The Definition of Monagamy -- a poll (r1)

[MercyBurst]

I never trust what you post to be honest and anyone who is smart will verify your claims.

In the OP, I "claimed" that the definition of monogamy is blurred by gay culture. After 60 posts, no gay person has really come up with a good definition for monogamy. Personally I think some honesty is needed on the gay side of the debate.

And when your OP claims were looked into, it was found that they were not true, what a surprise.

The OP claimed that the definition of monogamy is blurred by gay culture. An example relationship was provided to determine whether it was monogamous and the majority of the polsters agree that it fits within their definition of a monogamous relationship.

The OP cited a majority opinion footnote ver batim from the New Hampshire Legistors, and it was not misrepresented. You might not agree with it, but it has been accurately presented and the source has been provided.

I don't know what else needs to be said, except that I can't take you seriously, and I am not going to listen to your false accusations any longer.

Hence I will not respond to you anymore.

 

[MercyBurst]

Back to this post:

http://christianforums.com/showpost....83&postcount=7

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

 

[BigBadWlf]

Your point is irrelevant. I cited a source as a reference, and I did not purport it to be either true or false -- hence I provided a poll.

I think the poll speaks for itself though you obviously don't like the results. I think the questions are reasonable and forthright. I think anyone can see this for themselves. Why is it wrong for me to ask (according to you)?

I havn't looked at the results

The OP copied the majority opinion footnote ver batim, only to serve as a reference that needed verification,

As has been shown, ver batim or not, what your presented is false

hence the poll was offered. That is why the title of the thread is "The Definition of Monogamy." I still don't have a definition form the gay-side unless you are willing to provide one (fat chance).

Should we make a pool asking if it is moral/ethical to present false information about homosexuals?

The poll confirms that gay monogamy can be fairly short term -- no surprise here. I don't know what else needs to be said, except that I can not take you seriously.

Hence I will not respond to you anymore.

Translation: you are tired of your false witness being exposed

 

[BigBadWlf]

Back to this post:

http://christianforums.com/showpost....83&postcount=7

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

Do you consider your one-night-stands to be a monogamous relationship?

 

[Vene]

True... However, the report is published as "the Majority View" with Republicans holding the majority in the NH legislature. The Republicans have not alterred their view, as far as I know.



I would trust a Democrat report to reflect the minority opinion. There is a minority opinion on SB 427, but I haven't bothered reading it. If you come up with something different, then by all means -- let us know.

I don't care what their opinion is, I care if it's factually based. So far it looks like heavily biased research on their part.

Can't refute what points? Attack what poster?

I'm talking about how you ignored the points SughaNSpice made on the basis that you had more posts.

So you have to bring up Fred Phelps a democrat and a civil rights attorney for african americans, I keep telling tulc that the gay-advocates need to stop bringing him up, but no-no-no, he's a fundie stereotype. He brought down the Jim Crowe laws in Kansas.

So? I never said the man was pure evil. Would you still like me to judge all heterosexuals based on a single man?

Maybe if I knew what you were talking about I could respond, but I just hear somebody that's upset about the facts.

As I said above I'm talking about how you ignored the points SughaNSpice made on the basis that you had more posts.

I think the real problem here is that you don't like the poll results.

The poll where a single person says it's not a monogamous relationship?

I hear you say the commission findings were wrong about gay partnering, then I look at the poll, and it says you are wrong. You certainly aren't speaking for the polsters. They agree that monogamy in the gay sense can be rather short-lived (3 years or less). This is the same conclusion found in the commission report -- so gripe all you want.

Ask the same question substituting in a heterosexual couple, I bet you'll get the same results.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Were you in a monogamous relationship the day after you married your wife?

10 minutes after you married her?

If she had died the next year, your relationship would not have been long enough to be monogamous?

Please respond.

 

[SughaNSpice]

It looks like maybe you are the only person that DID NOT read the OP link because it goes straight to the New Hampshire government web-site, not to Focus on the Family. Your post reeks of more "conspiracy theory" spam like we typically hear from a forumite that shows up soley for the purpose of conjuring a gay persecution complex.

The commission didn't just read books to come to their conclusions -- they also interviewed gay advocates. The poll confirms the Commission report's findings cited in the OP. It looks spot on, and footnote 35 (in the report) makes the appropriate caveats for "lifetime gay partners."



At a mere 10 posts, we're supposed to take you seriously...???

