Tag Archives: Marriage

Couple Has An Open Marriage So Complicated, It’s Hard To Keep Track

wedding vows2

HuffPo: Michael loves his wife, Kamala. Michael also likes his 27-year-old girlfriend, Rachel. So six months ago, Kamala decided to do what most wives would never even consider: she invited Rachel to come live with them and their six year-old son.

Monogamy just doesn’t work for the couple, whose relationship is featured on Showtime’s “Polyamory: Married & Dating.”  What does work for them is a polyamorous lifestyle, Kamala and Michael tell Nightline reporter Nick Watt in the report above. (Rachel is not the first person they’ve invited into their relationship during the course of their 12-year marriage; the couple previously shared their home with another couple, and Kamala has been in a relationship with another woman for two years.)

“Monogamy can be a really beautiful agreement between people when they’re deeply in love and they don’t have desire for another,” Kamala says. “But most people in our society are just monogamous because their vows said ‘I will forsake all others.’”

wedding vows

The trio’s seemingly blissful relationship — they do yoga together, love tantric sex and collectively raise the couple’s son — leaves the Nightline reporter wondering if maybe they’re on to something. With so many marriages ending in divorce — oftentimes because of infidelity — is polyamory the answer to all our divorce woes?

Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, thinks so. “It’s becoming clear that heterosexual monogamous marriage simply doesn’t work for most people. And I think people are tired of being unhappy and dissatisfied,” she told the Daily Beast earlier this month.

We cannot control our own desires and we certainly cannot control the desires of others,” said Block, who has been in an open marriage for the past 10 years. “You cannot tell someone, ‘Don’t be attracted to anyone else. Don’t desire anyone else.’ You can say, ‘If we’re going to be together, I want it to be monogamous.’ But you cannot control the other person’s heart and mind. The heart wants what it wants.”

Conversations about polyamorous relationship may be increasingly common, but that doesn’t necessarily mean American couples are adopting the lifestyle in large numbers. Pamela Haag, whose 2011 book, Marriage Confidential, included discussions with couples in open marriages, says that by her estimates, only about 5 percent of all marriages meet the definition of “open.”


How insulting to assume that “most people in our society are just monogamous because their vows said ‘I will forsake all others’ and ‘we cannot control our own desires.’”

Yet for some I guess it’s easier to preach moral relativism than actually try and work on a committed relationship or control their zippers.


‘We’ve made it beautiful’: Couple celebrates 80 years of marriage


KVAL.com: (ALBANY, Ore.) — After 80 years of marriage, Ermin Johnston remembers the first night he met his wife, Erma, at a Sunday-school party. Ermin said he knew she was “the one” from their first time they talked.

“I took two girls home afterwards. I took the other one home first, and we went home last,” laughed the 101-year-old Ermin.

They married on Aug. 23, 1933.

“We were married during the depression,” said Erma. “My folks couldn’t afford a lot of flowers so we had fern, and it was beautiful.”


Now fast approaching their 80th wedding anniversary, the Albany couple is the longest-living married couple in Oregon. “We’ve made it beautiful … and I’ve had an enjoyable life with her,” said Ermin.

Both being born in Albany, they consider themselves true natives. Ermin worked in the railroad industry for 40 years.

Ermin and Erma Johnston have 3 children, 9 grandchildren, 19 great-grandchildren, and 5 great-great-grandchildren.

When asked what their secret to a successful marriage and family was, Ermin joked, “There’s no secret … just keep living!”

I’d say communicate,” Erma chimed in. “We did, didn’t we? And we still do.” “We still do,” Ermin said.

If he could, Ermin said he would spend another 80 years with the love of his life, adding that most couples nowadays can’t even do 80 days together.

“She was a sweetie, and I was a farm boy who didn’t know anything,” said Ermin. “Oh yes you did!” answered Erma. “He knew enough to pick me!”


Just what we need these days, a happy love story!


And I Love My Dog Too.


“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers?? You can’t get married.”
“Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest? No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
~Steve~                             H/T     hujonwi

Justice Scalia’s Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage

OK, I don’t know Legal from Beagle

but give me a minute to put things in perspective on DOMA. TD did a post on Lucifer’s scandals at link below. There are about 24 I believe.

