Sad Marriage in America
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
that's ok, heart it happens to the best of us.
Of course two people can stay together for a lifetime whther they intend to be "monogamous" or not. However, marriage is a commitment to do so, and love is required to make it happen.
In the example provided, both partners left each other for better partners.
Genuine love lasts a lifetime or longer. I love my parents, and I'll continue to do so after they are dead. Isn't a partnership with love greater than that? :shrug:
True, that they can. They can also stay together while being monogamous too, whether they are married or not.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out. What if both of them stay with their new partners for the rest of their lives in a committed, loving, and monogamous relationship. You have a problem with this?
Woody, do you not think that genuine love can happen for homosexuals as well?
I think you can have a friendship as good as anyone, but friendships don't always last. I can understand you wanting to have a companion. It is our naure to want a companion. The God of the Bible recognized that loneliness is a bad thing, and indeed God created people because He wants companionship.
I'm not here to judge your life or your relationship. But I can tell you that God's love surpasses ours. I believe Jesus was a real person, and He died because He loved us that much. Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but I thought I would share it.
(chortle!)
You can't possibly be asserting that heterosexuals have no sexual desires to repress. Which leads us back to the point you seem to have ducked:
Um ... okay. Whatever. So how do you account for the assertion that het men are evolutionarily predisposed against monogamy?
Woody said:
You can't possibly be asserting that heterosexuals have no sexual desires to repress. Which leads us back to the point you seem to have ducked:
Um ... okay. Whatever. So how do you account for the assertion that het men are evolutionarily predisposed against monogamy?
i would like to pop in at that point with a congratulation to both tiassa and heart.
I cant belive that the two of you are willing to wade through this crap in order to keep refuting it. I gave up after page one
lol well, speaking for myself, I'm pretty much done now and probably should have given it a rest at page one myself
Nothing I'm not already used to
In truth, it's not all that deep. It's kind of slippery, though. The challenge is to not move too quickly and overcommit yourself. You can easily fall on your ass and wind up spattered in the sludge he's spreading. There's nothing here that seventeen years of facing this issue hasn't prepared me for. Then again, I'm hard-pressed to recall the last time the homophobes brought something new to the discussion.
Asguard said:
In truth, it's not all that deep. It's kind of slippery, though. The challenge is to not move too quickly and overcommit yourself. You can easily fall on your ass and wind up spattered in the sludge he's spreading. There's nothing here that seventeen years of facing this issue hasn't prepared me for. Then again, I'm hard-pressed to recall the last time the homophobes brought something new to the discussion.
doesn't that apply to hetros? i mean marrying is repressing my desire to have sex with women, does that mean i'm just trying to 'act gay'? are monogamous straights 'heterophobic'?
monogamy is like abstinence, its a choice, it doesn't necessarily reflect your sexual desires.
the reason for monogamy is the promise to your partner, to assure her you love only her, you don't sleep with other women. why would loving a person deactivate the sexual attractiveness of other women, or the physically enjoyable feeling of sex? you just don't want to hurt the woman you love.
Yes indeed, and marriage is a commitment to forsake all others.
It means you are trying to act moral. Now if you are suppressing gay desires then you have internalized homophobia, and that's supposedly different. I really see no difference myself, and I think the word "homophobia" is kind of ridiculous for the reasons you just cited.
Some gays show their homophobia through monagamy, whether they marry the opposite sex for a complete cover-up, or marry the same-sex to put a "straight face" on their gay relationship. In the latter case, you'll notice them constantly comparing their relationship to heteros like an obsession -- trying to prove they're "good as." Why don't they just marry a hetero if they want to be like one so bad? This is kind of like Michael Jackson wanting to be white.
Monogamy is a moral value that puts your sexual drive in check.
Well, if you love your wife, I think you better stop looking at porn and such, don't you think? It seems a lot of married men have a big problem with that.
Last edited:
You prove your point with your clown avatar. Got data? :bugeye:
Yes, heteros must put their sexual desires in check, usually through morality.
Human nature is prone to be against monogamy.
Woody, are you asserting that it is meaningless for any person to say that they are in a "monogamous" relationship with their "genuine love"?
