Update on SSM and its redefinition of marriage

[california boy]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

?????????????????????

Compatriots?  

See SMAC's response to my post.  He wants every gay activists to be a compatriot of mine and thinks I should answer for their beliefs and remarks.  I thought I would return the favor by posting what straight people think about marriage.  I am sure he should be as accountable for what straight people believe about marriage as I should be about what some gay activists think about marriage.

[Calm]

Well, "compatriots" cannot mean "supporters of traditional marriage only" or "against same sex marriage" as at least one of those he cites is pro-gay marriage.  I am thinking he means those in heterosexual relationships.

Apparently anonymous people on a debate site that talks about such things as "animals should not be killed for fun" and "have you ever tried hair braiding styles" is a credible source for looking for informed and educated attitudes about heterosexual behaviour.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

On 1/1/2016 at 1:19 PM, jwhitlock said:

Here's an update on the impact SSM is having on redefining marriage.

If you agree that open, monogamish marriages are wonderful, then you'll applaud this.

However, it is another indication why SSM is fundamentally inconsistent with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and why SSM will never be acceptable in the church.

This such crap, jwhitlock. I agree with you again and on a subject you and I normally disagree on.

Monogamy and fidelity are important to me. I believe in a marital covenant that supersedes the government contract. This covenant is between the two persons and their creator. I know that fundamentally, we may disagree. I'm not going into that. But the points you and Calm raised in the beginning are worth consideration.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Valentinus

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

See SMAC's response to my post.  He wants every gay activists to be a compatriot of mine and thinks I should answer for their beliefs and remarks.  I thought I would return the favor by posting what straight people think about marriage.  I am sure he should be as accountable for what straight people believe about marriage as I should be about what some gay activists think about marriage.

No, I don't think that is what SMac is doing.  Why don't you present evidence that those he cited are considered fringe by most or at least some in the gay community or by the general public?  I think it would be very helpful to see how they are viewed.

According to wiki, the Daily Beast (which is where the opening post article is from) was awarded for excellence on the Internet by what appears to be a reputable organization.  It also merged with Newsweek, which at least used to be reputable in my opinion.  Haven't read it lately.

add-on:  I do think SMac's use of the term "compatriot" is probably inappropriate.  Perhaps he could give why he views the term appropriate so I can see for sure.

add-on and on:  Now that I went and reread Smac's comment where he used the term first, if he is using "compatriot" to mean "those in homosexual relationships" as opposed to "those supporting gay marriage" (and the latter seems unlikely as he is listing those who are opposed to marriage), I see it as a bit of stretch as the nuance feels wrong, though technically probably correct.  But using that term that way certainly justifies CB using compatriot to mean "those in heterosexual relationships" in my current opinion.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

 

-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

-- David Vakalis

-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

-- Ryan Conrad

-- Sally Kohn,
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

-- Alex Gabriel, 
Politics.co.uk

-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

-- David McGee

-- Paul Varnell,
Chicago Free Press

-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

-- Masha Gessen, journalist
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

 

CB, which of these would you consider on par with Glamour or anonymous posters at forandagainst.com?

David Vakalis appears to be a professor at RMIT University:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMIT_University

Does Out Magazine have the same standing among gays as Glamour does among heteros?

Quote

Out (ISSN 1062-7928) is a popular gay and lesbian fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle magazine, with the highest circulation of any gay monthly publication in the United States. It presents itself in an editorial manner similar to Details, Esquire, and GQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_(magazine)

OTOH, the writer seems to be a credible voice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_Signorile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kohn

Politics.co.uk looks like a serious website.  No seminaked anyone for once from a UK news site.  Alex Gabriel appears to be a writer for Huffington as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_on_Organized_Resistance  Apparently this was a poster at one of these, since we don't know whether it was official or not, I would class this as close to anonymous.

No quick info on David McGee.

Paul Varnell:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-15/news/ct-met-varnell-obit-20111215_1_gay-activist-jennifer-vanasco-kit-duffy

Info on the Gay Libertation Front: Manifesto:

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/history/Gay-Liberation-Front-Manifesto-London-1971.htm

Paula Ettelbrick:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/nyregion/paula-l-ettelbrick-legal-expert-in-gay-rights-movement-dies-at-56.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen

Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

CB,

> What I have learned from most of the comments in this thread is that many seem to consider and imply that marriage is only as strong as what other married couples are doing, especially if it contradicts what THEY believe marriage should look like.

