Posted on 02/05/2010 11:44:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In discussing a new study confirming that polygamy is a staple within gay "marriages," a New York Times article has suggested that doing away with the concept of spousal fidelity in marriage represents an "evolution" that "might point the way for the survival of the institution."
NYT columnist Scott James reported January 28 on a project by San Francisco State University's Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality examining various aspects of homosexual relationships. James says the study, which is scheduled for release this month, "reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many."
"Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships," the article continues. "And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution."
Colleen Hoff, one of the study's researchers, remarked: "With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating, but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
Steve Weinstein, the editor-in-chief of the gay news service EDGE Boston, said that the research could be placed into "the category of 'studies that confirm the painfully obvious.'"
James also admits that "none of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it," with many expressing fear that "discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage."
Joe Quirk, author of the sex-themed bestseller "It's Not You, It's Biology," argued that "the combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust."
“If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages," said Quirk.
Exactly, if anything that “evolution” moves what they are doing far beyond any coherent version of “marriage’ and into the category of “business relationship”.
Yet that Institution must be degraded in the mind of Liberals under the guise of misplaced “inclusiveness”.
It’s foolish of course, but most Liberalism is foolishness.
> Tell me again why people who wallow in same-sex ‘love’ want to get married?
Simple...first and foremost, to destroy the institution of marriage.
Indeed and, as we saw earlier in the week, it is also the next step towards legalizing bestiality. In Spain, that is already being taught in the public schools.
‘.... those who worship their groin,’....
THAT observation, explains it all.
Marriage is a sacred covenant before God in which one man and one woman leave their parents and become one flesh, “forsaking all others ...” Many atheists value the positives of marriage enough to modify the institution and skip God’s role in that bond, but they generally at least try to keep the rest of its features. It looks like the activists want to abandon every aspect of marriage except the name. How can they possibly believe there is anything positive in adopting a word that they are redefining to the point where it no longer shares any significant features with its current meaning. [I know the leaders of the movement recognize that their goals and methods are evil, but how can any followers be deceived?]
I’ll run this by my wife and my daughter who is engaged and get their input.
Just one more example how the NYT has lost all credibility. You take away fidelity and you don’t have a marriage—period. Any couple that agrees to an open marriage is just one step away from divorce. And then there is the little matter of the paternity of the children. Most men are just itching to raise someone else’s kid. [/s]
Huh! And here I thought it was all about “love”!!
Yep. Un;ess these gay guys are bringing women into their “marriages,” it would have to be polyandry.
“I think it’s polyandry? Shhhhh, it’s a little secret my gay male friend told me... They can still go to bars and pick up someone new... together....”
Actually, “polyandry” is when a woman has more than one husband. “Polygyny” is when a male has more than one wife.
Maybe we need a completely new word for multiple partners among married gays, something like, hmmmmmm, “perversion”?
And they want to bring all this bilge into the institution we call “marriage?” Keep in the sewer, fags.
NYT: We must kill the patient for the patient to survive.
It’s all about destroying civilization. I have somewhere in my miserably disorganized files a list of quotes from “big” homosexual activists and spokesholes, why they really want to push homosexual marriage.
It’s all about destroying the natural family and society. They admit it.
Poly means multiple and andry means men, so it fits! Stickin' with it! ;)
Placemark.
...a New York Times article has suggested that doing away with the concept of spousal fidelity in marriage represents an "evolution" that "might point the way for the survival of the institution."Universal health care certainly removes one obstacle to monogamous and legally recognized committed relationships. Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
It’s all about societal approval which is different than tolerance which thye already have.
from John Derbyshire:
I don’t think that the fact of a predilection’s being inborn should necessarily lead us to a morally neutral view of the acts it prompts. If you could prove to me that pyromania is inborn, I should not feel any better disposed towards arson. On the other hand, I should have a somewhat more sympathetic attitude towards arsonists than I had before. In that spirit, I favor a tolerant attitude towards homosexuals. I certainly do not believe, as around 40 percent of Americans say they do, that homosexual acts ought to be illegal.
I can’t even agree with the Roman Catholic church that homosexuals are “called to chastity.” While I have nothing against chastity per se — I think it can be an honorable choice for a person to make in some circumstances, and would even go so far as to say that I believe the very low status of chastity in popular culture is regrettable — it seems to me arrogant and unkind to tellpeople that they are “called to chastity” if they do not hear the call themselves.
Homosexual behavior is a social negative, suggesting as it does that normal heterosexual pairing, the bedrock institution of all societies, is merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, “lifestyles,” and thereby devaluing that pairing — perhaps, on the evidence from Scandinavia presented by our own Stanley Kurtz on this site, fatally. Male homosexuality is also the source of public-health problems (and was so even before the rise of AIDS).
Further, homosexuality is offensive to many believers in all three of the major Western religions, who form a large majority of the American population. I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don’t think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures.
Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are “called to chastity,” I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of “fairness.” Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students [and elementary], as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of “pride.” (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can’t help?)
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200502160748.asp
I wonder what the Muslims are thinking about this whole thing.
What is it about people who can’t stay faithful always wanting to change the terms of marriage to suit them? Why not just admit you suck at marriage and stop trying it and leave the rest of us who are good at it alone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.