Thursday, December 11, 2008

Gay Marriage. Robert and Gary. And Fred. And Martin

by LeftCoastVoter

A fact that the Main Stream Media hid (and quite well) during the Prop 8 battle is the fact that up to 75% of Gay males in a “committed relationship” or a “marriage”  accept their partner having open sexual relations with another male.
It seems a little incredulous, so let me break it down so that we are all on the same page.
Robert and Gary are married.  Or deeply committed to each other.  They are “partners.”
It’s OK with Robert if Gary goes out and has sex with Fred.  And Gary thinks its OK if Robert has a sexual relationship with Martin.
You don’t believe me?  Ask David Benkof over at the Jerusalem Post. He wrote a column about it.  Here’s the highlights:
“…many male couples, including those in “marriages,” have arrangements with each other that allow for mutually agreed upon infidelity under certain circumstances…”
“…many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”…”
“…Even gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships tend to see nothing wrong with consensual adultery, even when a couple has children. …”
The entire article is here.  Do you need more?  Perhaps David Nimmons is a big enough name for you.  You know, the founder of Manifest Love and a Gay Leader in New York.
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David cites numerous studies which document approximately 75%  of Gay Men in a “committed relationship” are not monogamous. They go out and have sex with other men.  And they both accept that.  Even when they have children in their “family.”
Remember Bob and Gary? And Fred?  And Martin?
That’s another reason why it’s Gay Marriage Gay Lifestyle is not OK.
I’d welcome your thoughts if they are on topic.  And if you want to say, “No, that’s not true,” then do some research first, perhaps contact David Nimmons (he’s Gay and will tell you the truth) or David Benkof (he got hate mail from Gays when he suggested that they try monogamy…and he is bi-sexual)
Stay tuned, much more to come.


  1. Clever picture. I love it! It seems like the gay activists never really expected the "juicy details" of their relationships to get out and taint their efforts to portray themselves as model citizens, model parents and model candidates for marriage. It's great that some of them are willing to tell the truth the the rest of the group would rather have hidden.

  2. This type of behaviour just spreads disease. There is no such thing as "safe sex". Sex with multiple partners is just down right dangerous.

  3. ... only there is such a thing as safe sex.
    that's what a condom's for.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. roger dear,

    the only safe sex is no sex. Condoms are not full proof. I got pregnant while using one and I know people who have gotten std's while using one.

  6. So, should all couples in open relationships have their marriages forcibly annulled against their will?

    Or just same-sex couples in open relationships?

  7. Journalista, I love your blog. I think it's hilarious that we never see representations of group marriage in all these efforts to normalize gay unions in the public eye.

  8. It is the statistics that inform and offend, Jesurgislac. The gay rights activist, David Nimmons, reveals that 75% of gay men report that their definition of a committed relationship does not include monogamy. There are not even close to 75% of heterosexual men whose definition of a committed relationship would be non-monogamous. Furthermore, that loose definition of "committed" applied by homosexuals is detrimental to the children present in these relationships. The individuals in heterosexual unions are not perfect. No one on this earth is. But the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is perfect because it is that very formula which produces a stable society and government. Let us continue to strive for the best possible core unit for the raising up of children, families, societies, and governments.

  9. It is the statistics that inform and offend, Jesurgislac.

    You're seriously arguing that any group which is shown to be significantly more promiscuous by statistics ought not to be allowed to marry? I mean, seriously? Marriage is made by two individuals: to argue that a statistical analysis of the group to which either or both individuals belong "proves" no individuals from this group ought to be allowed to marry, is a basic argument for bigotry against groups to rule.

    And does this mean you're dropping your opposition to two women marrying? Since lesbian couples tend statistically to be less promiscuous, more faithful, than mixed-sex couples?

  10. J.Slac, all people are equal, all actions and choices are not necessarily equal. That's what statistics are for. Adults who use drugs will not be as smart as adults who stay clean. That's a lifestyle choice with consequences.

    Every person has the right to marry already. You may not like your choices, but you are free to marry.

    There are always limitations on choice based on consequence. That's why the age of consent is not ten. That's why cousins can't marry and it's now why people can't marry other people of the same gender. It's kind of a straightforward thing.

  11. Jesurgislac,

    Again, you start your argument with a blatant misinterpretation of previous commentary. The significance is not merely the promiscuity, but the damaging inclusion of promiscuity and "openness" under the envelope of commitment. If they want to talk the talk, they've got to walk the walk; otherwise, children receiving mixed signals are more likely to follow the active example of their "fathers." Two women marrying lacks the vital role of father and, therefore, falls short of the ideal. So, no, opposition is not dropped to two women marrying.


This forum is open to anyone with a desire to express him/herself with respect, civility, and understanding. Please remember, therefore, that comments are not always reflective of the opinion of this website and its community. We reserve the right to delete any commentary or content, including, but not limited to, material that is obscene, profane, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate as per our discretion.