> "Marriage everywhere is under attack and being weakened because all those gay couples are sleeping around!"

==Nice little caricature.  With no basis in reality.

==Meanwhile, the comments in this thread have illustrated that, by many accounts, "around half of gay relationships are open," which rate is "considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."  

==The comments have also illustrated that "up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."

==The comments have also illustrated that an apparently common perception amongst same-sex couples is that "there’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay."

==The comments have also illustrated that "gay rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity," a "charge" which appears to be substantially justified.

> That's like saying "My freedom to worship as I see fit isn't as strong as it used to be because there's a lot more Satan worshippers these days that are using their freedom of religion to worship Satan!!"

==CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows:

•  "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
• "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
• "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
• "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
• "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?"
• "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
• "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
• "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

==So please explain.  We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts."

==We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack."  We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much.  So what gives?

> From my perspective, I believe that, like religion, marriage--especially our own marriage--is as strong as we make it, regardless of how others exercise their agency within their own lives.  Instead of all the preoccupation, hand-wringing, and pearl-clutching over what others are doing, I believe in taking responsibility for my own choices, regardless of the fact that others are worshiping or marrying how, where, or to whom they may. 

==This all sounds very nice.  But this is not an either/or situation.  Latter-day Saints can both work to maintain and improve their own marriages and express concern about your compatriots openly plotting to destroy marriage as an institution.

> And that includes my personal resolve to commit to my husband and remain monogamous, regardless of what "a bunch of those other gay married couples" are doing. 

> Stop blaming others.  Make your own commitments and stop obsessing over what others are doing.  Get over it.

==Right.  Don't pay attention to the threats your compatriots have made against the institution of marriage?  Not gonna happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

As CaliforniaBoy has noted, Smac, it appears you were responding mostly to my post, not his.

However, I think attempting to answer the question of “Don't pay attention to the threats your compatriots have made against the institution of marriage?” is very valuable, because answering it forces us to drill down to the core of what true value there is (or isn’t) in this type of thread, the much of which seems to me to exist in the realm of hit-and-run/drive-by posting:

Hit-and-run posting refers to a tactic where a poster at an Internet forum enters, makes a post, only to disappear immediately after.^[1] The term comes from the hit-and-run crime on auto vehicles, in which the driver hits another car or person causing an accident and then flees the scene. It is also known as making a "drive-by" posting, a play on the phrase drive-by shooting. The post often consists of a lengthy text making lots of claims that can be, but are not always, on topic.

Another variety is the sole posting of a URL or link that leads to material that might be used as a discussion primer, but with no added opinion of the poster. It differs from plain spam since forum spam often is posted by spambots, while hit-and-run posting on the other hand is done by a real person. Also, while spam mostly consists of advertising, hit-and-run posts usually have at least some bearing on the topic at hand. However, since the poster doesn't stay around to defend the posted material, or even discuss it, it is considered disrespectful,^{[citation needed]} especially by forum regulars who tend to be angered by the fact that the hit-and-run doesn't become obvious until some or several replies already have been made.^{[citation needed]}

Hit-and-run posting often follow the principle of "throw enough in and some will stick", where the poster hopes that even though they will not defend the post, it might at least persuade someone of its merits, although sometimes its motive is plain flamebaiting. Answering hit-and-run postings after they have been diagnosed as such is sometimes considered "feeding the trolls" and is therefore discouraged.^{[citation needed]} Hit-and-run posting tends to occur more frequently in debate on controversial topics.

In my view, posting statistical averages about gay men’s sexual behaviors, as well as quotes by a selection of the most radical, anti-family gay and lesbian activists, without much else by way of context or conclusion, isn’t very productive and doesn’t prove much.

But rather than ignore the statistics, I’d prefer to engage in dialogue about what they mean and what they add to a discussion about the purpose, meaning, and value of marriage, sexual expression, monogamy, and promiscuity.

To begin with, I’d hope that everyone would keep in mind The Three Rules of Religious Understanding, as authored by Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl (who participated in making a Mormon Message and contributed to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism):

…which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His rules are as follows:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Particularly, rule number 2, “Don’t compare your best to their worst,” is the one that seems to be most often ignored in these types of threads.

Next, I would hope that statements of radical fringe activists are considered in the appropriate context as the radical fringe statements they represent, rather than implying that such activists or their statements represent the true motivation and end game of all—or even a majority—of gay and lesbian people. 

