Homophobic Chick-fil-A take two: Now Colorado bakery REFUSES to bake wedding cake for gay couple

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>People who adopt are cruel and selfish?? Would children be better off in an orphanage?

than with gays? Yes.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Open relationships are frowned upon in man/women marriages yet are treated as common place on gay websites. Apples and oranges would be more appropriate.
Do you consider sexual exclusivity an essential part of a proper marriage?

You're stereotyping gay people far too much. Dating websites gay or straight can be suspect, I can name about 5 straight websites off the top of my head which would be considered "loose" and to do with open relationships.

I don't care if someone is an open relationship or not, it's there business, I don't agree with polygamy, but it doesn't affect how I live my life, so I let them be how they want to be, aslong as it's consenting and legal then I don't mind.

I'm monogamous, and i've been in a loving exclusive relationship for a long time now, don't lump me with polygamists just because you can't differentiate between individuals.

So in answer to your question - yes I do consider sexual exclusivity an essential part of marriage, I love my partner and I wouldn't want to share him with anyone.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
True, heterosexuals cheat on their husbands and wives which is often the reason for divorce. If two people in a homosexual relationship have no problem with their significant other having multiple sex partners than it isn't marriage as I know it.

Where are you getting this warped idea of gay people from. Each couple is individual. Gay or straight, cheating on a spouse can cause a great deal of mistrust, if the relationship was defined as monogamous.

If I was cheated on i'd feel very hurt and betrayed and I might end up leaving my partner. I can't say whether I would or not because i'm not in that situation. But you can't just say a whole group of people are ok with open relationships. I know a whole ride range of gay people, from right-wing christians who are very monogamous and married for 40 years, to those who are very loose and sleeping with a different man / woman every night.

Everyone is different.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
True, heterosexuals cheat on their husbands and wives which is often the reason for divorce. If two people in a homosexual relationship have no problem with their significant other having multiple sex partners than it isn't marriage as I know it.

So what? Maybe some homosexuals no no problem with their partner having multiple sex partners, but I'm sure that many of them DO have a problem, so your observation really isn't relevant. Perhaps they'd be more monogamous if all of them were allowed to get legally married, although, as stated earlier, it doesn't always work for heterosexuals.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, but has he been sexual monogamous? Sexual infidelity is a major cause of divorce for straight couples but doesn't seem that important in homosexual unions, so once again we are comparing apples and oranges.
7/2010
A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.
In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.
Another researcher quoted in the story explains how same-sex marriage is compatible with an “open relationship”, and that this interpretation of marriage would be a redefinition of traditional marriage.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/07/25...
Among male-female couples, it is not common to be in an “open relationship”(where one or both partners has sex with other people, and is honest about that with their partner). Open relationships are more common among gay men.
http://kinseyconfidential.org/monogamy-open-r...
When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetr...

That last is funny, because the California State form for the marriage contract doesn't include them anyway ... not even for hetero couples. California is a no-fault State. "Do you want to marry him/her?" and "Do you want to marry him/her?". Two "yeses" in front of witnesses is all it takes ... for anybody.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>than with gays? Yes.

you would rather children grow up in orphanages not knowing love from two parents simply because the perspective parents are the same sex?

Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe that's how I know that.
You prove my point everytime you open you liberal brainwashed mouth.

Wow, now you have quit making sense all together. Isn't your turn at the computer over? I'm sure the rest of the schizophrenics that live in your group home would like their turn on the internet too.
Last time I checked, a college education makes me a more valuable member of society. It provides me with better jobs, more credibility, more knowledge, more UP TO DATE knowledge, and more respect. What have you done to better YOURself besides your daily dose of hater-ade?

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, but has he been sexual monogamous? Sexual infidelity is a major cause of divorce for straight couples but doesn't seem that important in homosexual unions, so once again we are comparing apples and oranges.
7/2010
A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.
In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.
Another researcher quoted in the story explains how same-sex marriage is compatible with an “open relationship”, and that this interpretation of marriage would be a redefinition of traditional marriage.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/07/25...
Among male-female couples, it is not common to be in an “open relationship”(where one or both partners has sex with other people, and is honest about that with their partner). Open relationships are more common among gay men.
http://kinseyconfidential.org/monogamy-open-r...
When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetr...

Maybe you didn't see the words "same partner" in the original post? "Same" generally implies "one." ie: "the same ONE." Good lord. Regardless of their orientation, one couple's monogomy is none your business, none of mine, nor anyone else's. That's their private business. Personally, I know very few people gay, or straight that prefer an open relationship. Men seem to be sluts by nature. It has nothing to do with orientation. So it makes sense that most men, gay or straight, are going to sample all the flavors before choosing their favorite. To each, his own.

Secondly, your stats and surverys are just fine and dandy, but I personally think people can be very dishonest when responding to those kinds of questions. Could it be that gay men understand each other on a level that heterosexual couples do not, and therefore are more likely to admit their desire for an open relationship while the straight men know if they ever speak up (or admit to previous infidelity) they will NEVER again be invited back into their marriage bed?

Third, this is yet another attack purely on male homosexuals. You throw out all these stats about "gays" and "homos" and completely leave out the female versions. I see this is a pattern on these forums and I just wonder... WHY?

