Gay marrieds say they will not be monogamous

Boston Fishwrap ^ | 5/18/04 | Duncan

[pabianice]

According to today's Boston Herald, here is what the very first recipient of a Provincetown MA same-sex marriage license has to say about marriage:

"[Jonathan Yarbrough] says the concept of forever is 'overrated' and that he, as a bisexual, and [his partner Cody] Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. `I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,' he said. `In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage...'"

[ZULU]

How LONG will we TOLERATE these people???

Those Mosaic Laws are starting to look better and better.

[tiamat]

thackney wrote:


I wonder how many bothered with a pre-nupt?

---

I betcha dollars to donuts a bunch of them did! Especially since that culture IS so permiscuous!

[microgood]

"This is what people mean when they say homosexual marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage." Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce in 1997: 50% Percentage of remarriages that end in divorce in 1997: 60%

That means that by the second try, 80% have succeeded. I've always thought the gays attacking heterosexual marriage is a bit deceitful as most people are married most of their adult life, it just takes many two tries.

[darreaver]

i give it about 5 years or less, than every other ((self-censored)) group will want their own say , using the same argument they used. i was born with a natural attraction to (( you can add the word in the space.)) so i should be allowed to do whatever i want with them.

[ezo4]

point noted - Ill call them sodomites from now on

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bill and Hillary have one!

[usslsm51]

It does seem that it is difficult to take anything away from employees, however it doesn't seem to hard to take the company out of the USA.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

We keep hearing how homosexuals want committed relationships. I would like them committed to the luney bin. It will eventually come to an Armageddon, a battle of morals with perverts. For a while I was thinking that it would be with the Muslims lunatics, but the homos are making a move while we are distracted with the war. It is too bad that our generation will turn over an overtaxed, over-entitled, and morally bankrupt society to our children. What a mess they will have on their hands.

[fortunecookie]

Homosexuals equate a license with forced societal acceptance of their unions that will gradually be fully accepted. In my opinions homosexual orientation is just one of those things. It's not normal, but I wouldn't use the word aberration. Many of us have something or other wrong with us. It is unfortunate for those who find themselves to be homosexual - their life may well be less fulfilled because of it. I expect such a person to pursue happiness, and couple responsibly.

I agree with you and I have said this myself, but in my haste I did not add that on. But I do think there is a vast difference between the militant you-must-like-and-accept-my-actions variety and the regular person struggling with our own uniquenesses like the rest of us. Just as hetero marriage is threatened, if you will, by those who are routinely unfaithful or have open marriages, so too is a homosexual union threatened by militants who want to marry more to make a point than anything else. Those same homosexual regular folks have their own legitimacy stained by the actions of their militant counterparts. Not that I believe homosexual marriage should be a right or legal, but I see the point of certain legal issues being resolved for long-term couples. And I don't believe that the couples rushed through this week, judging by their own words, are indicative of what many homosexual couples want nor are they treating this 'right' they've fought for with the importance it used to receive and still should. After all, they really need to succeed. If they fall into the same divorce rates and ills as the regular marriages they routinely scorn supposedly have, they are very blatantly contradicting themselves. The very militant have been vilifying 'breeder' divorce rates for some time.

Legal unions or marriages that carry rights and benefits are a completely different animal. I am strongly opposed to that. We need to educate our children about what marriage is really for and why it is a union of one man and one woman.

These are good points. It seems as though we need to educate a lot of people on the importance of marriage and what it is for and what it means to make such a commitment and why it is uniquely suited to one man and one woman. Too few of us are doing that. And a lot of people are doing much to the contrary. I remain concerned for this generation of kids - their understanding of marriage is skewed by the homosexual agenda in schools and the soaring divorce rates among their parents. I think many of us on this forum are doing our part, but it seems inadequate compared to the work of others.

[BaBaStooey]

I've been saying all along that one of the major reasons to oppose gay "marriage" is the fact that documented studies have shown that gay people are more promiscuous and are more likely to have multiple partners than straight people, that an even higher percentage of gay "marriages" would result in divorce than even the current 50-50 rate.

I'm certain that one of the major groups campaigning for gay "marriage" were divorce lawyers. They have just expanded their potential market, and their potential source of income. A slight rise in divorce court costs for us the taxpayers and that's about it.

[Lurking in Kansas]

What's the point (other than blowing $25 on a piece of paper)?

Nope, I'm not going to touch that one.

[cruiserman]

Probably being able to share benefits.

[jimt]

What's the point (other than blowing $25 on a piece of paper)?

Forced (and legally enforced) acceptance by normal people as being "good", "normal", etc., when it clearly isn't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The point that I've been trying to mak is that we, heterosexuals that is, need to own up to a whole lot of the demage that's already been done to the institution of marriage.

Yes, same-sex marriage is certainly not what God intended, but then again, we do a whole lot of things that God did not intend for us to do either.

[clamper1797]

BTT

[Dr Snide]

would not argue with you on that point. I'm personally in favor of civil unions for all adults including non-religious heterosexuals. I think marriage is and should remain a religious instiutuion free of being tarnished from both hetero and homosexuals who abuse it.

[HostileTerritory]

Look for employers in MA and in states that recognize these "marriages" to terminate employee healthcare benefits.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I thought the whole point of marriage was monagomy.

I guess a gay marriage has no vows (too restrictive) or any language such as "forsaking all others so long as you both shall live" (too old-fashioned).

[darreaver]

I'm glad someone else feels the same way. I'm sick of having to use the pc term everytime i try to debate them.
guess they love that xmas song. now we don our gay attire.

[kallisti]

i have to agree with you on that one. several years ago my company shifted my production unit to a cheaper labor locale. however we didn't lay anyone off, we just absorbed everyone here.