I fed the statements in the footnotes into a search engine….it seems the statements were copied directly from….you guessed it….focus on the family…specifically an amices brief focus mailed out to this legislature….focus tried to feed an amices brief containing the same false stuff to the Maryland legislature…it appears that the elected officials of that state were smart enough to check their facts…to bad the republican’s of New Hampshire didn’t bother…or maybe they knew but preferred a lie over the truth.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

A Big thanks to SughaNSpice for taking the time and effort to read the links and research the false statements being made.

Welcome to the forums Sugha

Someone rep the lady for me

Got her!

 

[MercyBurst]

I don't care what their opinion is, I care if it's factually based.

ok I'll delete the legislature's executive summary from the OP. It can be found in the OP link anyway.

Now somebody please tell me what monogamy means. I think the point is well founded that gay culture blurrs the conventional definition of monogamy.

We even have a gay-advocate lawyer in this thread that's asking for a definition:

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

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47440078&postcount=2

 

[MercyBurst]

I fed the statements in the footnotes into a search engine….it seems the statements were copied directly from….you guessed it….focus on the family…specifically an amices brief focus mailed out to this legislature….focus tried to feed an amices brief containing the same false stuff to the Maryland legislature…it appears that the elected officials of that state were smart enough to check their facts…to bad the republican’s of New Hampshire didn’t bother…or maybe they knew but preferred a lie over the truth.

As far as the poll goes this is a nit. I edited the OP and took it out. Now somebody please tell me what monogamy means.

 

[MercyBurst]

Were you in a monogamous relationship the day after you married your wife?

yes

10 minutes after you married her?

Yes, we were monogamous from the same point in time when we were married.

If she had died the next year, your relationship would not have been long enough to be monogamous?

Yes it was monogamous, because it met the conditions of marriage to: "forsake all others until death do us part". "Forsaking all others" means no extra-marital sex relationships. Extra-marital relationships are adultery and grounds for divorce, even as the Bible tells us.

On the otherhand, divorce and remarriage is not monogamy and it requires God's forgiveness for adultery, even as Jesus said. Those that are entering gay marriage from a previous divorce, or those who have enterred another relationship since their last marriage are committing adultery. They may indeed be monogamous in their current relationship, but they still need God's forgiveness for not being monogamous in their previous relationships(s).

Now I asked first and nobody answered my questions:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47475504&postcount=56

I'll state them yet again, as this forum is getting cluttered with spam, because people continue to derail the thread:

OK then, what if Sally and Sue are have a relationship lasting 1 night with no third party involved? Your definition says one night can be monogamous since there is no time limit.

What if Sally and Sue have a one-time relationship lasting 10 minutes with no third party involved, would that be monogamous too?

 

[MercyBurst]

I fed the statements in the footnotes into a search engine….it seems the statements were copied directly from….you guessed it….focus on the family…specifically an amices brief focus mailed out to this legislature….focus tried to feed an amices brief containing the same false stuff to the Maryland legislature…it appears that the elected officials of that state were smart enough to check their facts…to bad the republican’s of New Hampshire didn’t bother…or maybe they knew but preferred a lie over the truth.

Did anybody bother to check out your sources of information?
How can they verify your information when you don't provide any links?
That's standard protocol here -- to provide your references.

It's "SughaNSpice sez" with the gay crowd buying the candy hook-line-and-sinker, as tulc's irony meter pegs out.

***Update***

I followed your recipe in my search engine and I got different results. I came up with the Family Research Council that apparantly foots the bill for the amicus curiae documents.

I also came up with this amicus curiae document for the New Jersey Supreme Court where a lower court decided against same-sex marriage. As far as I know, that decision was upheld:

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/LvHamicus.pdf

In summary, the Family Research Council has had significant influence in the legislative and judical process. They have the right as lobbiests to present their data in amicus curiae letters, just the same as the gay organizations. Apparently their information carries a lot of weight in the legal decision-making process. Personally, I don't think gay marriage has a chance in the US Supreme Court whenever that day comes. FOF and FRC are armed to the hilt.

Now somebody please re-define "monogamy" for us. <<THANK YOU>>

 

[Vene]

It was defined way back in post number 6 you even responded to it. Just because you don't like the definition doesn't mean the definition isn't valid.

 

[MercyBurst]

It was defined way back in post number 6 you even responded to it. Just because you don't like the definition doesn't mean the definition isn't valid.

Boy Vern ... you sure go heavy on the vinegar....

OK, from post #6 here is the definition of monogamy all tidied-up and answered according to Vern.

Drum roll please.......

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.

The practice of having a single sexual partner during a "period of time." A nanosecond is a "period of time". Yep Vern... it's just as clear as mud... I suppose somebody could have a dozen "monogamous relationships" in a day if they gave it their "best effort" at the local spa.

