Gay Patriot Header Image

Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?

Before Andrew Sullivan decided that the purpose of gay marriage was to confer “dignity” on gay relationships (a definition ironically bought by the California Supreme Court), he made perhaps the most solid social argument for extending state recognition of marriage to same-sex couples.

In his landmark 1989 essay, “Here Comes the Groom,” what he called a “socially conservative” argument for gay marriage, Andrew claimed the institution is “good for gays” as it “provides role models for young gay people who, after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity with no tangible goal in sight.”

If the experience of Patrick Range McDonald, an openly gay writer for the LA Weekly (and correspondent of Bruce and myself) is any indication, the recent spate of gay weddings in California appears to be proving the point Andrew made now nearly twenty years ago. After covering the gay weddings this week in West Hollywood for his paper, Patrick wrote me (and granted me permission to publish his comments):

The wedding on Monday touched my deeply. I don’t feel any peer pressure to get married, which I think some gays may be feeling these days, but it made me realize how nice it would be to go forward in life with another man as my husband. Life turns into something bigger than yourself, and I like the idea of that.

Maybe gay marriage will indeed promote the cultural change Andrew once (and may still) advocated.

Yet, other evidence suggests that for many gay men, marriage does not impose the same requirements on them as it has on heterosexual couples. According to the New York Times, one “married”* gay man, Eric Erbelding says, “men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything,” adding that while “most married gay couples he knows are ‘for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.’”

Sorry, Eric, that ain’t marriage. If you want to engage in occasional threesomes or any other extramarital liaisons, you should certainly be free to do so, but once you do, you can’t call yourself married. Nor should a swinging heterosexual couple call their non-exclusive union marriage.

With advocates like Erbelding, no wonder Maggie Gallagher (whose National Review article alerted me to the Times piece) claims “the conservative case for same-sex marriage is looking pretty tattered.”

She contends current evidence suggests marriage will not help tame what Erbelding might call men’s piggishness. Taming such “piggishness” has been one of the institution’s many purposes for as long as it’s existed.

Unfortunately, Gallagher conflates her argument with another, contending gay marriage will limit religious freedom, a point Dale Carpenter effectively demolishes in this piece, noting the problem is not so much state-sanctioned gay marriage as it is non-discrimination laws. Dale’s post helps make my point about the detrimental effects of such laws.

While I don’t agree with everything Maggie and Dale have to say in their respective pieces, each makes strong points. I recommend their pieces highly. We do need address the problem Maggie raises about gay men wanting marriage without the monogamy long associated with the institution.

If gay marriage is to have any meaning, its advocates must take issue people like Eric Erbelding who wish to redefine the institution so it does not limit their ability to mess around with someone other than their partner. If they want an open relationship, fine, just don’t call it marriage.

Those who are serious about gay marriage should call him — and others like him — on their failure to acknowledge monogamy as a defining aspect of the institution..

Please contact me if you find other gay bloggers, pundits or activists taking issue with such redefinition and I promise to link them in this post.

________

*Here I put marriage in quotation remarks as Mr. Erbelding and his partner have a rule allowing each other to play around. I would hardly consider a heterosexual man married if he and his wife had a rule allowing extramarital liaisons.

Share

54 Comments

  1. If I remember correctly they estimate approximately 2% of gays in Europe have taken advantage of gay marriage. If that’s the case it would argue that no, marriage doesn’t civilize gay men.

    And of those I wonder how many are “open” marriages. Its not the law that needs to change, its attitudes. And I see no evidence that the gay community has any intention whatsoever of changing their attitudes. Indeed, they appear determined to make society conform to them.

    The argument may be that marriage will civilize gay men, but the evidence isn’t there to support it. Just like with the entire Obama campaign, hope is not a sound foundation for policy change.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 8:42 pm - June 18, 2008

  2. The men who go around saying “Men are pigs” are the pigs in question. Like all who say “Isn’t everyone doing it?” to try and justify their particular vice, they are only confessing their vice.

