PDA

View Full Version : Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?



Elspeth
02-13-2015, 04:02 AM
The gloves are off. Article by a homosexual revealing what the rest of us have known all along: it wasn't about taking marriage seriously but using "marriage" to destroy the real thing.

Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/did-christians-get-gay-marriage-right.html

Same-sex marriage is becoming a national inevitability. A cascade of court opinions, significant public support, not to mention increasingly sympathetic gay couples and increasingly implausible opposition—all these and more point to an emerging national consensus that “gay marriage” is actually a form of “marriage.” It’s not exactly clear when the hump took place—but we definitely seem to be over it.

Which leads to a perfectly logical question: What’s next? Moderates and liberals have argued that same-sex marriage is No Big Deal—it’s the Same Love, after all, and gays just want the same lives as everyone else. But further right and further left, things get a lot more interesting. What if gay marriage really will change the institution of marriage, shifting conceptions around monogamy and intimacy? On the other hand, what if the domesticating institution of marriage changes—and even erases—the more libertine tendencies of gay culture?

Obviously, we now know that the sky doesn’t fall when gays get married. Contrary to the hysterical claims that same-sex marriage would threaten marriage in general, 10 years of experience in Massachusetts have shown the opposite: The divorce rate has gone down, and straight kids aren’t suddenly turning gay.

At the same time, there is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous.

This fact is well-known in the gay community—indeed, we assume it’s more like three-quarters. But it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it. Some feel they’ve been duped: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition. Others feel downright envious, as if gays are getting a better deal, one that wouldn’t work for straight couples. Maybe they’re right; women are from Venus, after all. Right?

...What would happen if gay non-monogamy—and I’ll include writer Dan Savage’s “monogamish” model, which involves extramarital sex once a year or so—actually starts to spread to straight people? Would open marriages, ’70s swinger parties, and perhaps even another era’s “arrangements” and “understandings” become more prevalent? Is non-monogamy one of the things same-sex marriage can teach straight ones, along with egalitarian chores and matching towel sets?

And what about those post-racial and post-gender millennials? What happens when a queer-identified, mostly-heterosexual woman with plenty of LGBT friends gets married? Do we really think that because she is “from Venus,” she will be interested in a heteronormative, sex-negative, patriarchal system of partnership?

If not, the future of marriage, in fact, may turn out to be a lot like the Christian Right’s nightmare...

Despite my own condescending tone to the ninnies of sexual repression, I want to admit a certain discomfort with this more radical vision. We are still a messed-up, male-dominated society that has trouble dealing with sexuality. Sure, polyamory works well for a few hyper-educated urban elites. But what about douchebags? What will sexual liberation look like at the bottom-feeding, lowest common denominator?

Will women be even more objectified, assaulted, and leered at? Is the future one long Miley Cyrus video?

Could be. But radical traditionalists aren’t the only ones fearing the consequences of same-sex marriage. So, it may surprise you to learn, are radical progressives.....

RobJohnson
02-13-2015, 05:21 AM
[I] Is the future one long Miley Cyrus video?



Now that is a scary thought!!!!

noonwitch
02-13-2015, 10:04 AM
Infidelity in heterosexual marriage is hardly a new concept, nor is the whole open marriage thing.


I personally think that gay marriage will encourage more monogamy in the gay community. The younger gay people I know at work pretty much stick to one partner at a time, something that a lot of my female peers of my age can't say (lots of my female coworkers of all ages and races have children outside of marriage, with a different father for each child) . One guy who is in his early 30s has had the same partner since college, and they are very happy from all I can see.

NJCardFan
02-13-2015, 10:25 AM
Infidelity in heterosexual marriage is hardly a new concept, nor is the whole open marriage thing.


I personally think that gay marriage will encourage more monogamy in the gay community. The younger gay people I know at work pretty much stick to one partner at a time, something that a lot of my female peers of my age can't say (lots of my female coworkers of all ages and races have children outside of marriage, with a different father for each child) . One guy who is in his early 30s has had the same partner since college, and they are very happy from all I can see.

The fundamental difference is that while you might have some "open marriages" or that there are married people who are adulterous, unlike heterosexuality homosexuality is all about sex. That is the entire premise of the lifestyle. And when sex is the basis, it is near impossible to have a monogamous relationship.

SVPete
02-13-2015, 10:47 AM
No doubt there are some gays and lesbians who really think this is about "equal" "rights". IMO, at the leadership level among activists its been about destroying whatever in society opposes their doing whatever they damn well please with/to whomever/whatever they damn well please.

If same-sex marriage is jammed down the throats of the people of the US it will have no effect on homosexual promiscuity, and the goal posts will be moved. A new "right" will be ginned up and demanded. And Libs/Progs will be good little ovines!

Lanie
02-13-2015, 11:05 AM
I have to admit that's one of my top concerns. I can have an open mind to a lot of things, but non-monogomy isn't one of them. If you get married, then you need to stick with that person until one of you dies. There are legitimate reasons for divorce (adultery, abuse, drinking the money away and dragging the spouse/kids down with you, etc). However, I don't believe in dating before an official divorce. I won't date anybody who is "separated." I spoke to my priest about that just to be reminded that Catholics don't believe in divorce at all. lol. Anyway, I think if you can't stick with that one person until death (with some exceptions), then you shouldn't get married.

I hope that Noonwitch is right and it will encourage more monogomy in the gay community. I'm not sure if it's going to be like that though.

Dori
02-13-2015, 11:25 AM
I hope that Noonwitch is right and it will encourage more monogomy in the gay community. I'm not sure if it's going to be like that though.

Is monogamy really a gay or straight issue? I would be curious to see if their divorce rates are any higher than for hetero marriages.

american patriot
02-13-2015, 11:31 AM
A society which embraces perversion as America has done is on the short road downhill to well deserved extinction.

THE RESISTANCE
02-13-2015, 03:31 PM
I too have my religious objections but
that aside it is the destruction of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights and it is being done by perverting the
14th Amendment by perverted courts and judges.
It is not in the least bit following any part of the Constitution,
even as amended. It is pure invention.
Women's voting rights were a right extended to all sexes
and it was done by Amendment. Why didn't the 14th cover
that if it was a fit all amendment? It is simply because those
of that time completely understood the reason for the
14th amendment. Except for some that took to court that
ended in the Slaughter House Rules Case where both the
majority and the minority agreed that no new rights were
created or extended to all races but those that existed at the
time as they were.
While it maybe a little hard to list those rights of the time it is
far easier to list and define what was not there, far easier.
Unless invention and perversion is your sole intent and
adherence to the Constitution is not, at all.