Somebody please tell me the minimum period of time for a monogamous relationship... somebody other than Vern that is....know whut I mean

 

[Vene]

Boy Vern ... you sure go heavy on the vinegar....

OK, from post #6 here is the definition of monogamy all tidied-up and answered according to Vern.

Drum roll please.......



The practice of having a single sexual partner during a "period of time." A nanosecond is a";period of time". Yep Vern... it's just as clear as mud... I suppose somebody could have a dozen "monogamous relationships" in a day if they gave it their "best effort" at the local spa.

Somebody please tell me the minimum period of time for a monogamous relationship... somebody other than Vern that is....know whut I mean

Vern? How did you know that my name was Vern? Sure, it's close to Vene, but that doesn't mean much. I think I've got me a real life internet stalker. Maybe he wants to know me a little bit better.

 

[Tenebrae]

Now I asked first and nobody answered my questions:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47475504&postcount=56

I'll state them yet again, as this forum is getting cluttered with spam, because people continue to derail the thread:

I did

you chose to ignore it

But again for your viewing pleasure

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47475949&postcount=57
Monogamy is not defined as length of a relationship


People dont have one night relationships, thats known as a one night stand, or having a booty call. The only time it would be classified as a relationship would be in the vary rare instance when a couple have married, and then one mate was killed or died from an illness within 24 hours of them getting married. But even then they have the relationship before they got married so it would be a one night marriatge but not a one night relationship


When you want to have a discussion with the correctly defined terms let me know

 

[MercyBurst]

Monogamy is not defined as length of a relationship

Apparantly monogamy isn't defined by a commitment either, in the gay view. In the OP, the relationship lasted for 3 years and both parties decided to leave each other for new partners. As you can see from the poll -- this was still considered a monogamous relationship by most of the gay-affirming polsters.

On the otherhand, the length of a relationship is critically important in a male/female marriage both legally and morally. Monogamy is defined as "forsaking all others until death do us part." Those are the vows I married to. Monagamy begins with the marriage and ends with the death of one or both spouses. Anything else is a violation of the marriage commitment vows taken by both parties, and hence fails to meet the contractual requirements of a marriage.

People dont have one night relationships, thats known as a one night stand, or having a booty call.

OK, so a one night stand isn't monogamous. If it extends to two nights, a week, a month, a year -- what about then? When does it in fact become monogamous? What is the defining moment? In a real marriage it's pretty clear when it begins and it's clear what the defining moment is. It's also clear when the rules of monogamy are violated (like having a sex-relationship on the side).

When you want to have a discussion with the correctly defined terms let me know

That's what this whole thread is about -- defining the terms. In my opinion you haven't provided the minimum requirements for a monogamous relationship. In marriage, the minimum requirement is to "forsake all others until death do us part."

In a gay relationship apparantly monogamy is "whatever you want to call it," just like gay-marriage is whutever you want to call it.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Mentiroso!

If you judge commitment by one gay couple then you must also judge commitment by a straight couple - and your entire monogamy argument is found sagging and limp, unable to lift itself from the darkest depths where you went searching to find it.

 

[Tenebrae]

How many times must it be said mercy, monomgamy is not any relationship to the length of a relationship. Monogamy relates to whether a couple are exclusive to each other eg one man, one woman, two men, two woman

Stop mis defining terms. If your hypothetical couple were exclusive to each other over the space of three years then yes they were monogamous

 

[Crazy Liz]

How many times must it be said mercy, monomgamy is not any relationship to the length of a relationship. Monogamy relates to whether a couple are exclusive to each other eg one man, one woman, two men, two woman

Stop mis defining terms. If your hypothetical couple were exclusive to each other over the space of three years then yes they were monogamous

I think he already answered that. If they intend to be monogamous, they are monogamous until they have sex with someone else, however long that may be. 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days, 10 years.

yes



Yes, we were monogamous from the same point in time when we were married.



Yes it was monogamous, because it met the conditions of marriage to: "forsake all others until death do us part". "Forsaking all others" means no extra-marital sex relationships. Extra-marital relationships are adultery and grounds for divorce, even as the Bible tells us.

On the otherhand, divorce and remarriage is not monogamy and it requires God's forgiveness for adultery, even as Jesus said. Those that are entering gay marriage from a previous divorce, or those who have enterred another relationship since their last marriage are committing adultery. They may indeed be monogamous in their current relationship, but they still need God's forgiveness for not being monogamous in their previous relationships(s).

Now I asked first and nobody answered my questions:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47475504&postcount=56

I'll state them yet again, as this forum is getting cluttered with spam, because people continue to derail the thread:

But once you vote in a poll, you can change your mind, but can't change your vote.