The Definition of Monagamy -- a poll (r1)

[MercyBurst]

Definition of Monagamy -- a Poll

The definition of monagamy is blurred by gay culture, as noted in these excerpts from the New Hamphsire SB 427 Commission Report on Marriage​

http://www.nhhousegop.com/Reports/ExecSumm-p26-50.pdf​

Indeed, some gays have advocated that concepts of fidelity andmonogamy may have to be modified to fit within the gay culture.34
​

**edited**
​

I'll set up an example and pollsters are asked to determine whether the relaionship is monagamous:

Sally is a self-identified lesbian that loves Sue. They enter into a relationship for 3 years in which both are fully supportive of each other's needs. They have no other intimate relationships except their own. At the end of 3 years they decide to call it quits and each one finds a new partner.​

Was Sally and Sue's relationship monogamous or not? Why or why not?​

 

[CaDan]

Define monogamous first, please. At least for the purposes of this hypothetical.

 

[Vene]

Would you call it monogamous if it was Sally and Stephen?

 

[MercyBurst]

Define monogamous first, please. At least for the purposes of this hypothetical.

that's quite funny Dan....

 

[CaDan]

that's quite funny Dan....

It wasn't intended to be. It was intended to help prevent this thread from going all Humpty Dumpty because of changing definitions of terms.

 

[kiwimac]

Let's try a broad definition:

mo·nog·a·my n.

1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
   1. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
   2. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
2. Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.

Source: monogamy. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monogamy (accessed: June 15, 2008).

 

[MercyBurst]

mo·nog·a·my n. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.

1. 1. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
   2. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
2. Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.

So monogamy is "having a single sexual partner for a period of time."

A night is a period of time. Therefore a one-night stand could be considered "monogamous." Is this correct?

Actually intercourse takes a period of time, so anything short of group sex could be considered "momogamous." Two people could be "monogamous" for 5 minutes anyway. Is this correct?

Then the same night they could be "monogamous" with two more different people and so on. Is this correct?

 

[CaDan]

Paging Alice!

Paging Alice!

 

[Texas Lynn]

The poll options lack both reliability and validity so this amounts to an exercise in futility.

What if Sue was a prisoner of war for 5+1/2 years and came back wobbily walking from torture by the nefarious enemy only to find Sally had been severely injured in an auto accident and was, how do we say it, uglified? And what if then Sue met a beautiful heiress with a huge chest whose daddy agreed to advance her political career so Sue severed her relationship to Sally to hook up with the second spouse? It happened to John McCain.

 

[Joykins]

When we talk about monogamy, are we talking about being married? Or having one long-term partner at a time? Because I would say the relationship described fits the second definition and not the first. An adulterous but 2-person married couple could also be defined as monogamous in contrast to polygamous.

According to Jared Diamond, humans are generally serial monogamists with occasional adultery and occasional polygamy.

 

[MercyBurst]

The poll options lack both reliability and validity so this amounts to an exercise in futility.

What if Sue was a prisoner of war for 5+1/2 years and came back wobbily walking from torture by the nefarious enemy only to find Sally had been severely injured in an auto accident and was, how do we say it, uglified? And what if then Sue met a beautiful heiress with a huge chest whose daddy agreed to advance her political career so Sue severed her relationship to Sally to hook up with the second spouse? It happened to John McCain.

Why don't you start your own poll about John McCain the war hero that paid his american dues in a POW camp versus OSAMABAMA golden boy the closet muslim?

I already gave the example. In this example there were no accidents, no prisoners of war, and most importantly of all -- NO RED HERRINGS. So don't dearail this thread with your politics.

 

[MercyBurst]

Back to this post:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47444883&postcount=7

Can a one-night-relationship under the right circumstances, be considered a monogamous-relationship?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why don't you start your own poll about John McCain the war hero that paid his american dues in a POW camp versus OSAMABAMA golden boy the closet muslim?

I already gave the example. In this example there were no accidents, no prisoners of war, and most importantly of all -- NO RED HERRINGS. So don't dearail this thread with your politics.

Ah. So adultery is excusable if one is politically correct, then. Noted.

 

[kiwimac]

Also noted in passing: Obama is NOT a Muslim.

 

[katautumn]

I'm so tired of hearing the phrase, "but NH SB 427 says..." A senator from Tennessee tried to redefine rape, so what does SB 427 prove? It certainly does not prove that gays and lesbians are incapable of monogamy.