Calling such fringe groups my “compatriots” is an outright misrepresentation of my views.  It demonstrates either a misguided or intentional misrepresentation of the truth.  It ignores the HUGE divide between what such radical fringe individuals claim vs. the actual views, opinions, and goals as expressed by the VAST majority of same-gender couples I know, interact with, or even those that I don’t know personally, but who’s messages I read and witness on social medial, blogs, and throughout the mainstream LGBT activist organizations.

To give an analogous example which would be just as erroneous: it would be a gross misrepresentation of me to characterize The Westboro Baptist Church, and statements by it’s leaders, as representations of the TRUE character, nature, and intent of Christian Faiths in general.  It would be equally false if I were to accuse Westboro of being YOUR “compatriots,” Smac.  The same would be true if I tried to make comparisons between the LDS members of the Oregon Occupation Militia as representative of the TRUE character, nature, and intent of Mormons.  Or to claim that Al Qaeda or ISIS are representative of all Muslims.  Or that Jews are all greedy and power-hungry.  Or that blacks are all deadbeats and criminals.  Or ANY OTHER manifestation of unjust discrimination and mischaracterization of entire classes of people because of what the fringe radicals or their “Worst of their Worst” represent.

Now… back to the statistics.  Is it true that gay men are vastly more sexually promiscuous than straight couples…?  Of course.  The numbers are undeniable, and obviously speak to the radically different expectations or approach to sexual behaviors, as opposed to groups that support and promote monogamy as the ideal.  Rather than sweep that under the rug, I’d like to examine what that may be, in just a few moments.  But first, I want to point out a puzzling phenomenon.

Why is there what seems to be an incessant need to keep posting stats about the sexual behaviors of gay males—the vast majority of which don’t share LDS or Christian conservative values or expectations about monogamy— while simultaneously ignoring (or, at least, not posting about it on MD&D) the countless growing stats about the sexual deviation from what I would call “Biblical sexual morality” among Christians, themselves, which far pre-dated the recent legalization of civil marriage equality?

To illustrate my point on how easy it is to do a “hit-and-run/drive-by” post, akin to the OP, consider the data obtained by various sources over the last several years:

• A recent study reveals that 88 percent of unmarried young adults (ages 18-29) are having sex.

• The same study, conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, reveals the number doesn’t drop much among Christians. Of those surveyed who self-identify as “evangelical,” 80 percent say they have had sex.

• And the reality is the numbers arenʼt going down. Of those 80 percent of Christians in the 18-29 age range who have had sex before marriage, 64 percent have done so within the last year and 42 percent are in a current sexual relationship.

• In addition to having premarital sex, an alarming number of unmarried Christians are getting pregnant. Among unmarried evangelical women between the ages of 18 and 29, 30 percent have experienced a pregnancy (a number thatʼs actually 1 percent higher than among those who donʼt claim to be evangelical).

• According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended. And of those, 40 percent end in abortion.

• More than 1 million abortions occur in the United States each year. But perhaps the most disturbing statistic for the Church: 65 percent of the women obtaining abortions identify themselves as either Protestant or Catholic (37 percent Protestant and 28 percent Catholic).

• Thatʼs 650,000 abortions obtained by Christians every year.

• The pregnancy stats are shocking to many—and the abortion stats horrifying— but the root problem is the willingness to have sex before marriage. Without sex, pregnancies and abortions donʼt happen.

• If abstinence messages were actually working—and this generation of Christians was genuinely committed to saving sex for marriage—then the other issues would dwindle considerably.

• If this generation wants to reverse the trend and reduce the number of Christians having premarital sex, the first step is trying to figure out why so few are waiting.

Read more at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/28337-the-secret-sexual-revolution#4cc1zCj4QQwCeVhZ.99

• According to the "2014 State of Dating in America" report published by Christian Mingle and JDate, 61% of Christians said they would have sex before marriage.

• 56% said that it's appropriate to move in with someone after dating for a time between six months and two years.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-are-following-secular-trends-in-premarital-sex-cohabitation-outside-of-marriage-says-dating-site-survey-113373/#aozOYZTrbv0ddMZw.99

• Over 1 in 3 (35%) married men are stepping outside of marriage by having sexual affairs, and 1 in 6 (17%) married women are cheating on their spouses.

• Showing no favoritism, affairs are infecting Christian marriages at the same rate as it is crippling marriages nationwide.

