Sad Marriage in America

[heart]

How do you explain the results of the poll I just presented? a 3-year relationship where both partners break up for new partners -- this is considered "monogamous".

How do I explain the results to a poll answered by a whopping 16 people? Are you freaking serious? I hate to break it to ya Woody, but there are a hell of a lot more homosexuals than 16, I'd hardly call that a poll to lump all homosexuals into this box that you keep wanting to put us in. Seems all you want to do is stereotype.

But as to your poll, look up the word monogamous dude. It just doesn't pertain to one person for the rest of your life. It also pertains to those who in their current relationship. If they were to break it off, their relationship could still be said to have been monogamous. To me, monogamy can be a part of a marriage-but that is only a part. For me, love has a hell of a lot to do with it, as well as respect, supporting the other, the list can go on and on, but I'm sure you get the drift. For me, monogamy wouldn't just be the only thing I'd want in a marriage.

It sounds like "monogamy" is just a word you want to use to "sound straight" for family and friends.

Huh? Why would you say that? Just a little fyi, you're wrong about that.

You can try as hard as you can but you and your partner will never parent children together. Love is completed with the gift of life.

Oh, I see. So because we cannot have a biological child together, if we adopted then that love would not be complete? Are you freaking serious? It doesn't take a lot for someone to have a child, they just have sex. It takes a hell of a lot more (ideally) to raise a child though. Just because people can copulate doesn't mean that they can (or should) raise a child. I've seen some sad excuses for parents in my life, believe me. I've also witnessed other children in families whose parent(s) (not your traditional biological parents) love them deeply, provided for them, gave a shit about them as a person and their well being and supported them and took an act in their interest, held them when they went through hardships and laughed with them in their joyous times...not every parent on the face of this earth does that. It doesn't take a man and woman to do that- it takes a willing, loving and giving heart to do that though.

Opposite-sex partners aborted 40 million babies too. I don't like that either.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about your not bitching about the heterosexuals like you do the homosexuals, Woody.

 

[spidergoat]

Woody is an archaic theist, please do not take him seriously.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Christians called you a sanctified relationship, and marriage is sanctified for those who want it to be. However, Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on marriage though we Christians like to think so. Atheistic countries have marriage just like everybody else. Historically marriage transcends both government and religion. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, and that's what got us here today.

Though, the Bible does have many instances of it being between a man and a woman, and another woman, and a few more women. Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Lamech, David and Solomon, all had multiple wives *and* some had concubines on top of that. Solomon supposedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines, in an age before Viagra! That's not to mention the practices of other cultures, of course, but plainly "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman" isn't even true if one limits oneself to the Bible. It was plainly not illegal, and many of the greatest biblical figures engaged in the practice, without any opprobrium being recorded against them.

There is an argument that polygamy might be "sin" (or at least "disfavored") in the Bible, but the same can be send for lending people money and charging them interest. One might say "moneylending is sinful" but one cannot say "moneylending did not exist in Biblical times."

Gay marriage itself has likewise not been always and everywhere illegal, with the tradition of gay marriage stretching back to pre-Christianised Rome--also a part of western heritage. It was finally outlawed, post-Christian takeover, in 392 A.D. (and then Rome, promptly, declined and fell :lol.

There is a valid (if subjective) attack on gay marriage based on the Biblical condemnation of homosexuals and the last 1600 or so years of the tradition of marriage in the West, but the author you quote above just seems to have not done a lot of research before claiming the perpetuality and universality of the definition of marriage he asserts. Obviously, one can then counter by saying that a particular set of religious beliefs should not be foisted upon those who disagree.

I would also add that, the practice of the last 1600 years is not really dispositive to me. In 1800, many argued (correctly) that slavery had been with mankind from time immemorial, and it was certainly older than 1600 years. Its antiquity did not make it any more "right." Miscegenation was illegal in many places in the U.S. up to 1960, when the Supreme Court struck it down. The history of letting the states decide the definition of marriage in that case ("one man and one woman of the same race") failed to produce a good result and the fact that interracial marriage had long been taboo in the west did not and should not have saved it.

In my opinion, what is needed here is for people to admit (as I do) "Gay marriage makes me uncomfortable," but then realize that not everything that makes me uncomfortable should be illegal

 

[spidergoat]

Sex got us here, not marriage.

