F’ing hypocrites!
3 Likes
They are Mormons, they can’t quit bullshitting themselves. They have been taught all sorts of bullshit since a very young age, and they have come to believe that white religious male privilege bullshit to do whatever they want is better than equality. It’s the Mormon way.
9 Likes
How ironic…and confusing! Gay men only want one husband and a lot of Mormon men want a lot of wives…probably binders full! rotfl
Mittens made me laugh out loud when, during his campaign, he said, “Marriage has been between one man and one woman for more than 3,000 years.” Laughable, flip-flopping dumbazz’ that he was and continues to be, he seemed to forget that his own great grandfather had 6 wives!
12 Likes
Arguments like theirs infuriate me.
While many white marriages, as they are called, can be happy, the majority of them are not. In fact, the self-loathing and self-hatred can be horribly destructive and even deadly. Even in marriages where there isn’t abuse or substance issues, marriages between two opposite-sex gay people or a gay person and a straight person can be frustrating and difficult. I’ve known a few who were involved in these kinds of marriages and none of them were really happy.
5 Likes
I thought the traditional definition of marriage was a business relationship? Typically one negotiated between the women’s father and the husband, or occasionally the husband’s father, as a way of sealing some sort of political and/or economic agreement. Or is that going too traditional? 
5 Likes
That guy is flat out lying about being gay. There isn’t a gay man on the planet that is cursed with the interior decorating taste displayed here.
12 Likes
Well, Marriage was between a man and a woman for 3000 years- in Greece. Among the early Israelites, it was between a man and many women for longer than that. Among the Celts, it was between one person and possibly several other people of whatever sex configuration people wanted because, according to the Greeks, there were households among the Celts made up of more than one man, and the Celtic marriage laws actually don’t make any restrictions on one gender marrying another.
3 Likes
Until the rise of the Middle Class, marriage was a business arrangement intended to keep land within the holding of certain people and families. It wasn’t until the Middle Class started demanding contractual marriages that things like this changed.
5 Likes
Are you so blinkered that you think this is an endorsement of these couples’ position on marriage equality?
16 Likes
I caught that, “Rather that expand liberty…” line and my jaw dripped; 'cuz who wants more liberty?
And he’s a therapist?
11 Likes
And Leviticus forbids sex with someone else’s slaves, but not your own slaves.
1 Like
Yep, that was what I was poking fun at, that the “traditional” definition these people are trying to defend isn’t all that traditional.
6 Likes
Sounds like a scaliaism.
I support these two being able to be married. They are two consenting adults, just like Michele and Marcus.
5 Likes
Oh, I totally agree on that. Up until the second part of the 20thC, it was business between a man and the woman’s family.
What I was trying to get at is that conservatives always say that marriage equality is trying to create a “different” kind of marriage. That’s completely wrong; gays just want to get married in the same way and enjoy the same protections that marriage confers on straight people.
It seems to me that what these Mormons are doing is creating a different kind of relationship that they’re calling “marriage” which acknowledges up front that the man has no attraction whatsoever to any woman but creates children (who, incidentally, must grow up with some of the most warped sense of relationships imaginable). This seems to me to be similar to the way Mormons see polygamy which really is a different form of marriage. True, what these gay Mormons are doing is mostly a change in the emotional aspect.
6 Likes
The utter lack of logic in this guy’s argument is mind-numbing.
I cannot recall reading anything so unconnected to reality as a “defense” of marriage.
4 Likes
The Learning Channel is slobbering-- for a new reality show to come from this.
jw1
1 Like
Personally, I think he sort of defeats his own argument by saying that same sex marriage would somehow threaten his supposedly “traditional” marriage in any way. Because, really, if he had the freedom to marry a man who he loved, wanted to share his life with and create a family with (which is what modern day marriage is about), and if were honest with himself, he’d be able to achieve a more honest and authentic version of that.
4 Likes
And even before the “business” side of things marriage for royalty was about insuring lines of succession, creating alliances (or hostages), and confirm the relationship of royalty to the god(s) whose representatives on earth they were. Then those damned dirty money grubbers decided THEY wanted to get in on the act and ruined royalties lock on the relationship to the divine. Now THAT was the REAL destruction of traditional marriage!
2 Likes
Yep…in fact the traditional form of marriage that they’re busy defending is only 33 years old.
It was not until 1982 that the US Supreme Court created marriage as it is today- one man and one woman with no one being considered anyone else’s property. Before that, in 1968, they defined marriage as being between one man and one woman regardless of race. Marriage has been evolving for centuries, but they ignored it.
Heck, until 1787, Catholics could not marry in the United States…or anyone who wasn’t Anglican, at least in some parts. Prior to the end of the Revolution, Catholics and all non-Anglicans either had to either join the Anglican Church to get married or live without a registered marriage.
12 Likes