• In addition, if a married man has an affair, it's likely to be repeated. Three-fourths of men who admit to having had an affair also admit to having more than one affair, and 3 in 10 (31%) admit to having more than 5 different affairs.

• These numbers are documented in a new survey by Proven Men Ministries (www.ProvenMen.org) and conducted by Barna Group among a nationally representative sample of 500 U.S. adults nationwide that are or had been married.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2014-survey-find-out-how-many-christians-are-having-extramarital-sexual-affairs-and-how-porn-is-the-igniting-fuel-274742051.html

When read­ing research about those who have affairs, the sta­tis­tics can vary greatly. Most researchers come to this gen­eral conclusion:

• That over a third of mar­ried men will cheat on their wives;

• That nearly a quar­ter of all mar­ried women will cheat on their husbands;

• And that more than 50% of all mar­riages will be impacted by one of the spouses being unfaith­ful. Grim sta­tis­tics if you think about them.

• Researchers are find­ing that women are just as likely as men to have an affair.

• Ten per­cent of extra­mar­i­tal affairs are “one night stands;” ten per­cent last more than one day, but less than a month; half of all affairs last more than a month but less than a year; and 40 per­cent last two or more years (Lampe, 2000).

• There is grow­ing evi­dence that adul­tery is also a tremen­dous prob­lem in Chris­t­ian cir­cles.

• One could site many studies—the most recent from Chris­tian­ity Today shows that 45 per­cent of Chris­tians indi­cate hav­ing done some­thing sex­u­ally inap­pro­pri­ate, and 23 per­cent hav­ing extra­mar­i­tal inter­course (Ander­son, 2000).

• These num­bers pretty much mir­ror the national averages.

http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:

Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)	% who have been divorced
Non-denominational **	34%
Baptists	29%
Mainline Protestants	25%
Mormons	24%
Catholics	21%
Lutherans	21%

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion	% have been divorced
Jews	30%
Born-again Christians	27%
Other Christians	24%
Atheists, Agnostics	21%

 

• Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said:

"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky.  With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage.  There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups.  Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage

.

"

2

• StopTheReligiousRight.org had some scathing comments as well:

"We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."

"It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."

12

Associated Press' confirmation of Barna's results:

• The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the "Bible Belt."

   

• According to the Boston Globe:

   

  "The AP report stated that 'the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.'

The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

• In the United States, researchers estimate that 40%–50% of all first marriages will end in divorce or permanent separation.56 The risk of divorce is even higher for second marriages, about 60%.57 Utah’s divorce rate is just slightly above the national average.58

 

That’s a lot to wade through, but was easily compiled in a matter of minutes from various sources across the web.  I make it to prove a point… Can I vouch for all those sources’ accuracy?  No… but it makes for another great example of a “hit-and-run/drive-by” post, especially if I left it without comment.

My intent in posting it is that for those willing to self-examine, there are staggering statistics all around showing the failure of marriage and the prevalence of sexual promiscuity.  Certainly, the numbers among gay couples ARE higher than straight counterparts—but posting how promiscuous gay men tend to be hardly excuses the rising incidents of pre-marital sex, cohabitation, extra-marital affairs, abortions, and divorces among religious populations.  And if one of purposes of religious institutions is to perfect their membership, then I puzzle at why so much public ‘air time’ that many religious folk give to casting stones at gays instead of paying more attention to cleaning up their own congregations.  Again, to me, that’s a classic indication of scapegoating—especially (as others have said) when less than 0.1% of the population enters into a same-sex marriage.

Finally, I’d like to touch on the other issue I raised earlier in this (already too long) post: WHY are gay men so much more prone to promiscuity, instead of monogamy?  And is there anything that can be done to encourage gay men to become monogamous?  Well—since this post is already too long, I’ll answer those in my next…

 

 

 

 

[Gray]

So taken altogether, I gather that we conclude that the only couples worthy of the institution of marriage are lesbian couples? They seem to have the best numbers. 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Did you read the OP at all?  This thread is about ssm and "open marriage" not polygamy.   I understand you are tying to dodge the real questions here, but it will not work with me. 

The REAL irony here is that the words do not even exist to describe what SSM is doing to marriage.  

"Monogamous" is not the right word- on that you are right.  

The problem is that there is no word to describe a marriage that is not a marriage- without using the two contradictory words "open" and "marriage" to describe - what?  A relationship?  What kind of relationship?  A friendship?  We already have a word for that - "friendship".

