RECENT  POSTS:  » Man who insinuated it's better to be thrown into sea than support homosexuality attended #SB101 signing ceremony » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/26/2009

Marriage protection: One man, one woman, and a room full of swingers

by Jeremy Hooper

Oh, will somebody PLEASE stop those promiscuous, sex-crazed heterosexuals from destroying the sanctity of marriage? Sheesh, we have children to protect!

This from The New York Times:

The club is open only on the weekends, and the cover charge will not break the bank: $40 for couples, $90 for single men. Unescorted women, who are sex-club gold, are allowed in free.
...
Her clients are mostly marrieds in their 40s who have gradually watched their sex lives slowing down and are looking for the spicy weekend safety that a sex club can provide. They come here for the cleanliness and for the ambience of innocent eroticism
At a Sex Club, the Outré Meet the Ordinary [NY Times]

Now, we're of course not judging these consenting adults who are living how they choose to live. But then again, we also don't view anyone else's relationship as having any effect on our own, nor do we view others' bedroom behaviors to be any of our business.

But hey, those of you who use supposed gay instability to keep marriage a hetero-only affair and protest outside of gay bathhouses: Isn't it time you all start acknowledging hetero-only affairs?

*EARLIER: Yes, life is short. So while you all are off having your affairs, let us f***ing marry! [G-A-Y]
The sanctity of marriage (after marriage, after marriage, after marriage, after marriage...) [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Love this from AFTAH, thought it fit in nicely with the whole "sanctity of the hetero marriage"...

"First, there is no reason for the government to provide institutional recognition to same-sex “civil unions” in that they contribute nothing beneficial to the common good. Do not misunderstand that statement: I did not say that those who self-identify as homosexual contribute nothing beneficial to the common good. They unequivocally do. Rather, homosexual unions per se are destructive to the common good. Even the tragic fact that homosexual couples are procuring children via ethically dubious means should not compel the state to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate this perverse reality."

So, according to AFTAH (and God knows they know everything) any type of relationship that isn't heterosexual isn't beneficial.

did he REALLY JUST TYPE THAT?!

Posted by: Stef | Feb 26, 2009 1:37:51 PM

Stef - Peter didn't write that it was Laurie Higgins Peter's partner in crime.

It's funny that you pulled that paragraph - I was thinking the same thing as you when I read it.

Posted by: Alonzo | Feb 26, 2009 3:18:42 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails