. Where’s the line? What’s the definition? Holding hands? Kissing? Petting? Nudity? Orgasm? Genital to genital contact? It’s not only a continuum without clear delineations, it doesn’t all even line up. Which is worse, clothed orgasm or nudity without touching? What about orgasm without touching? Where is oral or anal sex in the mix? What makes them more “sex” than, say, petting? There is no answer. Coitus is a hetero concept, and a false delimiter.
Language is important.
And then you have marriage. You can claim that it’s only for heteros because God said so, but it’s a tenuous claim and along the lines of claiming slavery was instituted by God. Or you can claim psychological/relational reasons for marriage, only what you mean is long term committed relationships with church, state and community support. Because that’s what marriage is. “The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”
Oops, the definition is hetero again.
Gay marriage doesn’t exist because we said it doesn’t. But the psychological part has nothing to do with that. Long term committed homosexual relationships with church and state and community support CAN happen, and do some places, with as much success as hetero ones. Without that opportunity, there’s not a fighting chance. I’d certainly give up on the church’s definition of sexual morality if it clearly excluded me from loving who I love. Sex nothing, I’m just talking romance. Then I would end up in a series of short, secretive relationships doomed to fail because of the pressure. Then we could all call me “promiscuous.”
There’s another failure of a term. Promiscuous is someone who’s getting more than I am. Promiscuous is someone who might be more picky about life-long partners than I am. Where’s the line?
The entire conversation and the language involved is skewed to keep the terms straight. Now that’s broken.