 

[heart]

Woody is an archaic theist, please do not take him seriously.

lol thanks, I won't.

 

[Asguard]

spider there are other things (not quite sure "benifits" is the right word) than just goverment subsities on tax that married people are aforded

infact until the bill to fix the finantial and other commonwealth legislation act (or whatever the bill wil be called) is introduced there are ALOT of laws that treat married v defacto differently (even hedrosexual defacto's)

For instance say both my brothers partner and mine commited a crime together and told us about it. The police interview my brother and myself concerning the matter. My brother cant be forced to testify against his wife but currently I could be forced to testify against PB because spousal privalige doesnt exstend to defacto relationships (of either gender). This is something that will be fixed by this bill

Then there are death benifits (like a widows pention for solders killed in combat and there medals). Currently for same sex couples the medals go to the parents and the partner cant recive death benifts or a gold card ect.

Im assuming your specifically talking about tax benifts for being married rather than all the other things that you think should be abolished. Im ASSUMING that your not saying someone who loses there partner in a war isnt owed a debt by the state and the comunity

 

[spidergoat]

Preaching to the choir, my man. I think marriage is dumb, but everyone should be allowed to do it.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

A gay advocate said a monogamous gay relationship is homophobic because it represses one's homosexual desires.

Sometime over the last twenty years, some guy published a book about how monogamy was against men's evolutionary development. I can find plenty of hets whining against monogamy running a basic search on Google. Hell, a het on an internet forum told me that men are animals, like machines, that can't help being dangerously oversexed. Must be true, eh? I mean, some guy said so on an internet forum. Or could these be expressions of one person's outlook here and there?

People that have genuine phobias do not choose what they fear.

They do, however, choose whether to seek treatment or let their mental illness fester.

 

[Woody]

How do I explain the results to a poll answered by a whopping 16 people? Are you freaking serious? I hate to break it to ya Woody, but there are a hell of a lot more homosexuals than 16, I'd hardly call that a poll to lump all homosexuals into this box that you keep wanting to put us in. Seems all you want to do is stereotype.

I see your own side just can't make up its mind about credibility. Thank you for giving me the ammunition I need on the other forum. How about I quote you saying that none of them can be taken seriously? They all want gay marriage legalized by the way --but we aren't supposed to take that seriously either.

But as to your poll, look up the word monogamous dude.

That's where we started. The definition says "together" for a period of time. I suppose a one night trist could meet the definition.

It just doesn't pertain to one person for the rest of your life. It also pertains to those who in their current relationship. If they were to break it off, their relationship could still be said to have been monogamous.

That's the same thing the gay pollsters said. But you say they are wrong about monogamy and they can't be taken seriously. So why should anyone take you seriously?

To me, monogamy can be a part of a marriage-but that is only a part. For me, love has a hell of a lot to do with it, as well as respect, supporting the other, the list can go on and on, but I'm sure you get the drift. For me, monogamy wouldn't just be the only thing I'd want in a marriage.

It just doesn't line up with marriage vows. Love is a commitment for life.

 

[Woody]

lol thanks, I won't.

I don't take anybody here seriously. How many of you have a web blog that receives international attention?

Hmmm... going through my e-mail today.... Real Proposal Magazine listens... aha....here's somebody else that listened to my letter:

Supreme Court Decision on Same Sex Marriage

Thank you for writing to share your thoughts on the California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. I appreciate hearing from fellow Californians about the issues that are important to them.

In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22 - also known as the California Defense of Marriage Act - which stated that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The California Constitution says that initiatives cannot be amended without another vote of the people, and so I vetoed all recent legislative efforts to amend the marriage laws without another vote of the people or a court decision. But I have always said that I would abide by the rulings of the state's highest court. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court held that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional. I respect the Court's decision, and as I promised before, I will uphold its ruling.

Again, thank you for taking time to write and share your comments.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

ok govna. thanks for the courteous response to my letter.

 

[Woody]

Sometime over the last twenty years, some guy published a book about how monogamy was against men's evolutionary development. I can find plenty of hets whining against monogamy running a basic search on Google.

"Gay monogamy" is trying to "sound straight", looking for that straight approval.

Hell, a het on an internet forum told me that men are animals, like machines, that can't help being dangerously oversexed. Must be true, eh? I mean, some guy said so on an internet forum. Or could these be expressions of one person's outlook here and there?

