Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/definition-of-monogamy-very-loose-in.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/definition-of-monogamy-very-loose-in.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\s59c.9k5x]IOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip (BJ}/yFri, 02 Jan 2009 08:31:05 GMT"a5083d20-e8a9-49f8-b5f1-f029e5fff544"&Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *]I Dakota Voice: Definition of Monogamy Very Loose in Homosexual Community

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, September 19, 2008

Definition of Monogamy Very Loose in Homosexual Community

An article in Psychology Today by Joe Kort illustrates not only the chaos and instability common to most homosexual relationships, but also the fact that every assertion of normality by homosexual activists must be parsed very closely to determine the exact nature of the claims being made.

Kort tells of his learning experience about so-called monogamy in homosexual culture:

I've wanted to write an article on this topic ever since I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, "No."

I was confused. Maybe I hadn't gotten the correct information in our initial consultation? I told them, "I thought you told me you were monogamous," and they said, "We are." Now I was REALLY confused! So I said, "But you just told me you were monogamous."

Their reply was, "We are monogamous. We only have three-ways together, and are never sexual with others apart from each other." Okay, now I was slowly getting it.

I quickly learned to ask what a couple means when they say they're monogamous.

I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that some people would call a situation that is definitely non-monogamous "monogamy" when many of these same people insist a practice is normal, natural and healthy even though it violates the obvious function and use of body parts, takes place in only 2.9% of the population, and involves higher risks of health threats like AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.

It also shouldn't be a surprise that people who would redefine marriage--something obviously between a man and a woman--to encompass two men or two women, would also define monogamy as including relationships with third, fourth, fifth or whatever parties.

This article is obviously not a good standard for reinforcing the obvious immorality and unhealthiness of homosexual relationships, since it takes a decidedly nonjudgmental tone throughout, but the momentary glimpses of the reality of homosexual relationships is enlightening.

Mention is made also of another source pointing to the low rate of monogamy in homosexual relationships:
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.

This coincides with other studies such as a Canadian one that found only 25% of homosexual relationships more than one year old were monogamous. Other studies have found the monogamy rate drops below 5% by the time the relationship is 10-15 years old. The Handbook of Family Diversity also found that many self-described monogamous homosexual relationships reported an average of 3-5 outside partners in the previous year.

These figures also beg the question of whether even the figures cited in the Canadian study and in Nimmons book may be overstated, given the "loose" definition of monogamy in the homosexual community.

Monogamy is essentially like pregnancy: you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you are monogamous, or you aren't.

And if you aren't, then you run the risk of bringing disease into the relationship with your regular sex partner.

This issue also touches on the issue of allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" and on adoptions by homosexuals.

Do we want children not only intentionally deprived of a mother or father, but also exposed to the sexual and relational chaos of the typical homosexual relationship? Do we want to place children in homes where the adults take such irresponsible risks with their own health--further threatening the short-term and long-term stability of the children?

I think any sane person would have to answer: no way.


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about straight couples and monogamy for a second...

Anonymous said...

Who are the ones responsible for the 50% divorce rate? Aborting unwanted babies? Creating more people than we can afford to feed?

Homosexuals? Guess again.

Bob Ellis said...

Which group has a pathetically lower rate of monogamy, and a staggeringly higher rate of promiscuity and disease? Heterosexuals? Guess again.

Barry G. Wick said...

Monogamy in the heterosexual community is more than loose. And there is certainly more swapping and
running around. Legislating morality...which is what you advocate when you support denying gay and lesbian couples marriage...is something that legislatures refuse to do for heterosexuals...in fact, the law is getting loose there. Let's legislate "stoning" for men and women. Put that on the ballot and see what happens. Lets confiscate cars from any couples found having sex in them. Let's take away children from heterosexual fornicators. Let's start following people to be certain they're good. I can think of other punishments of which I'm sure you'll approve, Mr. Ellis.

Bob Ellis said...

You really should check and compare those monogamy figures for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Even the stated monogamy figures in the homosexual community is low...and as this piece illustrates, actual monogamy is even lower.

It's just a simple fact. One can either rail about it...or do something about it.

