I’m referring to a comment that David made earlier – he didn’t specify heterosexual couples there, he made a general statement about how broadening the definition of marriage weakens it.

This pernicious lie is used to demonize gays and claim that since we’re so wealthy we can overcome any emotional distress foisted upon us and use our vast piles of money to comfort us after being forced from the hospital room where our dying partner passed away, far away from our comforting presence. It’s also used to claim that we can control the political landscape at our whim, and since we haven’t done that yet, we must not *really* be interested in equality.

Thank you! I’m really tired of hearing this as well. I usually bring up people of Jewish descent when people try and use this idea to deny gay people equal rights.

David,

Broadening the definition of legitimate heterosexual coupling to include casual encounters and living together outside marital bounds did weaken, ultimately the definition of marriage.

Your logic states that broadening the definition of marriage to include interracial couples weakens marriage – is there some reason you are avoiding dealing with this?

And please provide some scientific evidence for your statement above.

People, mostly conservatives, idealize marriage prior to the 60s, but there is no real evidence that marriage prior to the “free love” era was actually the idealized thing people thought it was

That article I posted cannot be just retreat theories of the 60’s and 70’s because it involves rights put in place well after those decades, but nice try 😉

Just a thought: many churches – the Catholic church for example but plenty of protestant churches – do not recognize your second marriage. They consider you to be having sex outside marriage.

I think that in these matters, like all matters, throwing down black-and-white absolutes are seldom the smartest way to go.

Don’t confuse responsible sex outside marriage with “free-love”. They are not the same things.

Well, you’re going to have to do a better job explaining to us how they are different, pal. What constitutes “responsible” sex outside of marriage? Birth control? Condoms? Where’s the safety net for the broken hearts?

homosexuals (who are generally better educated and wealthier that heterosexuals)

false.

This pernicious lie is used to demonize gays and claim that since we’re so wealthy we can overcome any emotional distress foisted upon us and use our vast piles of money to comfort us after being forced from the hospital room where our dying partner passed away, far away from our comforting presence. It’s also used to claim that we can control the political landscape at our whim, and since we haven’t done that yet, we must not *really* be interested in equality.

Tell it to my food stamps card.

Many people enjoy sex and like having it in a variety of ways. They don’t attach a lot of emotional baggage to it. It is just a fun thing to do.

What about the impact on their partners? There is no sex without emotional baggage. Sex is no recreational sport. It is meant to be a sacred, intimate bonding between a husband and wife.

Callous? I don’t see it that way at all. I view sex as a very intimate act between two people that can be a wonderful way of expressing your love for another. I don’t think anyone who knows me would suggest that I view sex as a callous thing. However, sex can be, and has been for me in the past, something that is also purely enjoyable, without any romance involved. There are many different ways to view and experience sex. And for the record, sexual relationships outside marriage are hardly the only place one can experience a broken hearts. Broken hearts abound without bringing sex into the picture.