Now don’t throw things at your ‘puter as you will only have to fix. Bare with me now, but today, tomorrow, DOMA will have very little effect. It’s not that big of deal. OUCH!! I forgot to mention pls don’t curse me.  :lol: What I mean is we have all these other scandals. For now 1% of population will be booking wedding halls and picking out flowers.

On the other hand the SCOTUS ruling has just morally destroyed the future of this country. My poor son. Oh it’s going to do lots of damage, but it will take a while. I’m just trying to rally you guys and gals.

Pls read Scalia’s Scathing Dissent below.



Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

By Tim Grieve

Updated: June 26, 2013 | 1:33 p.m.
June 26, 2013 | 10:15 a.m.


Dissenting from this morning’s opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

calia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.



It should be OK to lock lips with others after saying ‘I do’?

An enlightened Hollyweird actor

An enlightened Hollyweird actor

‘Marriage is serious business, but kissing is not’: Mindy Kaling on why it  should be OK to lock lips with others after saying ‘I do’

Daily Mail: Mindy Kaling has voiced her opinion that one should still be able to kiss other people after they get married.

In a New Yorker article, the comedienne and author, 33, who is single, says kissing new people is ‘one of the greatest joys of life,’ which married people should be able to enjoy, too. ‘Why should saying “I do” necessarily mean “I will not kiss another human for the rest of my life”?’ she asks.

The actress and director, who writes and  stars in Fox’s The Mindy Project, said one of the perks of acting is getting to kiss men, often married ones, with ‘zero repercussions for anyone  involved.’ She goes on to explain that she is by no  means advocating open marriage. ‘Marriage is a serious business,’ she writes.  ‘[But] kissing is not.

‘Just because I want to kiss someone doesn’t mean I want to love that person, share a bed with him . . . tell him not to use  so much salt, or share one AOL e-mail account,’ she adds. The problem with kissing, she says, is that  it has been ‘cheapened’, and is now perceived as a gateway gesture to sex.

‘Kissing is to sexual intercourse as the  phrase “Can I talk to you for a second?” is to a full-blown screaming fight,’  she writes.

She admits that kissing does not come without  its complications, but insists it just needs to be treated as an enjoyable legal vice akin to drinking alcohol or gambling. In other words, it just needs to be regulated.

To prevent a kiss from leading to something more, Ms. Kaling came up with a hypothetical invention called the Kiss Monitor™,  an electric device inserted into the lip.

The gadget would allow a person to kiss a non-spouse for 90 seconds, before it would begin sending electroconvulsive  shocks to the lips. ‘If the kissing continues, the shocks increase in frequency and intensity until the patient passes out,’ writes Ms.  Kaling. ‘This can be very embarrassing.’

According to Ms. Kaling, this device would resolve the issue people have with kissing others after getting married. She imagines that the Kiss Monitor™ will be a means of demonstrating marital fidelity in the future.

‘I am a romantic at heart, and. . . I look  forward to the day when [a man] and I find each other, fall in love, and solemnize our relationship by exchanging Kiss Monitors,’ she  wrote.

So if a kiss is just a kiss and doesn’t lead to sex, why invent something to make a kiss unpleasant?

I’m not married, yet I doubt seriously my boyfriend would want me kissing other guys – and I certainly don’t want him kissing any women! Let’s see what Mandy has to say about this free-for-all kissing after she does say “I do”.


The “New I Do”

First homosexuals want to redefine marriage, now this liberal crap.


What’s So Wrong With An Open Marriage?

HuffPo: Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have been in the headlines a lot in recent years, and not because of their movies. They’re either on the verge of a divorce or they have an open marriage — and I’m not sure which horrifies people more.

I can understand why people might be concerned about them divorcing; they have two kids, Jaden, 14, and Willow, 12, and everyone worries about parents facing divorce (unlike childfree couples, for some reason). But I can’t understand the big deal being made about their alleged open marriage, which everyone is assuming is true because of what Jada recently told HuffPost Live:

“I’ve always told Will, ‘You can do whatever you want as long as you can look at yourself in the mirror and be OK.’ Because at the end of the day, Will is his own man. I’m here as his partner, but he is his own man. He has to decide who he wants to be and that’s not for me to do for him. Or vice versa.”