In a monogamous relationship one must repress their sexual desires. Hence "gay monogamy" is homophobic by definition.

 

[Woody]

Woody is an archaic theist, please do not take him seriously.

That's only fair -- I don't take people seriously that have "virtual forum names" and zero accountability. That includes everyone here. :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

"Gay monogamy" is trying to "sound straight", looking for that straight approval.




In a monogamous relationship one must repress their sexual desires. Hence "gay monogamy" is homophobic by definition.

Gays are no less or more monogamous than straight people. Some are loyal to their partners, some not.

 

[heart]

I see your own side just can't make up its mind about credibility.

Are you telling me that you actually believe a poll where only 16 people participated, is suffcient enough to be able to state this is how the majority of homosexuals feel? :bugeye:

I'm not trying to take away from what others feel, majority or not, I'm just saying you can't lump us all together and state that is the way it is. Got it?

Thank you for giving me the ammunition I need on the other forum.

Ammunition? What exactly are your motives here Woody? Ammunition for what? You really are nothing but a shit stirrer, are you?

How about I quote you saying that none of them can be taken seriously, and they all want gay marriage legalized by the way.

If you can find where I've actually stated those words, go for it. Otherwise, all you can actually do is try to take fragments of what I have said and try to mold it into what you want me to say in order to state your delusive case. You know that's not what I was saying nor implying, Woody. Read my answer in the first two paragraphs if you are really lost about how I feel about it.

That's where we started. The definition says "together" for a period of time. I suppose a one night trist could meet the definition.

In the case of the 3 year relationship you spoke about, by definition it is monogamous. What's your problem with that?

My marriage vows were to foresake all others until death do us part. This is standard. Are you telling us the gay version needs to be watered down?

No, I'm saying by definition that's the way it is. Together for 3 years or 50 years, as long as the other isn't messing around on their partner it is monogamous. I just added the love and respect etc because, for me, I feel that forsaking all others isn't the only thing there is to a marriage.

It just doesn't line up with marriage vows. Love is a commitment for life.

I have every intention of being with my partner for life, period. I do this because I love her and can't imagine my life without her. However, I know some people that have stayed together only because of religious beliefs, but strongly dislike their spouse. Seems that they are doing so out of obligation to do what they feel is right based on their religion, but I sure the heck wouldn't call that love for their spouse- especially when they can't stand their spouse to begin with.

I'd like to end this by stating that if someone chooses to be monogamous or not in their marriage is up to them. Also as Spidergoat pointed out, "Gays are no less or more monogamous than straight people. Some are loyal to their partners, some not." I agree with his statement fully. Out of curiosity, do you?

 

[Woody]

Are you telling me that you actually believe a poll where only 16 people participated, is suffcient enough to be able to state this is how the majority of homosexuals feel? :bugeye:

As far as I can tell you completely agree with them regarding monogamy. So what's all the fuss about?

Ammunition? What exactly are your motives here Woody? Ammunition for what? You really are nothing but a shit stirrer, are you?

The point here is you contradict yourself. 16 gays in a poll told me that monogamy doesn't last a lifetime. You tell me they don't speak for ALL gays while giving me the 3rd degree about it. Then you YOURSELF tell me that monogamy doesn't last a lifetime. Hence you disagree with yourself and you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.... This is not rational. What other conclusion is there?

If you can find where I've actually stated those words, go for it. Otherwise, all you can actually do is try to take fragments of what I have said and try to mold it into what you want me to say in order to state your delusive case. You know that's not what I was saying nor implying, Woody. Read my answer in the first two paragraphs if you are really lost about how I feel about it.




In the case of the 3 year relationship you spoke about, by definition it is monogamous. What's your problem with that?



No, I'm saying by definition that's the way it is. Together for 3 years or 50 years, as long as the other isn't messing around on their partner it is monogamous. I just added the love and respect etc because, for me, I feel that forsaking all others isn't the only thing there is to a marriage.



I have every intention of being with my partner for life, period. I do this because I love her and can't imagine my life without her. However, I know some people that have stayed together only because of religious beliefs, but strongly dislike their spouse. Seems that they are doing so out of obligation to do what they feel is right based on their religion, but I sure the heck wouldn't call that love for their spouse- especially when they can't stand their spouse to begin with.

