I found it ironic that The New York Times blew the lid off of homosexual “marriage” just when I was talking about it with my Christianity in Mass Media class.
You hadn’t heard that The New York Times utterly destroyed the homosexual marriage argument and left it in fragments on the ground? They did — while pretending they weren’t. “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret,” is the Jan. 29 story by Scott James.
Here’s how it begins:
“When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.”
The story said:
“A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.” The report offers five sentences of rationalization for every sentence of factoid. But the gist remains: Those who argue for heterosexual marriage were right all the time. Homosexual “marriages” aren’t really marriages in the way we define them.
The article even says that homosexual marriage may end marriage altogether, though it doesn’t put it quite that way: “Some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”
A San Francisco State University study due next month “reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area,” says the Times. “The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.”
While it also found happy faithful homosexual couples, “A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer,” says the paper.
“None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it,” the article adds.
The story introduces us to “Chris” and “James” (their full names are not given).
“A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs,” says the report. “But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first.”
The story purports to offer an example of an “open marriage” that is heterosexual, but can only find “Deb” and “Marius” who have a rule against the other having intercourse outside of marriage.
The words of a guy who wrote a book about relationships are quoted in the piece as an expert opinion that fidelity actually hurts marriages. Of course, science is increasingly telling us that not only does infidelity harm marriages, even the virtual infidelity of pornography does.
This would be silly if it wasn’t quickly becoming the law of the land.
The nation has been approaching “gay marriage” with blinders on. We know these things about “gay marriage” already, but studiously ignore them. The myth that it’s just a different kind of marriage simply isn’t true (more evidence here).
In order to satisfy a desire for these relationships to have the sentimental satisfaction of being called a “marriage” we are changing the meaning of marriage to be a synonym for “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” and nothing more.
But I started out by putting this all in the context of my Christianity and Mass Media class. Why were we talking about homosexual “marriage”?
Because I was making the point that Catholics on abortion have done a remarkable job understanding the problem (women in tough situations), addressing the problem (helping moms) respecting their opponents (while arguing cold, hard facts) and speaking the culture’s language (appealing to what the culture intuitively understands, like the right to life).
With notable, wonderful exceptions, we have a lot of work to do in this regard in marriage.