Just this week, she clarified her statement by saying they have a “grown” marriage, but obviously one with a lot of freedom:

Will and I BOTH can do WHATEVER we want, because we TRUST each other to do so. This does NOT mean we have an open relationship…this means we have a GROWN one.”

Regardless of if you call it open or “grown,” the reaction to their relationship is mixed. Are people upset, perhaps because they think it’s morally wrong? Are they jealous? Are they curious in a “Gee, I’ve always wanted to do that but don’t know how to bring that up with my partner” kind of way? Are those who are in an open marriage pleased that there are more of their kind? Are there former pro-open marriage types who’ve been burned by it now shaking their heads and thinking, “It will end soon, and ugly”?

I don’t have the answers to those questions, but I have to imagine this — whether they work forever or not, open marriages seem to be a lot more honest than many marriages in which one or both of the spouses are cheating.

How many people are cheating? It’s hard to assess because the data is self-reported, so who really knows who’s being honest and how he or she is defining cheating? If we’re to believe recent research, 33 percent of men and 19 percent of women admit to getting some on the side.

More might cheat if they knew they wouldn’t get busted. In another survey, two percent of women said they’d be “very likely” to cheat if there was no chance their partner would find out (just five percent of women admitted to having done so), while more than five percent of men would be “very likely” under those circumstances (and in this survey, fewer than three percent of men admitted to straying).

Why is the idea of an open relationship so threatening, especially when it’s clear that many are having nonmonogamous relationships anyway while pretending they’re monogamous?


Perhaps because it’s not the kind of conversation most people can easily bring up with a loved one. Being monogamous is an assumption we have once we get serious romantically –Oh, we’re a couple now so we won’t sleep with anyone else. But since a lot of romances end because of cheating, I have to wonder why more couples don’t talk openly about monogamy. Why aren’t we asking each other whether it’s been hard — or not — to be monogamous? Why aren’t we making honest and ongoing discussions about sex, fidelity and monogamy an important part of our relationships? Susan Pease Gadoua and I address that in our forthcoming book, The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Cynics, Commitaphobes and Connubial DIYers.

When I spoke with Eric Anderson, an American sociologist at England’s University of Winchester and author of the provocative book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating, he said that people are afraid to be honest about things like monogamy and our sexual needs and desires. So instead, many cheat:

(M)onogamy is culturally compelled, so the decision has been made for us. For example, how much of a chance would a man stand to have a second date if on the first date he said that he was interested in an open relationship? But equally as important, at the point men enter into relationships they, too, think they want monogamy. It’s only after being in a relationship for months or years that they badly want sex with others. But by this point, they don’t want to break up with their partners because they have long-standing love. Instead of chancing that love by asking for extradyadic sex, they cheat. If they don’t get caught (and most don’t) it’s a rational choice.

Is it better to turn a blind eye to possible infidelity in our relationships than to have an open marriage? I don’t think so. So then why the shock and judgment?

Jada is very clear on what her 15-year marriage is based on: a deep friendship and a commitment to making it lifelong:

“I don’t think it’s easy to be married to anyone. I think that you have to go into a relationship knowing — especially when you’re dedicating yourself to someone for the rest of your life — this is a life partnership. He’s my best friend. He’s been by my side through some of the most difficult parts of my life. And so that’s something you can never take away.”

Why does being monogamous trump that?

Oh yeah, sorta more fundamental and “grown” than just freakin’ freely out there– despite what Jada Pinkett might claim.

Monogamy, just another “lifestyle choice” when married, for liberals. They’ve forgotten that monogamy is not “culturally compelled”, it is God’s word:

The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’…and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen. 2:18, 21-24)

h/t Anon


“Coping” with life and marriage


U.S. Olympian who worked as high-priced call girl promises to ‘make amends’

Fox News: A three-time U.S. Olympian runner who has admitted her double life as a  prostitute is taking an apology lap on Twitter, promising to “make amends” and  return to being a good mother.

