If you had asked me if I would open a thread about this a year ago, I would have thought you were crazy.
But things are changing, and damned fast.
So what do you think?
Will you live to see the day that it is normal for a 16 year old boy to realistically (legally and socially acceptably) hope to someday marry the boy of his dreams?
why 16 year old ? its seems like two questions at once. isn’t the legal age for marriage 18 man or woman ?
I do not see why not. In answer to vasyachkin I am not really suer whether if not you are being deliberately obtuse here. Why would it be strange of any 16 year old to be dreaming or thinking of marriage one day? It may not be legal at that age where you are but surely that does not prohibit the thought or dream of such a thing?
In answer to the OP again. I suspect that as we become more socially liberal (and one can only
Only if the majority of males, at some point in the future, are defective in their sexuality will it be “normal”.
That said, some mid-pubesant males are confused or “vague” on their sexual leanings, so some homosexual stirrings could be seen as “normal”, but for those to translate themselves into future plans of marriage, i think, is an odd one.
The “normal” thing for 16 yo males in my experience, is for them to be gagging for a bit of female attention 
Yes, i do agree with you there…at least they feel like they are.
I guess the question really depends on this – do 16 year old boys generally think about marriage? If they do, then yes, gay 16 year old boys will think about marrying another boy and it’ll be just what seems the natural course of events.
I’m just not sure I can envision lads that age thinking about the day when they voluntarily relinquish a certain key element of their personal freedoms!
Can you clarify your view on this for me please. If I read this correctly what you are saying is that.
a) Normal sexual behavious or decided by way of majority opinion
b) Homosexuality or bisexuality is defective.
Big statements to make without benefit of any sort of arguments to back them up. Care to try? My guess is that you are totally unable to do so past your own defective opinion in this respect.
That is a Truism, at least judging by the definition of “normal” in the dictionary i have here.
Firstly, when i say “defective” i am meaning so in regards to reproduction of a species; maybe not 100% defective, since homosexual people can still reproduce if they treat it as unpleasant but necessary.
We can however agree that homosexual people are less likely to reproduce than hetrosexual people, simply because they probably dont want to have sex with people not their own gender.
That may be an incorrect assumption, so correct away 
Secondly, i did not say that bisexuality was defective, as, following my above explaination, such people are still fully capable of reproduction, although they may choose not to of course.
I did not express any malice in my post, so i do not understand your overtly aggressive and derogatory reply, something that i have seen thankfully little of in my short time as lurker/poster here.
DO you have some emotional attachment to this issue, as i am merely stating fact?
I assure you, there’s nothing “defective” about my sexuality. Please don’t confuse “normal” with “statistically-average.”
But thanks for reminding us that our mission here is to fight ignorance. Our work’s cut out for us.
Defective is generally seen as meaning broken. I am interested in your definition of sexuality as being concerned solely with reproduction. By assuming this I can only imagine that you see any sexual outside that used solely for such a purpose as being defective. For example, oral sex, by your definition, must be defective. Sex where contraception is used must be defective. Mutual masturbation must be seen as defective. By way of your reasoning any sexual act not specifically undertaken to perpetuate the species must be broken.
Whilst you may not have expressed any overt maliciousness your use of the loaded term defective comes into play here. Do I have some emotional attachment? yes and no. Yes in that I am one of those happy people who can pick and chose among genders for a partner. No in that I am in a happy heterosexual relationship. Yes in that I believe you have purposefully used a term designed to inflame opinion.
Then perhaps a new dictionary might be in order. one that perhaps gives a broader definition of terms. Normal could also be seen as a term rightly applied where it affects a significant minority of a given population. As is the case here.
Normal is defined by the majority. That’s the truth. I think the problem here is semantics: I think the intended term was Widely Accepted. For the terms of my discussion, I’ll answer the question “Will it ever be Widely Acceptable for a 16 year old male to have open sexual feelings for another male in his age group?”
And the answer to your question is No. Not in this country anyway. For all the sex we spray on television, our country still takes big steps to portray sex in a negative light. Women who sleep around are still sluts, people who frequent strip clubs or swinger parties are over-sexed deviants, and the whole country goes up in arms when a pop star reveals another pop star’s nipple during the Superbowl Half-Time Show. An already veiled view on sex, combined with the Nazi racist regime pulling Washington’s strings isn’t going to allow one boy to love another boy “that way” for quite some time. Not until there’s a gay man in the white house, at least.
Jess
I think it depends on where you are. There are public High Schools designed for gay teens now- like Harvey Milk in NYC -certainly this is normal there and among the involved families, government officals, educators and friends.
There are so many gay teen outreach groups – & so many openly gay teens - that I would have to say, among folks today there is a sub-group beyond gay activists, where this is normal. Is it among the majority of U.S. teens today? Hell no. But they are probably twice as likely (hyperbolic stat pulled from my ass) to know another {openly} gay teen than their folks were. But I am guessing will it be normal for their kids – I assume that there will be legal gay civil unions and maybe more at that time – that discrimination based on orientation would be like doing it on race today – & my bet is the answer to the OP is:
Yes. In one more generation, and further, it is more “normal” today than social (not saying political) conservatives want to admit.
Well, as i don’t know what your sexuality is i can’t say.
Evolution would say that a pure homosexual, who could not stand the thought of reproductive sex, will not pass on thier genes.
This to me seems to say that pure homosexuality is defective in that it lessens reproduction, but that in itself may not be a bad thing.
Normal is average isn’t it?
Normal is majority determined isn’t it?
Therefore i dare say the OPs hypothetical boy could become normal, if that was the most often found consideration for a 16yo…
You may have your work cut out with my ignorance, but your first post does little to remedy the problem
Incorrect, as i have only specified that it is general sexuality that is defective, and not the individual acts themselves.
For example, take mutal masturbation, as you mentioned above.
Is this between a male and a female?
If it is, this indicates biologically sounds sexuality, as the two are of opposite sex, and this itself indicates that the two are likely to ingage in reproductive sex at some point, since they are attracted to opposite sexes.
If the mutal masturbation were between two males, and that was all each of them ever felt inclined to do, then their sexualities could be seen as defective, as it would show a sexual attraction to only same sex, and they would not reproduce.
I do not therefore consider non reproductive sex between hetrosexual partners defective, and nor do i consider homosexual acts defective.
I do see the sexuality of pure homosexuality as defective in terms of individual reproduction, but perhaps not so in terms of population control.
Okay, i did not pick the term to cause offense. honest
I was thinking purely in regards to reproduction, and not meaning it to be applied to any other areas, moral or otherwise, as i have explored my thoughts on homosexuality in general, and i have no problems with it or those who are so.
I am not sure i understand.
Do you mean “a 16yo boy wishing to marry another boy could be normal for homosexual boys, or homosexuals in general”?
If so, then i suppose it can, but when the question was first posed, no such limitations were mentioned. I therefore applied the question to 16yo boys as a whole.
Is sex sprayed on TV a good thing?
Should women (and men for that matter) not be considered “insert term here”?
Yes, i agree with this completely.
As someone else touches on, you might be surprised at how socially acceptable it is in some areas today. You can’t even predict where, because these havens don’t necessarily envelope the obvious spots. Sometimes they’re a small rural town, sometimes they’re a big city, sometimes they’re just a neighborhood or a school with the right attitude. While hardly in the majority of this country, a teenager doesn’t usually take his cue for “normal” from someone 5000 miles away. If his friends, his family, his neighbor and his preacher say he is normal then so he is.
And there are places like that. I’ve seen one or two myself.
(Upon preview Jimmmy beat me to the point)
From Dictionary.com
So according to the American Psychiatric Association (that is the name of it isn’t it?) homosexuality is normal.
I do not hold that homosexuality isn’t natural; it definitly is natural.
The only abnormality is that a purely homosexual person is not attracted to opposite sex members, which precludes reproduction from the outset - unless that person treats the exercise as an unpleasant necessity.
Artificial Insemination could come into play here, but it wouldn’t say much for the preceeding x hundred thousand years during which homosexuals, we are told, have existed.
jymjim: I do not hold that homosexuality isn’t natural; it definitly is natural.
I see. I think there was some confusion due to your use of “normal” (which in common usage is seen as synonymous with “natural, acceptable”) as meaning “the norm” (that is, characteristic of the majority).
I agree with you that exclusively homosexual behavior will most likely never be “the norm” for human beings, simply because biology makes the majority of us heterosexual, or at least more heterosexual than homosexual. Homosexuality will always be “normal”, though, in the sense of a “normal aberrant”: a natural human characteristic that appears only in a minority of the population, like left-handedness or perfect pitch.
You cheapen your credibility by throwing around the word “Nazi”.
accepted? probably
Normal? Never.
I agree with TeaElle. I don’t think most 16-year-old boys, of whatever sexual orientation, think much of marriage, although most expect that some day they will be married. They just don’t think of it in any concrete way. At that point in their lives they can’t wait to get out of their parents’ grasps; jumping into the commitment of marriage is not high on their list of priorities.