Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Is gay marriage destroying normal marriage?

I wonder if many of the people who supported same sex marriage just think that marriage for them is going to be like opposite sex marriage, they just expand the class of persons you can marry. They still think it has to be one person and you have to be faithful, it is just that you can now marry someone of the same sex. Some might think a broader re-evaluation of marriage is not warranted. 

Greta Christina, however, thinks that same-sex marriage is part of wider re-evaluation of marriage. 

18 comments:

Edgestow said...

Your link appears to be broken.

Victor Reppert said...

Now it's fixed.

John Moore said...

How will same-sex marriage affect heterosexual people? To sum up Greta Christina's post: "They'll be forced to think about it." Oh, shudder!

Hugo Pelland said...

Who said you have to be faithful?

planks length said...

Although same sex "marriage" is clearly an abomination (as well as being a contradiction in terms), we Christians have only ourselves to blame for the mess we're in today. I do believe in slippery slopes, and this one began with the acceptance of no-fault divorce, the widespread use of contraceptives, and the legalization of abortion. It's been downhill ever since.

I hope this latest outrage (Obergefell) will finally wake up people of good conscience to realize that there can be no compromise with evil. Allow the camel's nose in the tent, and before you know it, he's sleeping inside and you're out in the cold.

planks length said...

Add to what I listed above the spread of pornography, an acceptance of "casual sex" and the "hook up" culture, the coarsening of public discourse and entertainment (nearly every movie is R-rated nowadays), obscene song lyrics, the objectivization of women in advertisement, and the epidemic of fatherless "families". It's all tied together.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, planks lenght, you guys are to blame for liberties, freedom, unforced choices, diverse options, etc... such horrible things. Let's bring back more censorship, more rules, more authorities. People shouldn't be allowed to live the way they want and love who and what they want. Christians, you have failed us all by letting go of your control over submissive masses.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo, do you believe the things PL listed are good things? You seem to.

Hugo Pelland said...

Some. But the point is that it's 100% examples of personal choices that yes, we should tolerate in others. Nothing forces us to embrace any of that ourselves. i.e
Live and let live.

Crude said...

Who said you have to be faithful?

Nothing forces us to embrace any of that ourselves.

You heard it, folks. If you can seduce Hugo's wife into sex, go for it. It's her choice and hers alone. If she decides not to be faithful, that's a decision she came to of her own free will. You do nothing wrong by trying to persuade her to go down this path.

With or without Hugo's knowledge, by the by. Because, really - what business is it of his what her sex life consists of? Consent in the past does not imply consent in the future.

Culture and other people's choices don't affect you, and they don't affect Hugo. It's all a personal choice. Live and let live.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, Crude, you are right. My wife is an independent person who can make her own choices. We have our own mutual personal agreements that have little to do with our legal marriage, and that doesn't concern you, thr government nor anybody else. I trust her and she trusts me; we have no intention of hurting each other.

But, I don't mind sharing on that particular topic, and it so happens that we are "conservative". We don't have an open relationship.

Also, my wife happens to be sitting next to me, so I showed her your comment Crude. She burst laughing, and then said: 'you know, that kind of nonsense explains how you can be so tolerant of some of the shit I tell you'

Thanks for the laugh Crude, and now, please go make sure your women are in good hands (daughters/wife/sister...?). You wouldn't want them to do something stupid without your supervision.

Crude said...

Yes, Crude, you are right. My wife is an independent person who can make her own choices.

As I said, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. It's open season on Hugo's wife. If you want her, make a play - you've done nothing wrong. If she goes for it, she's done nothing wrong. And these attitudes don't impact you in any way.

Also, my wife happens to be sitting next to me,

Gosh, what a coincidence!

so I showed her your comment Crude. She burst laughing

Why, it's almost as if you asked if she wanted to have your child!

You wouldn't want them to do something stupid without your supervision.

The point, Hugo, is that culture and "other people's choices" do affect you. I've easily illustrated how. You have no response to that other than 'My wife thinks this is silly!'

As I said: anyone who wants to make a play for your wife, is welcome to. They commit no wrong. If her friends encourage her to ditch you for some other guy, well, they've done nothing wrong either. And if she makes that choice, it's of her own free will, and she's done nothing wrong either.

And yet, at the same time, none of this actually affects you or your relationship. Indeed, even if the above all came to pass, nothing would have had any effect on your relationship. 'Culture' has no influence, and doesn't really exist, in the world of Hugo Pelland.

Sucker. ;)

Hugo Pelland said...

AGAIN, Thanks for the laugh Crude, and now, please go make sure your women are in good hands (daughters/wife/sister...?). You wouldn't want them to do something stupid without your supervision.

Crude said...

AGAIN, Thanks for the laugh Crude,

Laugh, Hugo, but my points remain - and you have no answer to them.

Acquaintances of Pelland, remember to quote this thread if ever he should get upset about the eventual course of his relationship. You owe him nothing.

Hugo Pelland said...

So you won't comment on your implied view that you, as a man, should control what women around you do?

Plus, what you say is complete BS; don't you realize that? My wife and I have made the decision to not be in an open relationship, as I stated above, but you still write silly things as if we were in a 'free for all, anything goes' relationship.

You completely missed the point, and apparently have no clue what 'live and let live' means. So again, if you disagree with this principle, please explain how you wish to control peoplr around you... oh wait, you can't, because you DON'T understand it.

Crude said...

So you won't comment on your implied view that you, as a man, should control what women around you do?

It's not even implied. It's an irrelevant distraction, so I treat it as such.