Suzy Favor Hamilton, a 44-year-old nine-time NCAA champion, admitted to The  Smoking Gun that she worked as a $600 per hour call girl for a Las Vegas escort  agency since last December, booking dozens of dates in Sin City and other major  cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. In a series of posts on Thursday,  Hamilton took to Twitter to begin resurrecting her life.

“I cannot emphasize enough how sorry I am to anyone I have hurt as a result  of my actions and greatly appreciate the support from family and those closest  to me,” Favor Hamilton wrote. “I fully intend to make amends and get back to  being a good mother, wife, daughter, and friend.

The married mother of a 7-year-old girl indicated she has been seeing a  psychologist for the past few weeks and will continue doing so. “I do not expect people to understand, but the reasons for doing this made  sense to me at the time and were very much related to depression,” Favor  Hamilton wrote. “As crazy as I know it seems, I never thought I would be  exposed, therefore never hurting anybody.”

Favor Hamilton said she was drawn to escorting in large part because it  provided “many coping mechanisms” during a challenging time in her life and  marriage. “It provided an escape from a life that I was struggling in,” Favor Hamilton  wrote to nearly 4,000 followers. “It was a double life.”

Favor Hamilton’s sordid past has already sullied her future, as Disney  canceled a scheduled appearance at an August 2013 expo during the Disneyland  Half Marathon weekend. Bob Hitchcock, a spokesman for runDisney, which organizes the company’s  races, told the Orange County Register that Hamilton is no longer scheduled for  future Disney events. She previously spoke at and led a dance at an August  meet-up at Disneyland Half Marathon events in Anaheim. In February, Favor  Hamilton appeared at a Princess Half Marathon event at Florida’s Walt Disney  World, the newspaper reported.

Favor Hamilton, who used the alias “Kelly Lundy” during her trysts, shared  her true identity with several male clients. The decorated competitive runner  has characterized the escort business as “exciting” and a diversion from her  Wisconsin real estate brokerage with her 44-year-old husband, Mark, who is aware of her illicit business. “He tried, he tried to get me to stop,” she told The Smoking Gun. “He wasn’t  supportive of this at all.”

As a nine-time NCAA champion for Wisconsin, Favor Hamilton is the namesake of  the Big Ten Conference’s Suzy Favor Athlete of the Year Award. Big Ten spokesman  Scott Chipman told the Associated Press the conference had no comment.

Las Vegas police have no record of any arrests or contact with Favor  Hamilton, said Officer Laura Meltzer, a department spokeswoman. No inquiry about  Favor Hamilton was launched as a result of the news reports, Meltzer said.

So sad that this woman ended up in prostitution as a “diversion” from life. I certainly wouldn’t forgive a spouse if they did this to me. Yet everyone is different, with different circumstances. What say you?

h/t Anon


Keep your spouse honest…?

‘Anti-cheating ring’ leaves an ‘I’m married’ imprint on finger 

NY Daily News: Spouses with wandering eyes should take notice – slipping off your wedding band might not let you off scot-free, anymore.

The blogosphere is buzzing over a new ring that promises to keep spouses faithful by imprinting the words, “I’m married” into the wearer’s finger. The declaration is carved into the inside of the band.

The cost of fidelity? Just $550.  The titanium rings are sold on the website TheCheeky.com.

“With Arnold, Tiger and two timing IMF guy in mind, we have created this wedding ring for people intent on cheating,” the company writes, poking fun at some high-profile cases of infidelity.

Twitter users were abuzz about the wacky rings – but most of the hype was negative.  “Who would ever buy this? Least romantic wedding ring ever,” wrote one user.  “I’m just saying that if either of you are considering these, then you should probably reconsider marriage, period.”

I’d have to agree with those last statements.  Not the kind of inscription one would envision on their wedding ring!


Let’s just agree to disagree, ok?

Top 10 same-sex marriage arguments

KOMO News: An estimated 250,000 people enjoyed Seattle’s Gay Pride Parade, while others debated an upcoming vote on marriage-equality in Washington state.  Seattle resident Beau Chevassus has been considering what he calls the most common, or top 10, arguments regarding same-sex marriage.

For his analysis, Chevassus disregarded Bible-based reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, because “while our culture is deeply rooted in Christian principles” not everyone agrees with those principles.