I'd like to end this by stating that if someone chooses to be monogamous or not in their marriage is up to them. Also as Spidergoat pointed out, "Gays are no less or more monogamous than straight people. Some are loyal to their partners, some not." I agree with his statement fully. Out of curiosity, do you?

Genuine love lasts a lifetime. All the others aren't genuine. If you don't know what love really is then you'll continue to disagree.

 

[heart]

Oops.

My apologies Woody. I'm truly sorry and I'm quite embarrassed as I was looking over the poll and some how got it in my head that it was stating something else. I truly apologize for this and would have solved some confusion early on.

I do fall into the 75% of the category, that being it was a monogamous relationship.

Part of my own confusion was reading your

A gay advocate said a monogamous gay relationship is homophobic because it represses one's homosexual desires. I think he had a strong point myself. So when gays talk about monogamous relationships they're just trying to "sound straight" and repressing their gay nature. So in a sense monogamous gays are "homophobic." Anyone that isn't morally abandoned is "homophobic."

I some how lumped this with your poll as well, which is my own fault for trying to read while working and dealing with clients. I hope this might clear up some confusion.

 

[heart]

As far as I can tell you completely agree with them regarding monogamy. So what's all the fuss about?

See above post for my apologies

The point here is you contradict yourself. 16 gays in a poll told me that monogamy doesn't last a lifetime.

That doesn't mean that they don't think monogamy can't last a lifetime, there is a difference. Perhaps you should ask them that Woody?

You tell me they don't speak for ALL gays while giving me the 3rd degree about it. Then you YOURSELF tell me that monogamy doesn't last a lifetime. Hence you disagree with yourself and you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.... What other conclusion is there?

Well, as I stated I misread your poll, but I will tell you the same thing as above...Just because we say that a relationship can end doesn't mean that monogamy cannot last the lifetime of another relationship (eg one relationship ends after a year, they get involved in another relationship that last 30 years until their death).

Genuine love lasts a lifetime. All the others aren't genuine. If you don't know what love really is then you'll continue to disagree.

So when do you know if a heterosexual couple truly loves, when one dies? From what I am getting from you, you're stating that unless someone can be monogamous with another for the full lifetime of their relationship, they aren't capable of love? Before I comment, I'd like to make sure I'm not confusing what you are saying.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Personally I think marriage is silly. The only reason I'm even considering getting married is for legal reasons and perhaps to legitimize my relationship to those who left their minds back at the turn of the 20th century. Other than that I don't see any difference between being married and sharing your life with someone. I kind of like the idea mentioned earlier about marriage being a private matter. Perhaps having a ceremony for your family and friends if you want to announce your choice to be together, but from the states perspective love has nothing to do with choosing to get married only about what benefits to give to whom. I don't see why that is gender specific, but it maybe its just me. My grandmother says I'm still to immature to understand marriage and procreation and what not, so I'll give her that maybe I am.

 

[Balerion]

This topic is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Clearly the poster writes with absolutely no knowledge of how marriage was introduced into society, and seems to think it was an invention of the Lord Jesus Christ. They don't seem to understand that marriage isn't theirs to claim ownership of, it is simply a legal contract that grants benefits not allowed under any other contract.

And they don't bemoan the fact that if you really want to get married, you can do so in a drive-thru chapel in Las Vegas, or if you're pretty enough, sign up as one of a hundred contestants on a TV show. No, those things are all OK, just so long as they are between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter that this "sacred" union is bastardized by a divorce rate over 50%, or the fact that you can be purchased as a spouse on TV, it only matters that gays might want to join in on the festivities.

The only good thing about people like this is that they are on the steady decline. California lifted its ban on gay marriage, as did Mass., and New York now recognizes gay marriages conducted outside of the state as legal in New York. There is progress being made on an epic scale, and old, bitter bigots like the original poster of this thread are dying out, being replaced by their young, much smarter and tolerant children.

 

[Woody]

This topic is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Clearly the poster writes with absolutely no knowledge of how marriage was introduced into society, and seems to think it was an invention of the Lord Jesus Christ.

irrelevant. You address none of the points in the OP.

I suggest you reread the OP where I said marriage came before religion or government. Then perhaps I'll listen to you.