Matthew 19:5
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh"

Even polygamous marriage was always between people who agreed to be exclusive sexually within the CONTRACT of marriage.  In a sense they were "monogamous" within those in the marriage even in polygamous marriages.  Yes technically that is not the right word, but what IS the word that describes a contract that is not a contract?

What is marriage if not an agreement to be exclusive within the marriage?  Why would anyone enter into a "marriage" with anyone you found you wanted to have sex with?

Marriage is "closed" by definition.

Early experiments with polygamy in the church weren't that dissimilar from open marriages. 

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 7:07 PM, The Nehor said:

No, I think it is more likely to be because I know and am friends with gay people.

That's what did me in, too, amigo.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Early experiments with polygamy in the church weren't that dissimilar from open marriages. 

I didn't realize that you were old enough to have first hand experience of that.  And still going strong!!  Amazing!!

[jwhitlock]

20 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This such crap, jwhitlock. I agree with you again and on a subject you and I normally disagree on.

Monogamy and fidelity are important to me. I believe in a marital covenant that supersedes the government contract. This covenant is between the two persons and their creator. I know that fundamentally, we may disagree. I'm not going into that. But the points you and Calm raised in the beginning are worth consideration.

At this point, it's worth letting SSM supporters speak for themselves. They're doing it not only in articles such as the one I posted, but here on this thread.

The total monogamy and fidelity issue is significant, and I think it's clear where the lines are being drawn when it comes to SSM.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I didn't realize that you were old enough to have first hand experience of that.  And still going strong!!  Amazing!!

Oh yes, I go way back. Of course in those days I was only a brain in a vat.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

At this point, it's worth letting SSM supporters speak for themselves. They're doing it not only in articles such as the one I posted, but here on this thread.

The total monogamy and fidelity issue is significant, and I think it's clear where the lines are being drawn when it comes to SSM.

I think you'll find most of us who support gay marriage also support monogamy and fidelity. It sounds like some of these couples could use some more churching

[jwhitlock]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think you'll find most of us who support gay marriage also support monogamy and fidelity. It sounds like some of these couples could use some more churching

I sometimes wonder if non-gay SSM supporters realize what they're actually supporting.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

I sometimes wonder if non-gay SSM supporters realize what they're actually supporting.

I sometimes wonder if many gay SSM supporters realise what they're actually supporting.

[jwhitlock]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I sometimes wonder if many gay SSM supporters realise what they're actually supporting.

That's an interesting question. Given that the percentage of gays participating in SSM seems to remain in the low single digits, I wonder how many gays actually support SSM at all. There seems to be a great deal of disinterest in participating in it.

[california boy]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

No, I don't think that is what SMac is doing.  Why don't you present evidence that those he cited are considered fringe by most or at least some in the gay community or by the general public?  I think it would be very helpful to see how they are viewed.

According to wiki, the Daily Beast (which is where the opening post article is from) was awarded for excellence on the Internet by what appears to be a reputable organization.  It also merged with Newsweek, which at least used to be reputable in my opinion.  Haven't read it lately.

add-on:  I do think SMac's use of the term "compatriot" is probably inappropriate.  Perhaps he could give why he views the term appropriate so I can see for sure.

add-on and on:  Now that I went and reread Smac's comment where he used the term first, if he is using "compatriot" to mean "those in homosexual relationships" as opposed to "those supporting gay marriage" (and the latter seems unlikely as he is listing those who are opposed to marriage), I see it as a bit of stretch as the nuance feels wrong, though technically probably correct.  But using that term that way certainly justifies CB using compatriot to mean "those in heterosexual relationships" in my current opinion.

I don't think you quite understand what I am saying.  I am not disputing that gay couples are more promiscuous.  I am not even saying that Dan Salvage is wrong in his views.  What I am saying is that there is a pretty significant parallel in the straight community towards sex outside of marriage and affairs within marriage.  To make the statement that gay  marriage is responsible is not supported by any facts.  The trends have been headed in this direction long before gay marriage was legal.  Statistics bore this out.  So what I am saying is

QUIT BLAMING THE GAYS FOR THE CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING IN HOW PEOPLE DEFINE MARRIAGE.  

Whitlock and others are using gay marriage as a scapegoat to rationalize the changing in behavior and attitudes towards marriage.  The straight community seems to be doing a pretty bang up job in redefining marriage all by themselves and long before gay marriage was legal.  Read the statistics that Daniel posted.  There is not a shred of evidence that these trends are a result of gay couples receiving their civil rights to marry. 