Monogamy is when two people both agree to entering into a committed relationship in which they will court one another exclusively. For some this relationship could last a year. For others it could be fifty years. For some it will end. For others it will result in marriage vows being taken. So long as both parties consent to having a committed relationship and are not dating or having sex with people outside of the relationship, they are in a monogamous relationship.

It should also be noted that the written works of David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison have frequently been used by gay and lesbian opponents to try and discredit GBLT committed relationships. The biggest reason is that their books did not use the traditional, heterosexual marriage as a model for homosexual relationships. They were intelligent enough to recognize that gay and lesbian relationships are not and cannot be modeled after heterosexual marriage, because there are fundamental differences in the way two men or two women have a relationship as opposed to a man and a woman. It does not make same-sex relationships inferior to straight ones, nor does it prove gays cannot be monogamous. McWhirter and Mattison were life partners and were together for many years.

 

[MercyBurst]

I'm so tired of hearing the phrase, "but NH SB 427 says..." A senator from Tennessee tried to redefine rape, so what does SB 427 prove? It certainly does not prove that gays and lesbians are incapable of monogamy.

Read the rest of footnote 34 and 35. They agree with you.

Monogamy is when two people both agree to entering into a committed relationship in which they will court one another exclusively.

That tells me they won't enter group sex together with others. Other than that it tells me nothing

For some this relationship could last a year. For others it could be fifty years. For some it will end. For others it will result in marriage vows being taken. So long as both parties consent to having a committed relationship and are not dating or having sex with people outside of the relationship, they are in a monogamous relationship.

It tells us nothing. How long is a relationship? Is one night long enough, two, a week, a month? You said a year could be long enough; how about less than a year?

It should also be noted that the written works of David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison have frequently been used by gay and lesbian opponents to try and discredit GBLT committed relationships. The biggest reason is that their books did not use the traditional, heterosexual marriage as a model for homosexual relationships.

That's because the model doesn't fit their relationship. As the foototes said, the gay authors agreed it's homophobic to make homosexuality fit the conventional marriage rubric. I think they have a good point.

They were intelligent enough to recognize that gay and lesbian relationships are not and cannot be modeled after heterosexual marriage, because there are fundamental differences in the way two men or two women have a relationship as opposed to a man and a woman.

So why "play straight" with this "committed monogamous" mumbo jumbo?

It does not make same-sex relationships inferior to straight ones, nor does it prove gays cannot be monogamous. McWhirter and Mattison were life partners and were together for many years.

They're gay, they were partners for life, and they said the meaning of monogamy must change to fit the gay culture that they're a part of. What more proof is needed? We see it for ourself in the poll.

It is odd that a relatively small group of people want to change the english language so it doesn't mean anything anymore. I remember when "gay" meant happy. Now "monogamy" means "intimate friends until the next partner comes along." Next word to destroy will be "marriage."

 

[MercyBurst]

Also noted in passing: Obama is NOT a Muslim.

The name, kiwi... the name...

 

[MercyBurst]

An adulterous but 2-person married couple could also be defined as monogamous in contrast to polygamous.

Thank you for sharing that Joykins. So monogamy means little more than having a "favorite partner" among a group of consenting partners.

Back when I was in college, I can think of several male-female steady relationships that fit that definition. None of them ever intended to enter marriage with each other though.

 

[HaloHope]

Monogamy by my defenition is having only one sexual partner at any one time who at the start of the relationship you have every intention of staying with for the rest of your life.

Of course things dont always work out in relationships, you ma split up, get divorced if you marry and end up in another monogamous relationship later in your life.

In an ideal world this wouldnt happen of course (I hope that my single only relationship does last all my life), but fact of the matter is it does, for a variety of reasons and people can find love again.

 

[Joykins]

Thank you for sharing that Joykins. So monogamy means little more than having a "favorite partner" among a group of consenting partners.

Back when I was in college, I can think of several male-female steady relationships that fit that definition. None of them ever intended to enter marriage with each other though.

No, that's not what I meant. One definition of monogamy means "married to one partner." It is valid to say that a man who is married to one wife yet cheats on her *IS* monogamous under that definition of monogamy. That is why I think we need to clarify what definition of monogamy you wish to discuss. The relationship in your example does not fit this definition of monogamy because the partners are not married (or at least I assume they are not since it isn't mentioned in the scenario).

There is another definition of monogamy that means "one sexual partner to the exclusion of all others for a more-than-brief length of time"--in which case the relationship portrayed in the poll *IS* monogamous.

Take your pick, you can't have 'em both.