Thursday, February 04, 2010

Evolution of Marriage? The Open Secret

While Representative Jamie Pederson, Senator Ed Murray and their pro-homosexual colleagues in the Washington State Legislature are busily passing bills that make all parental law in Washington State gender neutral in compliance with the "everything but marriage" SB 5688 bill passed last session, those homosexuals in the five states that already allow homosexual "marriage" are sharing an open secret.

The New York Times published a surprising article the other day---surprising that the gay writer would write it, not surprising how gays are re-defining "marriage" and the culture.

The Times story titled, "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share An Open Secret," says that many homosexuals are omitting two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

I strongly recommend you read this article.

One couple told the Times, they take this arrangement as a "gift" in that they trust each other to have other relationships in their "open" marriage.

The Times article references a study that will be released next month that gives a rare glimpse inside homosexual relationships. The open secret is that monogamy is not a central feature in their so-called "marriages".

The study, according to The New York Times article, will show that fidelity and monogamy are not featured in these relationships. My take on what I read is that the emphasis is on openness. As long as your partner knows what you are doing, it's okay.

Washington State was sold a story of loving homosexual families, just like yours, who simply want to live and let live and want the security of family and long term normal committed relationships. I heard that in every hearing and every ad that led to the passage SB 5688 and the defeat of R-71, elevating homosexual relationships to the legal status of natural marriage.

Equality was the goal. And a majority bought it. Including some legislators who should have known better.

The Times says gays don't like to talk about this open aspect of their "marriages" because they are afraid it will undermine their agenda for national homosexual marriage. I certainly hope it will.

Perhaps the most stunning and revealing aspect of this is the fact that the upcoming study will suggest that this boundary challenging approach to marriage may be the evolution, "that might point the way to the survival of the institution."

With five states under their belt, so to speak, the homosexual community is now suggesting what marriage must do to survive.

When we wrote about the aspects of the "beyond gay marriage" document and their agenda that includes group and multiple marriages---and more, some people laughed and mocked us.

Look me in the eye and tell me homosexual marriage and natural marriage is the same.

Certainly there are failures in natural marriages. We see them played out in the news nearly every day and I can assure you they will be highlighted even more going forward. That isn't a reason to trash a model that has served the human race for more than 5,000 years and for Christians and people of other faiths as a spiritual model. Every major religion in history has condemned homosexual relationships. Now, as we continue to advance "equality" in marriage, they are stepping up to lead in the "evolution of marriage" that will allow it to survive.

We need to get real and ask God to forgive us for affirming this kind of twisted thinking in regard to the institution of marriage.

A quick look at history will show anyone that this is the cultural path to the historical dust bin of failed cultures.

God help us.

_____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

13 comments:

  1. This is a study of couples, not married couples, not even necessarily domestic partnered couples. So there in the bay area, a place that gay men move to from all over the country for the purpose of having more sex, only 50% of this non-random study of not necessarily licensed couples are in non-monogamous relationships? Doesn't that mean that 50% of them are? How many straight not necessarily licensed couples are in monogamous relationships?

    ::Yawn::

    Get back to me when the study of actually licensed married and domestic partnerships in California turns up. They have the same legal magic that encourages monogamy and fidelity there as we do here: its called community property.

    More hysteria, more distortion of what the study actually is about, more of the same from the Faith & Freedom Network (sort of an ironic name considering, isn't it?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Open concept seems to break the tie between marriage and sex. "Sex within marriage" is being relegated to a religious concept only, so it seems that openness could spread (even further) into natural marriage as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reading that NY Times article made me want to vomit. They are not married, nor will they ever be married. They want to play house and still play with others. How sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth [it] with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make ONE? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore ONE? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let NONE deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he HATETH putting away (DIVORCE): for [one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then THEY ARE NO MORE twain, but ONE flesh. What therefore GOD HATH JOINED together, LET NOT MAN put asunder (DIVORCE/DISSOLUTION).

    And he saith unto them, WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife (DIVORCE), and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband (FOR HE IS STILL HER HUSBAND, see Jeremiah 3): and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband BE DEAD, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. ...And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of DIVORCE; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. ...Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, RETURN, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; [and] I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I [am] merciful, saith the LORD, [and] I will not keep [anger] for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and YE HAVE NOT OBEYED MY VOICE, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I AM (STILL) MARRIED UNTO YOU...

    ALL who are parading around in relationships as though they were married, yet the spouse (husband or wife) of their youth (i.e. the first marriage, until death separates it) is still breathing shall be called adulterers and adulteresses, for they are committing, until they forsake these adulterous lifestyles, ongoing adultery...

    DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, NOR ADULTERS, NOR HOMOSEXUALS,* NOR SODOMITES, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (* That is, catamites)

    God has spoken, it is us who take His name (in vain?) who must humble ourselves, pray, and "turn from OUR wicked ways...

    ReplyDelete
  5. And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth [it] with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make ONE? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore ONE? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let NONE deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he HATETH putting away (DIVORCE): for [one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then THEY ARE NO MORE twain, but ONE flesh. What therefore GOD HATH JOINED together, LET NOT MAN put asunder (DIVORCE/DISSOLUTION).

    And he saith unto them, WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife (DIVORCE), and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband (FOR HE IS STILL HER HUSBAND, see Jeremiah 3): and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband BE DEAD, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. ...And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of DIVORCE; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. ...Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, RETURN, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; [and] I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I [am] merciful, saith the LORD, [and] I will not keep [anger] for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and YE HAVE NOT OBEYED MY VOICE, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I AM (STILL) MARRIED UNTO YOU...

    ALL who are parading around in relationships as though they were married, yet the spouse (husband or wife) of their youth (i.e. the first marriage, until death separates it) is still breathing shall be called adulterers and adulteresses, for they are committing, until they forsake these adulterous lifestyles, ongoing adultery...

    DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, NOR ADULTERS, NOR HOMOSEXUALS,* NOR SODOMITES, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (* That is, catamites)

    God has spoken, it is us who take His name (in vain?) who must humble ourselves, pray, and "turn from OUR wicked ways...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Oshtur, where've you been??? Kinda quiet without you. Hope you're having a good new year so far. Best regards to you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary,

    Just because some same-sex couples get married and have "open relationships" does not mean that all same-sex couples engage in "open relationships." And just because opposite-sex couples are married does not mean that all of them have monogamous relationships. I have a few gay friends who are in completely monogamous relationships even though they cannot be married. I also have several married opposite sex couples who have "open marriages." The whole concept of an open relationship when a couple is married is beyond me....and it sickens me. But this is not an exclusive concept to the homosexual community. I'm glad that you highlighted a true threat on marriage ---- open relationships ---- but it is sad to see that you link that concept only with the homosexual community when the homosexual community is not the only source of this problem.

    Attack the concept --- which requires equally attacking gay and straight couples alike that engage in this behavior. This is why some straight members of society, like myself, get frustrated with some of the arguments you present. I can see why some gay people feel you are attacking them when you don't apply your arguments equally to straight members of society who at the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. anon 7:53
    Gary isn't attacking the gays, he is making the point that they, not heterosexuals are suggesting marriage be further defined by ommitting fidelity and monogamy.
    You are missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for sending out this article! Yes it's true that some heterosexual couples also have open relationships. But it's rare. The whole point for those who can't get it is that this is much more common and condoned in homosexual culture. First they said "it's not true" - now they say "it doesn't matter". *sigh* Why do they need a peer-reviewed study to tell them what common sense should: that it is not a happy world when the one you love is having sex with somebody else. They insist on learning the hard way - and dragging as many other young, suggestible or naive people down the moron hole with them by enshrining their preposterous hypotheses in marriage law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It’s not fair!
    I live an alternative life style and it’s not fair that I am treated the way that I am. It seems that many look down on me as a second class citizen. As though my sexual preferences somehow make my life indefensible under the constitution. I am weary of the loosing battle that I seem to fight in finding acceptance from my fellow citizens. Its not just acceptance either. I have been harassed and discriminated against by the majority for my lifestyle. I have been discriminated against in employment. Whenever someone finds out about my sexual preferences I have been at least ridiculed and belittled. I have been denied employment sometimes just to avoid the controversy and other times out of outright bias. I have been denied promotion and I have definitely suffered from lack of credibility with my peers. In housing I have met the same fate. In renting I have been denied a fair opportunity. I have even been evicted when it came to light what my sexual preferences are. This just isn’t fair!

    My mate and I have enjoyed a long, committed, monogamous relationship. This is more than I can say for many of the heterosexual relationships I have witnessed. Also, what goes on in my bedroom is no one else’s business and especially my governments. I am tired of the invasion of my privacy by the government in advocating discrimination against me solely because of my sexual preferences. Diversity is our strength here in America I thought, and it is pure hypocrisy to alienate me. I feel that I am just as entitled to the protections of the constitution as any other citizen. Furthermore, I feel that I am entitled to the benefits that this country bestows on its heterosexual citizens such as the right to marry, for my partner to access health care benefits and to be protected by the pension plan that I have worked so hard to build.

