Same-sex marriage advocates frequently ask, “How would gay marriage affect your marriage?” The question is posed rhetorically, as if marriage is a private institution with no social consequences.
But The New York Times, of all papers, argues that gay unions could significantly alter marriage norms. A new study of gay couples in San Francisco shows that half are “open,” meaning that partners consent to each other having sex with other people. The Times says that the prevalence of such relationships could “rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony” by showing straight couples that monogamy need not be a “central feature” of marriage and that sexually open relationships might “point the way for the survival of the institution.”
In the gay community, open relationships are neither news nor controversial. Many of my partnered, gay male friends are in open relationships, some of which have lasted for decades. But the Times reporter, Scott James, who is himself gay, notes that nobody in an open relationship agreed to give their full name for the story, worrying that “discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.”
Why are we not surprised at this? How long are we going to allow ourselves to be conned by the homophile agenda?
everyone knew that this “open relationsnip, – i.e, sexual promiscuity in disguise – was common enough, and yet no one dared to say so openly because the social stigma for speaking this rather obvious truth was so very great. Larry
This has been the intention all along – to abate marriage and its norms. It is the agenda so often denied. It is the gateway to polyamory et alia ad adnauseum ad infinitum. All is going according to plan.
Welcome disease to the marriage bed! Let them wallow in their sins.
[b]Romans 1[/b]
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and [b]received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [/b]
is there a link to the times article? i would be very interested in reading it.
#4..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
Here’s a link to another article by the same author for your edification.
http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/the-rules-of-open-relationships/
Hemingway’s article makes clear that the moral breakdown of marriage has roots in the easy divorce heterosexuals demand be in the law and who practice easy divorce. Maybe the way to stop the slide into marital and family anarchy and decadence in our country is to take the offensive by working to make divorce less easy.
The fact of the question of “How would it affect?” is the best indication that the questioner wouldn’t understand the answer. It is the END of marriage, not the start of it for someone completely uninterested in it. They can’t have it, don’t want anyone else to.
Welcome to 1st century Corinth!
#7..
My parish is a conglomeration of people coming from different denominations and bringing with them the perceived “ideals” which might recommend each one. Now aside from exposing these non-cradle folk to the subtleties of Episcopal worship and doctrine which in itself is a major undertaking, bringing divorce into the mix is just one more major hurdle to jump. Many of these people were seeking a church which would not present impediments to picking up the pieces of a shattered marriage and moving one with one’s life. Lord knows if push comes to shove, the church and its policies takes the hindmost, as other solutions are sought, namely voting with one’s feet and saying sayonara. For me, it is in a sense of morally dumbing down the laity and the priesthood for that matter, by allowing re-marriage without rigorous pre-nuptial counseling. I even would support the defrocking of a priest if he divorced his wife, no if, ands, or buts. No fault or no. We as a body of believers really don’t intend or expect to be held accountable except perhaps to God alone for whom our souls in silence wait. Rant on, Garth.
Centexn, I appreciate the links. Larry
i lost this thread, thanks for the link centexn.