The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[initforme]

I am a christian heterosexual male that has been married to my wife of 47 years. I am a freak in your eyes because

1). Gay marriage is no threat to my marriage and to think it is means one has no confidence in their own marriage. Scared they are. Cowardly in fact.
2). I haven't gotten an answer yet as to how it threatens my marriage. Epic failure by those who have tried.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, so I'm missing something.

Has someone convinced him this is going to work?
.

I bet when it comes to the 2A, he's very "pro-Constitution".

 

[80zephyr]

Lol. I have already given you the definition. A man being attracted to a woman, no matter their color, is not a deviancy.

Mark

LOL.

You ignore the definition that you provided: "Sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of that excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the learned societal norms (paraphilia)."

You ignore the "in the context of the learned societal norms". In the context of the 1960's (and before) the societal norm was that interracial sex was sexual deviancy. A black man boinking a white woman or a white man boinking a black woman was sexual deviant behavior.


>>>>

It could be considered a deviancy, but it certainly was not sexual.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying.

So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about.

The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

Yes, I know what the court ruled on. My point was that if marriage is a malleable institution, there is nothing(in law) to stop us from further reshaping its definition.

Mark

Right now there is.

The law.

Polygamy is illegal in America.

Bringing it up in a discussion about homosexual marriage is ridiculous.

Being homosexual isn't illegal and no homosexual went to court to be able to marry more than one person.

So there really is no reason to bring it up.

It's just another attempt to excuse violating the constitution and violating millions of American's equal rights.

Stick to the subject. Stop trying to change it.

What makes you think I'm not sticking to the subject? If the definition of marriage can be changed to include gays(which is gender) then marriage can also be changed to include polygamy(which is numerical).

It is really quite simple. Oh, as for homosexuality being legal, yes it is...NOW. So you are saying that since polygamy is illegal, it shouldn't be in the discussion? Did that stop the gays when they pushed for the right to marry?

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has ever produced any evidence that LGBT marriages threaten straight marriage.

The introduction of polygamy is a fallacy of false equivalency.

 

[80zephyr]

When people can choose the color of their skin, you might have a point. Oh wait, in the age of liberalism, they probably can.

Mark

Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.

Whites were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.


The behavior of choosing someone with a different skin color was considered a sexual deviancy though.


>>>>

No, it wasn't. People were afraid the races would mix, and that is why it was illegal.

Mark

Actually, it was both.

Other psychologists turned to Fruedian explanations for interracial marriage, accepting , as many post war analysts did, a modern view that sex "expressed one's deepest sense of self". An interest in interracial sex was read as evidence of sexual deviancy or dysfunction. The psychiatrist George Little, writing in the 1942 issue of Psychoanalytic Review theorized that since blacks served as a "sexual symbol in the white man's life," whites who had difficulty functioning sexually might seek a black mate. An '"impotent man seeking a super-heated embrace in the hope of being able to accomplish the sexual act" might well marry a Negro, Little argued, as might a white woman of the "Messalina type" (Messalina was a Roman empress notorious for her sexual profligacy who was executed by her husband, the emperor Claudius). The psychiatrist Robert Seidenberg, meanwhile, believed that interracial sex provided a unique opportunity for whites to satisfy their incestuous urges through sex with someone unrecognizable as a father or mother figure.

Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America

Race Mixing

From your link:

The psychiatrist George Little, writing in the 1942 issue of Psychoanalytic Review theorized that since blacks served as a "sexual symbol in the white man's life," whites who had difficulty functioning sexually might seek a black mate

In a case like this, it would be a deviancy. However, sex between to well adjusted adults would not be considered a deviancy. Anything can be a deviancy, depending on the circumstance.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Okay, so I'm missing something.

Has someone convinced him this is going to work?
.

I bet when it comes to the 2A, he's very "pro-Constitution".

Yep. But, if "rights" are your litmus test, then you SHOULD NOT DENY any form of marriage you can think of.

So, are you for "anything goes"?

If not, you are EXACTLY the same as I am, only with a slightly different moral code.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

There will be no proof. They say that 3000 people a year die from second hand smoke, and yet it cannot be proven. You won't find "second hand smoke" on any death certificate.

However, when someone says that "it will not affect my marriage", well, thats a fallacy. As a society, any change in norms affects the body. When society made divorce "mainstream", every couple in America could have stated that it "doesn't affect their marriage".

However, we did discover(thru a skyrocketing divorce rate) that it did indeed affect SOMEONE'S marriage.

So, your claim is wrong.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

No one has ever produced any evidence that LGBT marriages threaten straight marriage.

The introduction of polygamy is a fallacy of false equivalency.

You are mixing two conversations. One has nothing to do with the other.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

There will be no proof. They say that 3000 people a year die from second hand smoke, and yet it cannot be proven. You won't find "second hand smoke" on any death certificate.

However, when someone says that "it will not affect my marriage", well, thats a fallacy. As a society, any change in norms affects the body. When society made divorce "mainstream", every couple in America could have stated that it "doesn't affect their marriage".

However, we did discover(thru a skyrocketing divorce rate) that it did indeed affect SOMEONE'S marriage.

So, your claim is wrong.

Mark

Nice, Mark; affect, yes, harm, no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has ever produced any evidence that LGBT marriages threaten straight marriage.

The introduction of polygamy is a fallacy of false equivalency.

You are mixing two conversations. One has nothing to do with the other.

Mark

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

 

[80zephyr]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

There will be no proof. They say that 3000 people a year die from second hand smoke, and yet it cannot be proven. You won't find "second hand smoke" on any death certificate.

However, when someone says that "it will not affect my marriage", well, thats a fallacy. As a society, any change in norms affects the body. When society made divorce "mainstream", every couple in America could have stated that it "doesn't affect their marriage".

However, we did discover(thru a skyrocketing divorce rate) that it did indeed affect SOMEONE'S marriage.

So, your claim is wrong.

Mark

Nice, Mark; affect, yes, harm, no.

Like I said earlier, his claim is wrong. My proof is what I posted about the divorce rates.

So the question than becomes, "how would gay marriage negatively impact marriage as a whole"?

For starters, many gays reject the common definitions of marriage. Studies show that most gay marriage(especially among gay men) are not monogamous. Will the advent of overtly open marriage cause a rift in traditional marriage? I guess we'll see.

Another point is that if marriage is "watered" down, by letting anyone marry, then why marry at all, I mean, what's the point?

Simply put, we have no idea what might happen. If people would have realized that welfare would kill the family unit, would they have done things differently?

We now have our lab test set up. We'll find out.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

 

[80zephyr]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

 

[mdk]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

 

[80zephyr]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

We don't? Then marriage is just a word. If marriage can mean anything, it can mean nothing. And THAT my friends is how gay marriage can destroy your marriage, or someone like you.

BTW, quite a few gays describe monogamy as coming home to the same partner every night, while sleeping around when they want to. Is this your definition as well?

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, your opinion is not self-evident truth.

 

[80zephyr]

Mark, your opinion is not self-evident truth.

When an opinion is backed by facts, the truth tends to come out. Now, if I wouldn't have backed up my opinions with facts, then you would be correct.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, your opinion is not self-evident truth.

When an opinion is backed by facts, the truth tends to come out. Now, if I wouldn't have backed up my opinions with facts, then you would be correct.

Mark

Your opinion backed by your opinion of the facts is not likely to produce that for which you hope. I am correct, yes.

 

[mdk]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

We don't? Then marriage is just a word. If marriage can mean anything, it can mean nothing. And THAT my friends is how gay marriage can destroy your marriage, or someone like you.

BTW, quite a few gays describe monogamy as coming home to the same partner every night, while sleeping around when they want to. Is this your definition as well?

Mark

If your marriage can be destroyed by the actions of the others than perhaps you spend more time your worrying about your marriage instead of mine.

No, that isn't my opinion in the least. I am wonderfully happy with my husband.