Anonymous said...

What, pray, is it YOUR responsibility to do about it. Probably you should take care of your own marriage and let others take care of theirs. As for gay people, whether they marry or not has NOTHING to do with me or my marriage. If they want to marry, let 'em.

Bob Ellis said...

Just as someone counterfeiting $20 bills does nothing to your money, right?

alexh2007 said...

How does allowing a gay couple to marry in Boston or Los Angeles prevent your daughter from getting married or decrease her chances of doing so?

Bob Ellis said...

How does someone counterfeiting $20 bills in Boston or Los Angeles affect the value of currency in Dallas or Chicago?

alexh2007 said...

That wasn't rhetorical, so maybe you could respond to my question with an answer and not another question.

Bob Ellis said...

My question wasn't rhetorical either, and I'll answer your question when you answer mine. In fact, I'll give you a hint: when you answer mine truthfully, you will have an answer to yours.

alexh2007 said...

Seeing as how I wasn't referring to your "$20 bill" question at all when I asked mine, and considering that you cannot know whether I am being truthful, I hardly see how that's fair. But I know how stubborn you are, so I'll just wait to be the first poster on a new article and ask my question again.

Joe Kort said...

This article is so ridiculous to me. Each time something is written about gay and lesbian lives someone who is anti-gay has to argue that these things "only occur in gay culture"

Today on the Morning Show with Mike and Juliet they are talking with HETEROSEXUAL author of the book, "Open" about HETEROSEXUAL open relationships.

Do we say that ALL HETEROSEXUALS are on a slippery slope and that this author and book illustrate why HETEROSEXUAL marriages don't work because their "open" marriages are chaotic?

Give me a break

Bob Ellis said...

Joe, I don't recall a single thing being said to indicate that failures of monogamy "only occur in gay culture," only that the instance of promiscuity is much higher in homosexual culture and the rate of monogamy--low as it already is--is even lower when you consider the non-standard standard of monogamy held by many in homosexual culture.

To lie about something that was said is considered by some to be a good way to avoid the impact of an indicting truth, though, isn't it?

Joe Kort said...

Bob, If you don't mean to focus only on the gay community than don't focus on non-monogamy only among gay couples. Focus on *all* couples who choose that. And don't generalize "homosexuals" as lesbians do not have high rates of open relationships.

And how did you decide that marriage is "something obviously between a man and a woman". Very judgmental.

And FYI AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence is also high among African Americans so what is your point?

Your arguments are old and from the 1970's. Nobody talks like this anymore.

Bob Ellis said...

Joe, homosexual couples have fantastically higher rates of promiscuity and phenomenally lower rates of monogamy than heterosexual couples, so I believe it is therefore completely noteworthy to take a closer look at it--especially since the "mainstream" media avoids looking at anything negative about the homosexual community at all. It is true that female homosexuals have a better rate of monogamy than male homosexuals, but it is still higher than the heterosexual community.

And yes, the fact that marriage is obviously something between a man and a woman is indeed very judgmental, just as stating that children are the offspring of their parents is very judgmental. Reality is like that: pretty plain and unequivocal.

The point about high rates of disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide and domestic violence in the homosexual community is that there is a problem in that community, and as you indicated by your last sentence, nobody wants to talk about it anymore.

Everyone has been cowed by homosexual activists and is afraid of being perceived as the "bad guy" by talking about the elephant in the room.

But we're not cowards at Dakota Voice. We're dedicated to speak the truth whether it's popular or not.

The welfare of our nation's families and children depend on it. And it is in the best interest of homosexuals who might be thinking of leaving this sin behind to know about the reality of the dangers of this behavior.

We tell people about the dangers of drinking and driving, using drugs and other things...but we're afraid to tell people about the dangers of homosexual behavior because...oh, somebody might call us politically incorrect names.

Sorry; that doesn't fly here.

I know most homosexuals will turn a blind eye to this truth, just as most drug addicts turn a blind eye to the truth about their sin. But maybe a few will be helped.

God loves homosexuals too much to leave them in this condition without a call to help.

 
Clicky Web Analytics