I am also saying that those who have a different view of marriage are NOT my compatriots just because they happen to be gay any more than those who write in Glamour magazine or an article in NY Times are not your compatriots just because they are straight.

Daniel's post is expressing my views exactly.  If you want to understand how I feel, read his above post.  There is no sense in me repeating what he said.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

At this point, it's worth letting SSM supporters speak for themselves. They're doing it not only in articles such as the one I posted, but here on this thread.

The total monogamy and fidelity issue is significant, and I think it's clear where the lines are being drawn when it comes to SSM.

The total monogamy and fidelity issue is also significantly absent in the majority of straight marriages.  Read the stats.  I wonder if straight people realize what they are supporting when they say they support straight marriage.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

That's an interesting question. Given that the percentage of gays participating in SSM seems to remain in the low single digits, I wonder how many gays actually support SSM at all. There seems to be a great deal of disinterest in participating in it.

I completely support the civil rights of gays to marry because I believe in the guarantees of the Constitution to ALL Americans, a right affirmed by virtually every single judge in this country who ruled on this issue.  That doesn't mean that I necessairly want to marry my partner.  Those are two completely separate issues.  I think that is how a lot of people both straight and gay view the right to marry.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

At this point, it's worth letting SSM supporters speak for themselves. They're doing it not only in articles such as the one I posted, but here on this thread.

The total monogamy and fidelity issue is significant, and I think it's clear where the lines are being drawn when it comes to SSM.

People like myself have to draw the line to separate ourselves from those who obviously use the term marriage loosely.  

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

So taken altogether, I gather that we conclude that the only couples worthy of the institution of marriage are lesbian couples? They seem to have the best numbers. 

We have not tried those man-dog marriages I was told were inevitable. We should see if they qualify as worthy before dismissing them out of hand.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

 

In the United States, researchers estimate that 40%–50% of all first marriages will end in divorce or permanent separation.56 The risk of divorce is even higher for second marriages, about 60%.57 Utah’s divorce rate is just slightly above the national average.58

 

 

I've been hearing lately that the "50 percent of all marriages will end in divorce" mantra is myth, a disputation that is confirmed by this article, which also seems to contradict the assertion above about Utah's divorce rate. It profiles the 18 states ranking lowest in divorce, of which Utah is near the bottom at #4. So I wonder how "Utah's divorce rate is just slightly above the national average" when it only comes in at #4.

Quote

More and more, the American public is bombarded with news of surprise breakups and cheating spouses, and many people still believe the myth that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. But according to a 2014 New York Times article, “The divorce rate peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s and has been declining for the three decades since. […] If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce.”

Scroll way down to find Utah, and you'll see that only 9.2 percent of residents are divorced. The article doesn't say what the high end of the spectrum is, but of the 18 states profiled, Iowa has the highest at 10.7 percent. The lowest is New Jersey at 8.5 percent.

Edited to add:

Here is a Huffington Post article that does the same things. It presents a map that puts Utah on the extreme low end of the spectrum in terms of percentage of the population that are divorced. And it too counters the "50 percent of marriages end in divorce" group think, citing the same New York Times piece that the other article did.

Nevada comes out on top at 13.5 percent, and Maine follows at 13.5. So I guess those numbers reflect the extreme of states having the most divorced residents.

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

8 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

I sometimes wonder if non-gay SSM supporters realize what they're actually supporting.

Given all the bad behavior by straight couples, are you sure you realize what you're actually supporting?

Or does bad behavior only count when it's gay people doing it?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given all the bad behavior by straight couples, are you sure you realize what you're actually supporting?

Or does bad behavior only count when it's gay people doing it?

If anyone here has said that bad behavior only counts when it's gay people doing it, I will vociferously contradict that person.

I don't think anyone has though.

What seems to be at issue here is a cultural movement to define marriage out of existence, or more specifically, to deprive it of any meaning at all.

At least that's how the thread started out; I haven't followed it much over the past couple of days.

 

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If anyone here has said that bad behavior only counts when it's gay people doing it, I will vociferously contradict that person.

I don't think anyone has though.

What seems to be at issue here is a cultural movement to define marriage out of existence, or more specifically, to deprive it of any meaning at all.

At least that's how the thread started out; I haven't followed it much over the past couple of days.

 

Marriage isn't an exclusive country club. They let the gays in now. But how you define your own marriage is entirely up to you. Nothing has changed that way. People's ideas about marriage have been in constant flux.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray