I came across this article in my email inbox and found evidence of what has been said before, yet denied by the activists and enablers. Homosexuals aren't interested in monogamy in the traditional sense. They aren't interested in marriage in the traditional sense. And despite the fact that there are cases of heteros willingly engaging in wife-swapping, in inviting a third party to the conjugal bed, and other deviancies, that has never been considered, to say the least, typical of what a marriage or monogamy is or is meant to be.
There is little doubt that the main drive is to redefine both marriage and family so as to accomodate every perversion possible. Michelle O'Mara suggests that everyone finds ways to make their relationships work. By this she implies that it isn't a matter of submitting one's self to the traditional sacrificial aspects of a true union, but instead, finding ways to accomodate each individual's personal desires.
This is ass-backwards. We have marriage, wherein a man and a woman willingly bind themselves to each other for life to become as one unit manifested in the compact of fidelity to each other. That is marriage. Not one man with another man, or woman with another woman, or any other arrangement with no fidelity. They are trying to redefine the whole game to their own satisfaction due to their personal weakness regarding with whom they choose to have sex.
Dan Savage, who twice has engaged in "three-ways" with his "husband" says this: "The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself."
I don't know of which culture he speaks, but I don't think that's the case in the one in which I live. I've heard people say that, and it's surely a romantic notion, but I've never known that to be a given. In fact, the standard and traditional set of marital vows makes that notion quite naive. Why would each party have to vow to love each other from this day forward in good times and bad, for better for worse, etc, etc, etc forsaking all others and such 'till death do they part? Right there it suggests to me that temptations will not be magically rendered non-existent, and like all other temptations we are to resist them, rise above them and do the right freakin' thing. I do not lie to myself about being attracted to other women. I simply do not allow myself to be ruled by those attractions. That's not lying. That's being a man.
Then of course there's the whole monogamy thing. I don't think it is typical in the hetero world that both parties agree to open relationships. But according to the small Lowen and Spears study, 40% of the homos begin their relationships with an open arrangement while the remaining percentage get to it eventually. I don't think you find those numbers in hetero situations. And when you do find a party looking outside his/her vows, they're doing it on the sly whilst the other remains committed.
We're expected to change our laws to accomodate a segment of the population that even within itself has few that really care about true devotion to their partners. And that strengthens the institution how, exactly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
The difference between heterosexual fidelity and homosexual fidelity appears, from the studies I've read, to be this. Heterosexual couples generally expect to be mutually exclusive of all others. It happens that they aren't sometimes, but that's not considered normal; it's considered bad. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, do not expect an exclusive sexual relationship and label that as "normal". Another reason why it's not "marriage".
Well said.
Wait a minute. What is "couple" here? Is a heterosexual "couple" a married couple?
"Homosexual couples, on the other hand, do not expect an exclusive sexual relationship." Really? Says who? And if that is the case, how do you define them as a "couple"?
Jim,
Your comment and question relates exactly to what I was saying about words being redefined. When the typical hetero couple unites, they are thinking fidelity at the onset whether it plays out that way or not. As Stan points out, when it doesn't work out that way, the definition stands even though one or both sides of the union didn't hold themselves to it.
But as this and other studies have shown, homosexuals don't necessarily view the union in the same way, with fidelity being ambiguous at best if expected at all. As to who defines them as couples, THEY do. Yet they define "couples" in a different way or have different expectations of it.
What studies? You still refer to "couples" and not married couples.
"When the typical hetero couple unites..." You mean in marriage?
How can it be assumed that homosexual couples wouldn't be just as prone to monogamy as heteros if they were married? Since they can't, how are you going to produce THOSE "studies"?
"don't necessarily"? What kind of "proof" is "don't necessarily?"
"they are thinking fidelity at the onset". Who? Charlie Sheen? Tiger Woods? Mark Sandford? Elliot Spitzer? John Ensign? John Edwards?
What study shows that they were thinking fidelity at the onset?
This is just so much Bovine Scatology.
What's bullshit, Jim, is the idea that, because marriage has not yet been radically redefined, we cannot possibly draw any reasonable conclusions about the effect on marital fidelity that would come with such a redefinition.
As Stanley Kurtz has pointed out, even someone like Andrew Sullivan, who has argued that "gay marriage" will strengthen the institution, has ALSO argued the other way.
In his book Virtually Normal, "Sullivan actually praises the 'openness of the contract' that characterizes so many gay male unions and offers it as something that might actually strengthen marriage as an institution (pp. 202-203)."
"If even the conservative Sullivan once openly put forth this argument, just wait until large numbers of married gay radicals get to work."
And if you demand empirical evidence, well, we have precisely that, too.
"Gretchen Stiers's 1999 study, From This Day Forward, makes it clear that while exceedingly few of even the most committed gay and lesbian couples believe that marriage will strengthen and stabilize their personal relationships, nearly half of those gays and lesbians who actually disdain traditional marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) will nonetheless get married. Why? For "the bennies" — the financial and legal benefits of marriage.
"And as Stiers shows, many radical gays and lesbians who actually yearn to see marriage abolished (and multiple sexual unions legitimized) intend to marry, not only as a way of securing benefits, but as part of a self-conscious attempt to subvert the institution of marriage from within.
"Stiers's study was focused on the very most committed gay couples. Yet even in a sample artificially weighted with nearly every gay male couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony (and Stiers had to go out of her research protocol just to find enough male couples to balance out the committed lesbian couples) nearly 20 percent of the men questioned did not practice monogamy. Obviously, in a truly representative sample of gay male couples, that number would be vastly higher. More significantly, a mere 10 percent of even these most committed gay men mentioned monogamy as an important aspect of commitment (necessarily meaning that even many of those men in the sample who had undergone "union ceremonies" failed to identify fidelity with commitment). And these, the very most committed gay male couples, are theoretically the people who will be enforcing marital norms on their gay male peers, and exemplifying modern marriage for the nation. So concerns about the effects of gay marriage on the social ideal of marital monogamy seem more than justified." [emphasis mine]
It is already pretty clear that gay male couples who become "married" or have other commitment ceremonies are -- by overwhelming numbers -- non-monogamous in practice and in their values.
Homosexuals do not understand the difference between love and lust. That's the whole issue in a nutshell.
To them, sex IS love.
A man cannot truly love another man and a woman cannot truly love another woman, except in a brotherly and/or Agape love type context.
They can, however, burn with lust toward each other, as Romans 1 states.
When one man burns with lust toward another man, or woman toward woman, they mistake this emotion as love.
Therefore, whenever a homo "falls in love" with another homo, they're "love" only lasts until they "fall in love" with someone else.
This phenomena can be observed in child molesters, too. Time after time one hears pedophiles insist they wouldn't hurt a child, that they "love" children.
Same thing. They cannot distinguish between love and lust.
And, let me add, sex is the way homos and child molesters demonstrate their love toward their "loved ones". They know of no other way.
Sex is love and love is sex to them. They see no difference.
That's why they are obsessed with sex at all times. try to have a normal conversation with a homo sometime and pay attention to how many times they turn some innocent statement into a sexual innuendo.
And, before you Libs and homo enablers (oops, redundancy alert!) accuse me of homophobia, let me tell you, there are only two people who work in my department at work. Myself and another guy. He is a flaming homo. I like him and respect him very much personally. I do not like his perversion. I have worked alongside and been friends with many homos throughout my lifetime and can say I liked everyone of them personally.
And every one of them, to a person, male and female, could not conduct a normal conversation with anyone without inserting sexual innuendos and often downright sexual references into the conversation regularly.
Normal people don't do that everytime.
Homos are abnormal.
And it is possible to love the sinner while hating the sin. I do it everyday with my homosexual friend and colleague.
Aren't you worried that he's going to try to feel you up or molest your grandchild?
Jim you really show your true colors with insensitive comments like that.
I wonder. Since you are so eager to defend perversion, you must be a little light in the loafers yourself, eh?
Jim,
I think it's likely that if Mark had such worries he would have mentioned that.
Mark,
It's a stretch to suggest Jim suffers from that condition simply because of his warped understanding of it.
I think you both should back off a bit.
Mark,
I'm being insensitive? Really? You rant and rave about how perverse ALL "homos" are and liken them to or suggest they are pedophiles, and then you call me insensitive?
"And every one of them, to a person, male and female, could not conduct a normal conversation with anyone without inserting sexual innuendos and often downright sexual references into the conversation regularly."
I work in San Fransisco in a large office. I recently had a conversation with a gay associate about who in the office was gay. One or two I suspected, though not from anything they had said. To my surprise he pointed out several others whom I never suspected of being gay. I talk with them professionally and socially and not one of them has EVER included sexual innuendo into any conversation I've had with them.
You generalize about the "perverse" gay population when apparently your own experience belies your stereotype.
"Homos"? Don't talk to me about "insensitive."
"I think it's likely that if Mark had such worries he would have mentioned that."
So what makes Mark's associate different from all the other "perverts" out there?
Jim,
I don't know that Mark made the statement that all homosexuals are likely to attempt to grope anyone without permission or that they will all be pedophiles. Can you point to a statement he made that would suggest that in any way? I'll bet you can't. Why not just focus on what he DOES say instead?
For the rest, I would say that you both have presented the problem of using anecdotal evidences. In Mark's experience, he's seen one thing. In Jim's, another. I would have to say, however, that I find it telling that folks like Jim always have tales of purity regarding their homosexual associates. Dan Trabue is a stark example of this. I don't know how many homos Mark knows, but his stories parallel a minister I know who has dealt with many in his past street ministries. And he's a liberal guy. In my experience, the one homo I knew best stated that every homo he's ever met needs psychological help. So there ya go.
And I'll say once again that the use of the ABBREVIATION "homo" will not end here. It's the appropriate description of the kind of person to which we are referring in a condensed form. Deal with it. If the feelings of homos are hurt by the use of the word, then perhaps they're the sissies they were at one time considered. Take it for granted that if the subject dealt with kleptomania, I would not forever type out the entire word, but would use a contraction without care for the feelings of those who steal psychopathically.
"the use of the ABBREVIATION "homo" will not end here. It's the appropriate description of the kind of person to which we are referring in a condensed form."
So I take it "retard" is OK, too?
Jim,
Read the linked article found within this post.
Whether a homo is offended at being called a homo or not, the fact is that he IS a homo. I can't help it, though I try to persuade him against it. "Homo" is an abbreviation of the word homosexual. Would he be as offended if I called him a "homosexual"? What does it matter? That's what he is.
Now if someone called ME a homo, I'd be offended only if it lead to people believing I was a homosexual, because it's not true and I wouldn't want anyone to believe I was capable of engaging in such perversions. But, as I know I am NOT a homo, I wouldn't pay any more mind than if he called me a jerk or an asshole. Frankly, if people believed I was what others called me, I've only myself to blame for it and what could be more offensive than that? Apparently I didn't present myself in a manner that suggested what I preferred about myself.
Now as the article to which I referred suggests, the use of words designed for a specific purpose should not cause alarm. If I refer to a retard as a retard or retarded, it's what the word was designed for. Now they say that's not appropriate and the word should be "challenged". But I can use that as an epithet, as indeed it now IS used in such a way, so they now say that the appropriate word is "special". So now THAT word is used as an epithet.
Obviously it ain't the word, but the intention behind it. If I say to someone, "Don't be such a Feodor.", that's only insulting to Feodor, but it's a warning to the other guy that he just said or did something stupid. But if I call Feodor "Feodor", I've merely called him by name. The same with the word "retard/ed" or "homo". To call a normal person either is to suggest something about what they said or did. But to use the terms for those for whom the terms were created is appropriate.
For the record, I don't make a habit of calling anyone anything because I believe there such things as tact and decorum. So upon meeting someone who is mentally retarded, I won't say, "Oh, so you're a retard!" or upon meeting a homo I don't mention their orientation unless the subject of their orientation is the topic of discussion.
I hope this clears things up for you.
I take it that you are a member of the genus species homo sapiens.
Maybe I'll just refer to you as a "homo" for short because it is accurate, is it not? It's just so much easier to say.
It's only easier if you're in the habit of using the term "homo sapiens" when referring to men. Of course the term also refers to human females, so how's that gonna work for ya?
Of course there's also the fact that you'll likely have to explain yourself everytime you use it since most people would assume you mean "homosexual" which is in far more common usage than "homo sapiens". So if you have any love for clarity at all, this would seem a very poor choice of words.
And what's more, at the end of the day, I'm not concerned what you'd call me anyway. I don't use the term "homo" as an epithet in the first place. If I decided to engage in such behavior, I'd choose a much stronger and truly offensive term; if I was into such things.
I'd say that was a nice try, Jim, but it wasn't.
It's interesting, Marshall. If you look up "homo" in the dictionary, it prefaces the definition ("homosexual") with the phrase, "slang, disparaging". If you look up the term "hetero" in the very same dictionary, you'll find the definition "heterosexual", but it is not classified as slang or disparaging. I wonder why the disparaging disparity?
I was interested in the disparity, but it is true (despite your objections) that "homo" is regarded by most (regardless of the gender to whom one is sexually attracted) as insulting. I personally try to avoid being intentionally insulting to people because I know that insults terminate conversation, but, hey, that's just me, right?
Stan,
Not that it matters, but of two sources I used, only one refers to the use of the word as a slang or insult. But that's really neither here nor there.
I do not use to the word to insult when I use it here. When discussing the subject of homosexuality, it is a convenience to use the contraction "homo" or even "mo" rather than to constantly type/write/say "homosexual". I will not use the word "gay" because that offends ME, to make a perfectly fine word a synonym for such a depraved and deviant behavior. If one who steals doesn't like the word "thief", that's just too bad.
But why should it be insulting? I don't why it's insulting for ME to be called a "homo". I don't engage in such deviancy and I don't wish to be known for doing so.
But homos don't consider it deviancy. Or do they? They are hard at work trying to convince the rest of the world that there's no moral issue with the behavior and I would wager that they are at the same time trying to convince themselves. Far be it from me to help perpetuate such a lie.
But if it was truly benign, why would they take issue with the word? If someone calls me a Jesus freak, they may intend something less than complimentary, but I can't help but feel good about it. OR, if they try to hurt my feelings by calling me a hetero, they'd fail in the attempt because I am what I'm supposed to be. How could it be insulting?
But I believe they know deep down that they are NOT acting as they should. That's my opinion and the Dan Trabues of the world will insist I provide proof. None will be forthcoming from me. If they truly believe they are "just like us", they would not worry about being called what they are.
In addition, I believe that to insist that "homo" is an epithet is simply an attempt to demonize those of us who refuse to accept their propaganda. If they control the discussion and debate by limiting how we can speak about it, that legitimizes their position. I won't be a part of it. If they are insulted, so be it.
I wonder how much "homo" (and others) are used simply because it's so much work to put in the rest? As for me, I don't even like the word "homosexual" anymore because it carries with it the suggestion of "lifestyle". I mean, we refer to "homosexuals" as if they are that way by nature. I don't really care if they're "born that way", but everyone has the choice of what they do with they're desires, so I prefer to use terms like "homosexual behavior". In my first comment here I referenced "homosexual couples" because that already infers "homosexual behavior". But a person who has sexual desires toward people of the same gender and does not act on them ... is he/she a "homosexual"? I don't think the desires are the problem, but what you do with them. So to me the term itself is too confusing.
And while it's certainly your prerogative to use terms you know will be perceived as insulting to others, I'll still attempt to avoid using vague and obviously insulting terms. My personal preference.
Stan, a person who believes they have sexual desires for one of the same sex is not a homosexual. Homosexuality is defined by the act. If a man doesn't engage in homosexual activity, but thinks he wants to, he is nothing more than a heterosexual with deviant thoughts.
Because--man was born heterosexual. He chooses to engage in homosexual acts, for reasons known only to himself, in spite of his natural desires.
Likewise, a woman who believes herself to be a lesbian but doesn't engage in Lesbian acts isn't really a a lesbian, but rather, a heterosexual woman in comfortable shoes. Nothing more.
Jim. I won't address your comment because it's obvious you are lying.
You've never heard any of your homo friends mention sex?
Liar.
Art, OK. I'll rephrase: Obama and Emanuel are retarded.
I think one would be hard pressed to dispute that, given the boneheaded policies they both endorse.
Mark, I won't address your comment because you obviously can't comprehend English.
Moron.
[Marshall, sorry. Couldn't help myself.]
Stan,
"And while it's certainly your prerogative to use terms you know will be perceived as insulting to others, I'll still attempt to avoid using vague and obviously insulting terms."
How did "homo" become insulting? It became insulting by two different, but related means. The first is that heteros were insulted to be called homoseuxals. The second was homosexuals who didn't want to be perceived as engaging in actions considered by the others as morally reprehensible. Yet the abbreviation is no different than the word from which it was derived. It is the act and how heteros perceive the act that is what lends insult to the word.
As I said, I can be called something like "Jesus freak" by someone meaning it in a derogatory way. But as I love and accept Jesus, to be a "freak" for Him is something to which I aspire, thus the term gives me no offense even knowing the intent of he who calls me that name.
But I've got news for ya. I think it is good that homos feel insulted to hear the word. They need to be reminded that the behavior is sinful. More accurately, they need to be faced down when they attempt to persuade anyone, including their own selves, that such behavior is not immoral.
I don't want to see our nation capitulate to the demands of such a small and selfish pecentage of the population. To alter our speech because they it might be hurtful or insulting is an act of capitulation. True Christianity is insulting to them and I'm not about to stop spreading the Good News. Refusing to call evil by its name does us no good.
Again, I don't use the words to insult. I'm much better at insulting people than to merely call them what they claim to be content being. If it hurts, they must feel guilty.
As to whether one is a homo if one never engages in the behavior, I disagree with Mark on this point. I believe we are what compels us. We are defined by our desires and urges. I feel this is true because we wouldn't act without the desire to act being first. Thus, we are adulterers even if we never cheat on our spouses. Christ seemed to echo this concept when he spoke of lust being as bad as acting on that lust. Of course it isn't exactly equal, but the point is that why would anyone engage in a homosexual act if the thought didn't first occur, if the desire was not already present? To put it another way, the action merely confirms what we already are.
Jim,
Yes you could help yourself. You simply chose not to. Bad form.
Mark,
You don't know if Jim is lying or not about his homo friends and aquaintances anymore than we know if YOU'RE being honest about yours. We have to take each other at each other's word about personal experiences without making such declaritive statements about one's honesty. We simply can't know for sure what the other guy has seen/heard/experienced. Play it safe and simply state that you find it hard to believe what they say because it differs so from you own experience. Maybe the homos Jim knows are just more discreet. Good on them.
Marshall,
You're right. I chose not to. But I also chose to scale back my reply to Mark from what I had originally written. That would REALLY have been bad form, so in deference to you, I edited them.
Anyway, thanks for so much more gracefully addressing Mark's comments. It wouldn't have meant anything to him coming from me. Maybe it will from you.
the point is that why would anyone engage in a homosexual act if the thought didn't first occur, if the desire was not already present? To put it another way, the action merely confirms what we already are.
You mean homosexuals don't chose to be homosexuals--they are born that way?
"You mean homosexuals don't chose to be homosexuals--they are born that way?"
Only in the same way we are born thieves and murderers. We all have a variety of compulsions, but what we choose to act on confirms our true character. This is not the same as a biological, gene-related type of thing, except as far as our emotions, thoughts, etc have a biological element. But our brain patterns are not fixed to the point that we can't re-wire ourselves to become what GOD would desire us to be.
I disagree with you, Art.