    What I feel and experience sexually is just as innate a part of me as anyone else. I know I was born this way and it is good and normal. The only abnormality is in others perceptions. Throughout history, people have held the same convictions as I, but there is a lot of example when better judgment prevailed and my lifestyle was accepted and embraced. It is really a beautiful and loving thing. I love my partner deeply. How can this be the evil thing that so many make it out to be? Some may feel that it is wrong, and for them, perhaps it is. Who decides what is right and wrong though? Why do others seem to feel it is their responsibility to place their convictions on me? I am not hurting them. My lifestyle does not affect them in any way.

    It is time that we stand up and be counted. To demand that we be treated as equal citizens under the law. No longer should we accept being discriminated against. The struggle for equal protection under the law has seen great gains in the past in areas such as race, color, religion, sex, marital status and age. It is time that sexual preference be granted the same protections.

    I hope that those of you reading this will give my opinion a fair and unbiased assessment. I am no different than you and only want to be treated that way. (see next post)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have made what I feel is a very compelling case for equal treatment under the law based on my sexual preferences. As I have stated, my sheep and I have enjoyed a long and monogamous relationship and I feel that bestiality is totally normal and deserving of protection under the US constitution.

    Did you think I meant homosexuality? Well, I guess all the same arguments apply. Oh, by the way, I have a friend who’s relationships with young boys requires the same consideration, as well as relationships with multiple partners (the more the merrier you know) and lets not rule out cadavers, although they have to be exchanged on a regular basis.

    To those of you who have indulged me in this exercise in absurdity, let me ask that you consider the interchangeability of the points made with any preference in lifestyle whether sexual or not. There is a logical point to be made here and I hope you are listening.

    The greatest point being; who decides what is right and wrong? Do we as human beings decide for ourselves what is ultimately right and true? What is the yardstick that we would measure this against? Logically, without an external parameter, there is no yardstick. Each of us would obviously come to different opinions as to what we would accept as individuals. To one it might be perfectly acceptable and moral to engage in “survival of the fittest”. If there is no external entity to answer to other than man, if a way can be devised to achieve our personal goals, and they are good to us, then this would be OK, acceptable, moral and true. To the unfortunate recipients of our endeavors this would not be too good though. This is moral relativity.

    I would like to make the case that moral relativity is only a self serving philosophy and is the core issue here. It is destructive to us all. I would propose that there are absolutes. Moral absolutes, but who decides what is right and wrong? I would make the case that this cannot be of man. Of course this leads to the question that encompasses the basic human question; “where did I come from?” If we are a creation, then there is a creator and we should wonder what he expects of us. If we were not created, then moral relativity fits. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

    If you have not solidly answered this question in your own mind, I would think it to be an honorable cause to seek the answer before accepting moral relativity.

    To the person who is condoning homosexuality I say that I love you and care about your life. Not from a pious position looking down, but from an equal footing of a sinful man. We stand before our creator the same, but God has offered us a path of reconciliation through Jesus Christ. It is no secret. You have surely heard it before. Can you rule it out with certainty? You will be dead for a long time. Will your life here on Earth have any implications in eternity? I hope you will consider this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Because this study only covers SF couples, it's a little like going in to a bar and surveying how many alcoholics you can find, and applying it to the rest of the country.

    I know tons of Seattle couples -- gay and straight -- and I know of only one couple in an "open" relationship: a straight couple.

    And, none of the gay couples in the survey were legally married, so this is really like comparing apples to oranges. Surely, among unmarried heterosexuals, the rate of open relationships is higher, too?

    But, either way, I have to ask this: If marriage is a powerful institution that can make the monogamous out of the adulterous, then why on earth aren't we jumping at the chance to let gay couples marry? Certainly marriage would strike a blow against such relationships? And, certainly, the urge to marry among millions of gay couples has much to do with a weariness of being on the outside and wanting to participate in societal institutions we all grow up learning to value.

    Someone above admits that, yes, there are open heterosexual relationships, too. What percentage of open heterosexual relationships is OK before we start demanding that straights can't marry? My guess is that would never happen. The larger the number of open heterosexual relationships, the more the right will demand MORE marriages as a fix. Why the double standard?

    If gays bring the number of "open" relationships down to the number of heterosexual open relationships, then can we marry? The answer is still no.

    How about we add a monogamy clause to marriage applications, and only those who sign -- gay or straight -- may marry? My guess is that's not OK with the right, either.

    This "study" really doesn't matter then. It's just another opportunity for you to demonize your gay fellow Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon 9:51 ---- I think the point by Anon 7:53 is that "gays can't be trying to further redefine marriage to omit monogamy and infidelity".....because some heterosexual couples have already omitted it.

    That is the hypocrisy in attacking "the gays for doing this".

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.