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Open relationships are frowned upon in man/women marriages yet are treated as common place on gay websites. Apples and oranges would be more appropriate.
Do you consider sexual exclusivity an essential part of a proper marriage?

LOL wow! I've been gay my WHOLE life and I've yet to see one of these websites. Maybe you should stop surfing "annonymous gay sex" websites and actually try to get to know the community if you're so curious about our ratio of monogamy to non monogamy. I guarantee reality will look quite different.

And now I'm curious... why ARE you checking out all these slutty gay boy websites anyway?

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
than with gays? Yes.

I'd like to see your research on that. I'll gladly show you mine. By the way, I got an A+ on that paper. The class was child psychology.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Er.. wouldn't that be your job or are you just lazy?

No, I just wonder if you bother to compare or just pick and choose to demonstrate your opinion and play it off as fact.

DaveinMass wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot to discuss how the straight community treats this issue, how they let the world know they are straight.
They announce their weddings in the local papers so everyone will know they are marrying.
They conspicuously wear special rings to announce their straightness.
They hold special dances for their young. Proms and debutant balls.
Some will cover their desk or cubicle at work with pictures of their 'spouse'.
They have the gall to tell their co-workers what they did with their 'spouse' over the weekend.
They rush to human resources to upgrade their health insurance plans tax free.
They force public displays of affection on complete strangers walking down the street.
--
Every time one of the haters says gays 'flaunt' their lifestyle in peoples' faces and want us to 'keep it to ourselves', I just wish they could have an ounce of empathy and try to imagine what they would change to keep their 'lifestyle' to themselves.
(Disclaimer: Extreme sarcasm intended.)

RIGHT!? It's all just so disgusting. I mean... When I walk down the street with my 6 year old and she sees a man kiss a woman or some flamboyant half dressed straight couple embracing or holding hands, how am I supposed to explain that?! I don't want my children exposed to that filth. ;)

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you saying that a Same-Sex couple who is married, that they're marriage is not as long as that of an opposite-sex couple who is married?

Do you have stats to back up this claim? or are you just pulling that shiet outta your azz?

I have to admit that it has been a while for the numbers (early 200's) but I doubt it has changed much. I'll find the details.

zenvis wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to admit that it has been a while for the numbers (early 200's) but I doubt it has changed much. I'll find the details.

Don't bother, I can already tell you that your research is flawed. You need to learn about proper population samples and comparisons because You are going to be comparing millions of straight married couples, including OLD people that have been married for 40, 50, 60 years. While gay people have only been allowed to marry for a few years. Therefore, all of your stats on gay marriage are only going to be valid as far back as the first legal marriage. See the problem? You can't compare couples married for 50 years to a handful of people that have only been allowed to marry for about the last 10 years! You would have to compare a percentage of each of each population in marriages in the time that they have BOTH been able to marry.

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL wow! I've been gay my WHOLE life and I've yet to see one of these websites. Maybe you should stop surfing "annonymous gay sex" websites and actually try to get to know the community if you're so curious about our ratio of monogamy to non monogamy. I guarantee reality will look quite different.
And now I'm curious... why ARE you checking out all these slutty gay boy websites anyway?

Isn't it obvious? Downhill is checking out the gay hook-up sites for exactly the same reason as all the other married straight men on the sites.

zenvis wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to admit that it has been a while for the numbers (early 200's) but I doubt it has changed much. I'll find the details.

Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage between same-sex partners was first recognized in The Netherlands in 2001. So you don't have statistics from the "early 200's." Unless, of course, you're referring to the same-sex unions in the early Christian church. I think you will find, however, that those records are sparse and non-indicative.

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>I'd like to see your research on that. I'll gladly show you mine. By the way, I got an A+ on that paper. The class was child psychology.

well good for you

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
well good for you

Did I mention the outcome of my study was that there is no significant difference between children raised by gay parents and children raised by straight parents?

If you're going to say something, you might want to be able to back it up. Not everyone on these forums are teenagers, hermits, and uneducated hicks.

Kesla15 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're stereotyping gay people far too much.

I find it funny that gays refer to heteros who are only recounting the typical witnessed/demonstrable/observe d behavior of practiced promiscuity amongst the gay community as "stereotyping" them.

We're just calling it as we've seen it and wouldn't have it to recount here if the gay community weren't a bunch of sluts.

Same goes for the spread of numerous/ALL STD's!

Just saying.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly......I have the same natural intrinsic attractions to women as you do!!!
The only choice I made was to not live in denial.......and yes, I made the choice to enter into a relationship with my wife.....even to marry her:-)

Granted, it IS 'naturally intrinsic' to be attracted to Beauty which, as it just so happens, comes in a great many shapes and forms in this world, in this Universe, and even within our very selves.

As a matter of fact Beauty is so mercurial, so fluidic, in its nature that it can be found in something as seemingly insignificant as silence (just ask someone who has moved to the suburbs, or a rural area even, after having lived in the city for years), such is the way of Beauty that it can be found where ever any of us may choose to look or conceive of.

As such, there is nothing at all wrong with the acknowledgement or recognition of Beauty in another person, but that does not mean that one should physically interact with them in a manner that is against our intrinsic, biological nature merely because we find them appealing to the eye...At some point in the interaction between recognition and action conscience must come into play so that the initial attraction wanes and ones' attentions are turned towards those of the opposite sex, as is the genetically-based intention of our beings.