In the video (at the KOMO link above ) he breaks down, negates, and illustrates the gay marriage arguments.  If you don’t have don’t have time for the video, here are his basic points:

  1. I’m for gay homosexual marriage because I know gay homosexual people and they’re nice. Just because we’re friends with a nice person, doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything they do, he says. Politicians who are forcing us to change marriage are making everyone out to be monsters if you don’t agree 100 percent with your friends.
  2. Gay Homosexual people are attracted to each other. We can’t change that and should embrace it. Politicians are forcing us to change marriage because of a sexual desire, he argues.
  3. Gay Homosexual marriage is about love. Marriage doesn’t have anything to do with love, he says. Marriage isn’t based on love, which is emotional and subjective. Love is not a legally-binding reason to completely change a basic institution.
  4. Gay marriage is about commitment. For any marriage to work, both people need to be selfless and committed. Commitment is not the only reason to get married, he says as he offers the example of marrying your mother because she is as committed to you as anyone. Politicians are trying to change marriage because two people have been committed roommates for a long time.
  5. Denying gay homosexual marriage is equated to the days when people of different races were not allowed to be married. Politicians are equating a sexual preference with being black, he says, but being gay homosexual is a strong choice, and not the same as being born a particular race.
  6. Gay Homosexual people want the same legal rights as others. Washington has the “everything but marriage law” which grants people in our state the same rights as married couples, he says. Politicians are trying to scare people into thinking gay homosexual partners are being denied civil rights.
  7. Gay Homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents. When children are brought into the debate, people get very emotional. We need to be very careful if we’re changing entire institutions based on emotions, he cautions.
  8. Marriage is just a label. Politicians are hijacking the label of marriage as a way to force everyone to endorse a lifestyle. (Bondage, yes, he goes there with an analogy around 8 minutes into the video which talks about redefining a basic word).
  9. Just let them have marriage, it’s not like heterosexual couples are doing so well with it considering divorce rates. Politicians will do anything to win this label of “marriage” even if it means undermining the institution, he says.
  10. Let’s just agree to disagree. This is always the last response you will hear, he says. While people are coming across as open minded, they’re really saying “you’re right” but I don’t want to admit how illogical gay homosexual marriage arguments are.

Your concurrence or rebuttal on any of these arguments?


Why yes, Beau, I do have some rebuttals!

Why should I set aside my Christian principles just because you may not be one?  Why can’t you argue the Christian aspects that define traditional marriage?  Well since you choose not to argue on the Christian aspects, here’s my rebuttal to your opinions.

  1. I don’t agree with everything that a nice person does.  Doesn’t mean I have to sanction it either.  Yet it is those who support traditional marriage that are being labeled the monsters.
  2. Why should I embrace that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex?  The male body, in particularly, was not designed for homosexual activity. Do you embrace NAMBLA members and their sexual desires?
  3. Marriage has nothing to do with love?  Speak for yourself.  There are plenty of couples that get married for love. 
  4. Commitment is a part of marriage.  As are many other aspects.  I’m sure those that support incest would love to use your example (marrying your mother because she is committed to you) so they can become married.
  5. Being gay is a strong choice?  I thought homosexuals were “born that way”?
  6. Homosexuals in Washington do have the “everything but marriage law” and are treated that same as married spouses.  If homosexuals aren’t being denied civil rights, then why the push for homosexual marriage?
  7. Indeed, we do need to be careful if we’re changing entire institutions based on emotions.  For that reason, I prefer to follow the word of the Bible, not some strong choice by an individual.
  8. Redefine words all you want.  That’s part of the “evolution” of accepting homosexual marriage.  I’m sure that plural marriage supporters can’t wait for us to remove the label associated with their lifestyle.
  9. Wrong, it’s the homosexual activists who seek to undermine the institution of traditional marriage.  See here.
  10. I’m in no hurry to admit how illogical my homosexual marriage arguments are. How can I agree to disagree with you when you won’t even start at my basic premise – the Bible and its teachings?

So for the time being, I’m choosing to agree to disagree.  Don’t ask me to forgo my faith to meet your agenda.

I’d be happy to hear any other rebuttals – or anyone that agrees with him!