If I understand you correctly, the only monogamous and genuinely loving relationships "last a lifetime or more". Therefore, anyone claiming to be involved in such a relationship is clearly lying or at best speculating. We would have to wait for both partners to die off to know if it was monogamous and genuine.
This is patently absurd.
(Insert title here)
And?
I mean, there are plenty of ways to reconcile those points with your assertion that "'gay monogamy' is homophobic by definition", but none of them seem to do your argument any credit.
See, one prominent element of homophobia is that it treats the homosexual according to a different standard than the rest of humanity. It is hard to hold monogamy as specifically homophobic in this sense. After all, gays, too, are human beings. Perhaps this point slipped by you.
Or, perhaps, you are presuming that your morality trumps all other assertions thereof. This, too, would be erroneous. While you are entitled to your own morality, it should not deny other people their own perspectives and customs; if those other assertions of morality somehow injured you, then of course there are grounds to object, but as this is not the case, your dubious lament seems nothing more than an expression of your own malice.
So help us out here, please, and show us how to reconcile your statements.
Woody said:
And?
I mean, there are plenty of ways to reconcile those points with your assertion that "'gay monogamy' is homophobic by definition", but none of them seem to do your argument any credit.
See, one prominent element of homophobia is that it treats the homosexual according to a different standard than the rest of humanity. It is hard to hold monogamy as specifically homophobic in this sense. After all, gays, too, are human beings. Perhaps this point slipped by you.
Or, perhaps, you are presuming that your morality trumps all other assertions thereof. This, too, would be erroneous. While you are entitled to your own morality, it should not deny other people their own perspectives and customs; if those other assertions of morality somehow injured you, then of course there are grounds to object, but as this is not the case, your dubious lament seems nothing more than an expression of your own malice.
So help us out here, please, and show us how to reconcile your statements.
Yes indeed, and marriage is a commitment to forsake all others
It means you are trying to act moral. Now if you are suppressing gay desires then you have internalized homophobia, and that's supposedly different. I really see no difference myself, and I think the word "homophobia" is kind of ridiculous for the reasons you just cited.
Some gays show their homophobia through monagamy, whether they marry the opposite sex for a complete cover-up, or marry the same-sex to put a "straight face" on their gay relationship. In the latter case, you'll notice them constantly comparing their relationship to heteros like an obsession -- trying to prove they're "good as." Why don't they just marry a hetero if they want to be like one so bad? This is kind of like Michael Jackson wanting to be white.
Monogamy is a moral value that puts your sexual drive in check.
Well, if you love your wife, I think you better stop looking at porn and such, don't you think? It seems a lot of married men have a big problem with that.
homophobia is fear/hatred of homos, being monogamous doesn't mean you suddenly fear/hate homos. was your argument actually that gays are naturally and necessarily promiscuous, and that monogamy for them is defying their nature? because i don't think sexual preferences affect promiscuity naturally and necessarily, though stereotypical behaviour for flamboyant gays might influence promiscuity.
you seem to be saying heteros being monogamous are moral, and gays being monogamous are homophobic. is that right?
monogamy is not a moral value, it is a cultural practice which might reflect love for your wife, or stem from fear of consequences of cheating, or be steadfast adherence to a marriage vow.
not nessarly codanblad. I would suggest its more about social conditioning than love, for instance it used to be the practice (still is infact) for 1 man (or a small group) to have a herum of women. This is what lions do in nature infact and its quite likly humans were the same. That being said for most people that is the way we chose to live and it IS a choice. Wether people are hedrosexual or homosexual means nothing, its still a choice on the part of both paticipants as to how they set up there relationship
Will it be exclusive?
will it be open?
with it be a small group?
will they be swingers?
ect
Its a choice than only the people in that relationship have the RIGHT to make and sociaty should learn to BUT OUT
Will it be exclusive?
will it be open?
with it be a small group?
will they be swingers?
ect
Its a choice than only the people in that relationship have the RIGHT to make and sociaty should learn to BUT OUT
i was trying to suggest there could be any number of reasons for choosing monogamy, rather than that it shows how much you love a person, and especially that monogamy is not "a moral value which puts your sexual drive in check". so yeah, i'm in agreement with you.