IF I had ever known a single homosexual who wasn't obsessed with sex, I might tend to believe Jim is telling the truth when he says he knows some homosexuals who aren't obsessed with sex, but since I never met a single homosexual in my entire life who wasn't totally and completely obsessed with sex, I must assume, and probably rightly so, that Jim is lying.
Add to that the fact that Liberals are morally bankrupt and so, are not above lying to prove their points, and the verdict is that Jim is lying and Jim is a liar.
I will not apologize for speaking the truth.
Mark's world is everyone's world. Mark's experiences must be everyone's experiences. A large portion of the country and the world are morally bankrupt liars.
So, there you have it. What more is there to say?
Glad you finally agree, Jim.
since I never met a single homosexual in my entire life who wasn't totally and completely obsessed with sex....
You're obviously hanging out with the wrong bunch of queers, Mark.
Well, Mark. I didn't want to do this to ya, but the one homo I knew best wasn't "obsessed" with sex. He simply wanted someone like most people do. Too bad one he thought would be it was obsessed enough to have contracted HIV from someone else and then passed it to him. From there, my friend developed AIDS and died a slow and horrible death.
I will say that I believe that because homos have already rejected traditional notions of morals and decency that they might be more vocal about what for most of the rest of us is kept to ourselves. But I have to say that of those people I've known who seemed to be "obsessed" with sex, most of them are heteros. Still, my pastor, who is a lib and used to work a street ministry in Chicago, would likely agree with you that most of them ARE obsessed.
So there you have it. Different experiences from different people. I won't deny your experiences and I won't deny Jim's. I have no way of knowing what either of you have experienced.
But seriously, Mark. It could be said that perhaps you are somehow atuned to hear sexual innuendo where it might not exist. I'm not saying this is the case, but since you insist on what you believe based on your experiences, which differ from experiences of others, you couldn't honestly blame a reader of your comments for believing so, particularly if you're so willing to make assumptions about the comments of others. It could indeed be a matter of you running with a lower class of homos than Jim, or maybe Jim's associates are indeed more discreet.
I'm trying to be fair here. And fairness dictates that you can't make such statements honestly. You're only guessing.
Marshall, I just wanted to write long enough to thank you for a bit of discretion and reasonable-ness here. Of course, Mark can't know what others have or have not experienced and your pointing out that obvious fact gives you more credence as a person with whom I disagree.
Mark's comment is so far out there, as to sound unbelievable...
And every one of them, to a person, male and female, could not conduct a normal conversation with anyone without inserting sexual innuendos and often downright sexual references into the conversation regularly.
Normal people don't do that everytime.
Yes, he's right. Normal people don't do that all the time. Normal gay folk, normal straight folk, normal lesbian folk, they just don't talk like that and that Mark thinks it happens "everytime" makes it hard to believe Mark. I mean, where does Mark work? A gay bar? A porn film set?
In any normal working place I've ever worked in, such behavior just wouldn't be tolerated. In my experience, most workplaces are not the place for having sexually-themed conversations and most adults recognize that and don't slide innuendo into "every" conversation.
What would that even look like?
"Here's the Smith report, Mr Jones, and have you seen Smith?? Rowrr! What tight buns!!"
Really? I doubt it.
It strikes folk as lacking in verisimilitude. Which is not to say that Mark has NOT had these experiences, just that it's hard to believe.
As you note, it's easier to guess that Mark has a tendency to read into comments sexual innuendo where none exists than to believe that it happens "everytime" in the real world.
It is to your credit that you call him on it. Thanks.
NORMAL GAY FOLK? LOL!!
How oxymoronic can you get?
Dan,
I made no allusion to what Mark experiences, except to say that others might have their opinions of them based on their own notions. My point was that he can't reasonably assume others have experiences similar to his. BUT, as you may recall, I stated that my own pastor, a very liberal guy himself, had similar feelings regarding the homos HE'S met. In addition, a homo with whom I was well aquainted had similar opinions about his own community in general.
Thus, there is a fixation that seems to be a bit more vocal on average based on these anecdotal testimonies.
Post a Comment