“Cheaper than Marriage”…

Bought and paid for…

‘Sugar Daddies’ Cover Debts for ‘Sugar Baby’ Dates

ABC News:  Almost anything can be ordered online and then delivered to your house these days, including a beautiful college student, legally, and for the right price.  Tommy, 63, and Monte, 21, have been together for two years, and they refer to each other has “sugar daddy” and “sugar baby.” And Tommy has six others.

A retired IT executive, Tommy is thrice divorced and the father of two young adults around Monte’s age. Although he met Monte at a beach party, Tommy said he meets many of his sugar babies on a website called SeekingArrangement.com. It is one of the many “sugar daddy” websites, where men meet and offer “sugar babies,” or young women, financial support in exchange for companionship.

When Monte needs money, Tommy is her go-to guy. He said he drops about $5,000 on her each month, paying her expenses, buying her clothes and taking her out on the town in a chauffeured car. Monte said she uses the money to pay for a college education she couldn’t otherwise afford.

“He’s like, ‘I could help you get through school easy and you just travel with me, have fun, be around me and just keep me company,’ and I said, ‘sure! You’re going to pay for my school?’” Monte said.

Tommy said he retired with enough money to spend about $150,000 a year on his female companions combined.  It’s cheaper than marriage, he said, and a small price to pay for what he gets in return.

“When you walk into a room, and you have a beautiful woman with you, it’s a compliment you, as a male,” Tommy said.  “It’s like pulling up in a really nice car or something.  I hate to compare it that way but it is.”

For Monte, the relationship is valuable because she said she is experiencing new things that she otherwise would never have had the opportunity to try.  “[Tommy] taught me how to golf, cook, be a classy woman,” she said. “He’s just transformed me back to something I’ve always wanted to become.”

But Monte admitted there are some drawbacks to her situation with Tommy.  “Sometimes it gets to me to know that he is my only way of income and that makes me feel like you know, I’m not really doing anything,” she said.

So how is this legal? The courts have decreed that as long as a woman is being paid for services besides sex, such as “companionship,” the act does not classify as prostitution. That’s the argument that Brandon Wade, SeekingArrangement.com’s founder, also makes.  “If the sugar daddy is, in fact, meeting a girl for sex and money, then they’re using website in violation of agreement, which actually prohibits that usage,” he said.

The sugar daddy and sugar baby relationship is far from prostitution,” he said. “It’s about a romantic relationship between two people. The only difference is a sugar daddy is very wealthy.”  Tommy admitted he has sex with all of his sugar babies and that is part of the “big attraction,” but he said he doesn’t see his relationships with them as prostitution.

“If we’re talking about money exchanged for sex, I don’t see that this way. It’s just not a ‘wham, bam, thank you, ma’am,’” he said. “You pay somehow, somewhere for sex no matter what it is. You know, they say wives do it for refrigerators.”

“There are sugar babies on different levels,” Tommy said. “You know, you’ve got your Wal-Mart sugar babies and then you got your Neiman Marcus sugar babies, and it’s which ones you want to shop at.”

“Life’s great!”

Olympia, a 24-year-old, full-time student at a broadcasting school in Denver said she has been a sugar baby since she was 19 and 100 percent of her school fees, which is $15,000 a year, have been paid for by sugar daddies.

“I’ve got my rent paid for up to a year,” she said. “I’ve gotten all the cars I’ve had, have been paid for by sugar daddies. I’ve gotten to go to the Caribbean. I’ve gotten to travel all across the nation. I just got some brand new boobs. Life’s great.

Olympia said she is a pro at juggling several sugar daddies at a time. She has been seeing one man named Larry, a Mormon from Utah, for almost two years now and said the relationship is the perfect scenario for her because they do not have sex. But she admitted the perks of the sugar daddy-sugar baby relationship come at an emotional loss.

“Sometimes being in a sugar baby-sugar daddy relationship, it does get lonely for me because I can’t always– That person can’t always be there for me,” she said. “[But] they respect me. They let me be myself. It’s the dream.”

I guess if these women and men want to live their lives (such as they are) in this way, have at it. I for one wouldn’t want to be with a man who compared me to a new car.  I don’t believe that would make me a very classy woman.