I had a strange thought the other day.  Does anyone know of any "moral" homosexual?  What I mean by moral is the person did not have sexual relations until married/joined/whatever-PC-term-for-committed-couple and then did not stray?

I had a strange thought the other day.  Does anyone know of any "moral" homosexual?  What I mean by moral is the person did not have sexual relations until married/joined/whatever-PC-term-for-committed-couple and then did not stray?

Valerie, I agree that the thought is strange.  Most of us consider premarital sex to be morally acceptable.  Since homosexuals cannot be legally married in most states, they have no other options than abstinence.  I consider abstinence an unreasonable burden on homosexuals.

Valerie, I agree that the thought is strange. Most of us consider premarital sex to be morally acceptable. Since homosexuals cannot be legally married in most states, they have no other options than abstinence. I consider abstinence an unreasonable burden on homosexuals.

I think what she meant to say was whether they abstained from premarital sex before entering in a committed relationship that would be a marriage if it were legally recognized.  A marriage could still be one in God's eyes even if not legally recognized (say, if the US decided to ban all marriages tomorrow).

I personally think marriage is a pretty defunct institution, but that's not the issue here. Yes, most people I know that are married had sex before they were, regardless of sexuality or gender. Abstaining from sex before marriage is generally motivated by religion. As christianity fairly clearly holds no respect for homosexuals, then there is a much lower percentage of christians in the gay community meaning that motivation for abstaining from sex is removed.

Cimics was correct:

I think what she meant to say was whether they abstained from premarital sex before entering in a committed relationship that would be a marriage if it were legally recognized.

Although, I believe homesexuality is a sin, I was willing to just throw that out for the moment and focus on morality.  Harry may be right that abstinence prior to marriage is motivated by religion.  Thus, perhaps, the rest of my post has no relevance to non-religious folks.  Perhaps the Chrisitans can answer this for me, how, when the Bible clearly states that adultery and fornication are a sin do you justify premarital sex?  In my view, homesexuality is often a by product of promiscuous behavior.

Looks like the debate has started and I don't need to provide a question.  
Reply to Harry's statement: There are many reason's for choosing to abstain. Fear of STD's is a good logical reason.  I think you should control all your emotions.  If your emotions control you, then you can be controlled by someone that can play your emotions.

Nope, just what I have observed and read.  No scientific studies, no brainwave analysis.  It is just my opinion and it could be wrong.  What I am really trying to get at here is immorality is wrong.  Homesexuality is just another dimension of immorality.  Being homesexual doesn't make you more sinful than an immoral heterosexual because both entail immorality.

Copper said:

Speaking of homosexuality, Mr. Sulu is the latest to come out of the closet. He has been in an 18-year committed relationship. I cannot imagine why the government should not formally recognize the legal status of such a committment.

As a libertarian, I oppose governmental bans on any consentual relationship. It's no business of the government what three or four people are doing in their own time.
BUT...
I don't believe the government should recognize interpersonal relationships, either. Any interpersonal relationships.

As for homosexual relationships...
Not my particular cup of tea, but to each his own (why does that suddenly sound gay?)
Homosexuality violates my religion's tenets, but it's likely that the homosexual doesn't hold with my religion.
I might counsel against engaging in homosexuality, but would demonstrate against a law banning homosexuality.

How's that for "all over the road"?

I don't believe the government should recognize interpersonal relationships, either. Any interpersonal relationships.

Families form economic units, and marriage is a contractual commitment.  Since property rights and inheritance rights are affected by such commitments, the government has a legitimate role to play in regulating them.  One of the reasons to support homosexual liaisons is to guarantee inheritance rights, visitation rights, estate management rights, and so forth to spouses.  I cannot imagine why the government should refuse to recognize such liaisons.  As a committed libertarian, you probably don't agree that the government should regulate business and contractual relationships to the extent that it does, and that is an area where we probably have strong disagreements.

...Homosexuality violates my religion's tenets, but it's likely that the homosexual doesn't hold with my religion.
I might counsel against engaging in homosexuality, but would demonstrate against a law banning homosexuality.

It is almost certain that some members of your religion are homosexual, and some will probably work to get religious leaders to incorporate tolerance in religious doctrinal policies.  In my view, all religious beliefs are social conventions that reflect the attitudes of members.  Our gods do what we tell them to do, and they seldom stray far from our prejudices.  So it is natural for most religions to seek to suppress homosexuality, since that expresses a popular lack of tolerance.  

Such prejudice is itself immoral, IMHO, because it does greater social harm than social good.  And many religious leaders preach tolerance of homosexuality.  However, most people seem to reject appeals for social tolerance in this area.  Rejection of homosexuality is a powerful "family value" advantage to political conservatives in US elections, and it will be exploited to the detriment of people of my political persuasion.