Plus, what you say is complete BS; don't you realize that? My wife and I have made the decision to not be in an open relationship, as I stated above, but you still write silly things as if we were in a 'free for all, anything goes' relationship.

Are you saying that consent in the past implies consent in the future, Hugo?

You're the one asserting that culture has no influence on personal decision, Hugo, not me. I'm pointing out - if the more handsome, wealthier, more intelligent guy at work (or frankly, just the more attractive) decides he'd really like to nail your wife, he does nothing wrong by making that play. And if her friends collude and encourage her to ditch you for him, likewise, they're doing nothing wrong. And, to top it off, if in fact she does do that - she's done nothing wrong either.

It's all personal choices. Culture - do you know that those things I describe above are part of culture - means nothing, and if she changes her mind about the relationship due to those influences, nothing's gone awry.

Which you keep nodding your head about, then trying to change the topic, because really - you have no reply other than 'My wife giggled'.

What'd I say before? Oh, that's right.

Sucker. ;)

Hugo Pelland said...

Crude, this is getting more and more fascinating... you said:
" It's not even implied. It's an irrelevant distraction, so I treat it as such."
Ok but I was talking about that, directly, when I mentioned that my wife is independent... but let's ignore it anyway and see what's next...

" Are you saying that consent in the past implies consent in the future, Hugo?"
I am tempted to say, 'No, it never does.' but in practice it's a bit more subtle than that since there could be past arrangement that are sustained without any explicit consent in the present. I don't know what you are saying about that though?

" You're the one asserting that culture has no influence on personal decision, Hugo, not me."
I never said that; we all live within a culture at so many levels... work, family, city, state, country, world... and it is also varying over time. It's complete non-sense to say that culture has no influence. Perhaps that relates to 'live and let live', which you don't understand?

The point is that there are lots of private things that are none of my business and I wish others think the same about my own private affairs. But if I am walking down the street, I expect certain things to happen, or not happen, and others do/think the same, more or less, as if we truly were all the same there would never be any shouting match between strangers...

Ok, but now, here's where it gets really fun:
" I'm pointing out - if the more handsome, wealthier, more intelligent guy at work (or frankly, just the more attractive) decides he'd really like to nail your wife, he does nothing wrong by making that play. And if her friends collude and encourage her to ditch you for him, likewise, they're doing nothing wrong. And, to top it off, if in fact she does do that - she's done nothing wrong either."

Hypothetically, here's how it would go for the 'hot intelligent handsome other' man, let's call him the HIHO man for short:

- HIHO: "Hello Hugo's wife, would you like to go out for drinks?"

Did he do something wrong so far? Not necessarily; he can talk to her, he can also try to ask her out if he wants to, we don't know why yet... so what's next? She hypothetically replies...

- Hugo's wife: "Sure! Who else will be there?"

Now, did she do something wrong yet? No, because she thinks he is inviting her to a social event...

-HIHO: "Just you and me baby!" [wink, wink]

Is there a problem now? Well, it depends on his intentions and knowledge; if he honestly thought that she was single, it's just a mistake. She would then reply:

- Hugo's wife: "Oh, no thank you then. I guess you didn't know; I am married..."

Still no problem of course; and that's where you should be bitching about her saying she is married right? Because it's not 'your' definition of marriage apparently, as we have previously established. So, tell me, in your culture, what is the socially acceptable response for someone who is not interested yet not 'properly' married? I guess she could just say "I am not single", which is also accurate... no big deal.

Hugo Pelland said...

But what if her response was different? Say...

- Hugo's wife: "Sure, I would love to go out on a date with you HIHO!"

Now, you say that this is not a problem because of what I said; but why!? Let me repeat for the 3rd time: we are not in an open relationship. It is thus not acceptable for her to say that to him, because of our personal agreement. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the legal marriage we contracted. How can it be clearer; which part do you not understand in this?

" It's all personal choices. Culture - do you know that those things I describe above are part of culture - means nothing, and if she changes her mind about the relationship due to those influences, nothing's gone awry."

Yes, it absolutely is a personal choice!
But, again, what you don't understand is that we decided to not be in an open relationship, so what you described with this HIHO trying to hit on my wife is completely irrelevant. Culturally, I agree, it's strange to have someone hit on my wife, but what matters to me is only what she does, not him.

That's why the fact that you only describe it from the point of view of the HIHO relates to you and the control over "your" women. Because... who gives a dam whether someone is randomly trying to hit on my wife!? I would get annoy at them if I get to know that they are pushy after she said 'no', but initially it might be out of pure ignorance...

At a bar in Vegas once, this guy asked her to go dance and she politely declined, "sorry, not interested", so he went away. A few minutes later, he came by again, and asked again, but this time I was standing right next to her so she said 'already told you no; by the way, meet my husband...' He apologized like 5 times and gave me a fist bump... what could we do but just laugh at his clumsiness for not remembering he had asked her just a few minutes ago. And the embarrassment on his face was priceless! So... what's the problem? I should have punched him in the face and ruin our nice evening??

But finally, since you seem fascinated by the few details of my personal life I have offered... let me reply to that once more, because that's where it gets even funnier:
"- if the more handsome, wealthier, more intelligent guy at work (or frankly, just the more attractive) decides he'd really like to nail your wife"
Ok, so what would really happen?
- HIHO: Hey, I would like to take you out on a date; are you in?
- Hugo's wife: Dude, my husband sits right there, just 5 rows away; go away before you embarrass yourself even more!