Great Commercial on Same-Sex Marriage
December 6th, 2006 by Brian
This commercial speaks for itself. Hats off to our friends at the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin for passing the state marriage amendment and helping produce this! We want to get something like this on the air in Connecticut.
This video is disgusting and exemplifies bigotry in the greatest way possible. Let’s hope Connecticut can stand up for diversity and progressive values by being the first state to vote yes for gay marriage. That is something that can make people proud.
Most opposite-sex couples are sexually faithful to one another. By contrast, David P. McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., PhD, found that the notion of sexual fidelity is anathema to long-term male homosexual relationships. McWhirter and Mattison are themselves homosexual and a male couple. In their book The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall) they report the results of their study of 157 male couples. They concluded that “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships,” that “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” and that “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.”
Of particular interest are the following parts of their analysis. From pages 253 and 254:
“When we ask the men in this study why they want sex outside the relationship, their answers include the following responses:
“1. ‘All my sexual needs are not met by my partner. Sex together gets boring at times, and I need new material for my fantasies.’
“2. ‘My partner is not really my sexual type. I still like to have sex with a certain type of man.’
“3. ‘It’s fun and adventure. The more variety and number of partners, the more adventure and fun.’
“4. ‘I have some kinky sexual interests that my partner doesn’t share.’
“5. ‘We have found that having sex with others often enhances our sex together afterwards.’
“6. ‘Sometimes I do it with another guy because I’m so angry at my lover.’
“7. ‘At times I get scared with how emotionally tied to each other we are. Having outside sex at times gives me a temporary distance I feel I need to have from my lover.’ . . .
” ‘We’ve never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying the probability?’ ”
Page 255:
“Many couples in the earliest years together linked faithfulness with sexual exclusivity, while couples with a longer history think faithfulness has little or nothing to do with sex.”
Page 256:
“As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel . . . by the end of the fifth year or relationship more than 95 percent are in this group [of ‘sexual nonexclusivity’]. Bell and Weinberg warn: ‘Moreover, it should be recognized that what has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa . . . .’ ”
McWhirter and Mattison conclude their discussion on page 259 by stating, “We do not trust it [the ‘sexual monster’] in our partners, and least of all in ourselves.”
Intellectual honesty requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affects the institution of marriage; whether that which “has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa.” For just one example, should adultery be excluded from the reasons for divorces of male couples? The answer appears to be, yes. If the marriage laws apply equally to everyone, then adultery also must be excluded as a reason for divorce among heterosexuals. This also raises the very real question of why male couples should be excluded from marrying as many men as they would like.
Intellectual honesty also requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the children raised in that environment. Accounts from those raised in environments of sexual licentiousness indicate that such an environment is very harmful to development.
NaCN (or Brian, Peter),
This is interesting. We’ve all witnessed the destructiveness of the social experimentation on the family since the 60’s or so. It seems evident that homosexual “marriage” is yet another perilous trial, but I’ve yet to see much objective scientific evidence one way or the other. Thanks for posting this. I’d like to see more.
Are there any other studies that shed light on the state of the homosexual family, especially with respect to the children that are raised in such an environment?
Thanks.