    I speak from experience – both as observer of men (piggish or otherwise) and as an ex-pig. I know the call of the wild quite well. I know equally as well that anyone who wants to be a mensch, a **human** being – i.e., more than an animal – can put the animal in its place. This web site (with which I am NOT connected) can be a good starting point for some: http://rational.org

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2008 @ 8:56 pm - June 18, 2008

  3. but it made me realize how nice it would be to go forward in life with another man as my husband. Life turns into something bigger than yourself, and I like the idea of that.

    Absolutely, it’s a lovely thought.

    But it doesn’t in the least require marriage, nor will marriage magically make it happen.

    The fact that liberal gays want poly and promiscuous relationships to be counted as marriage should surprise no one; after all, that’s what the Beyond Marriage screed openly and flatly stated just a few years ago.

    All that the amendment supporters in California need do is to point out that gays and lesbians see monogamy as useless and quaint and insist that they should be as promiscuous as they want without penalty.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 18, 2008 @ 10:00 pm - June 18, 2008

  4. Of course, I know, many men cheat on their wives. But they almost never define their marriage as something that accommodates adultery. David Benkof, quoted by Maggie Gallagher

    That is a key point, not all marriages fail due to infidelity – but I’ve yet to see anyone state that infidelity is an accepted part of marriage. It is always outside the norm and in most cases – leads to the end of the marriage.

    This is what I find so troubling about gay marriage, they want into an institution for the ‘rights’ but off the bat are changing the definition to accommodate themselves. Rather than saying, we are mature enough to understand that if we want into this institution, we will play by the set rules, rather than changing them.

    By weakening the definition of marriage, they are making it easier for hetero men to remain pigs. Next time someone asks me how Steve and Adam being married hurts my marriage – here’s my answer: they have made it acceptable for people to cheat on their spouse, since manogomy is no longer required.

    Comment by Leah — June 18, 2008 @ 10:04 pm - June 18, 2008

  5. Next time someone asks me how Steve and Adam being married hurts my marriage – here’s my answer: they have made it [socially] acceptable for people to cheat on their spouse, since monogomy is no longer required.

    First time anyone has had an answer in that area that makes me stop and think.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - June 18, 2008

  6. I think one answer you’ll hear is that if society’s expectations of monogamy are the only thing keeping some woman’s husband from cheating – rather than, say, love, or the husband’s moral character – then that woman’s marriage was already in big trouble.

    Having given that answer – it is a “micro” level answer, an answer that focuses on individual situations, rather than a public policy or “macro” level answer. From a public policy standpoint, we should want marriage to come with an expectation of mongamy. And I have long thought (and occasionally said) that gay marriage would be a much easier ‘sell’ if gay people could show that they understood and valued the institution: including gay men upholding monogamy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2008 @ 10:22 pm - June 18, 2008

  7. ILC, a number of years ago Dan linked to a very long article by Megan McCardle. At that time she was blogging under the name Jane Galt. She talked about major social changes in society that weren’t going to change much, since only a few people would be affected.

    First was the ease of divorce – only really miserable people would want out, and the social stigma would prevent it from becoming wide spread. The exact opposite happened.

    Second was welfare – to help widows and orphans. Well before you knew it, unwed mothers were the norm and not stigmatized anymore.

    So often that ‘nice’ idea that will only affect a few people is blown out of proportion. The social stigma – shame, that is supposed to prevent that from happening goes out the window.

    Marriage isn’t easy – it civilizes both men and women. With men, it is their ‘piggishness’. With women – it is their overused sense of justice based only on emotion.

    Once you have changed the definition of marriage – that monogamy is no longer a requirement, you won’t be able to say: that only applies to gay men. All men (well those who want to cheat) will say these are the new rules of marriage. Instead of working on their impulses, and making sex work within the marriage – they have their out.

    The one thing I find reassuring is that the number of gay marriages in Mass. and Canada are dropping. Maybe that has to do with divorce laws. My hope is that it is really only the serious ones who are getting married. The ones who would have formed solid, loving, monogamous relationships regardless of the government imprimatur.

    Comment by Leah — June 18, 2008 @ 10:32 pm - June 18, 2008

  8. because heterosexuals reproduce society and you and your boyfriend do not and cannot.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 10:47 pm - June 18, 2008

  9. and by the way, no one is denying you the opportunity to provide for the one you love.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - June 18, 2008

  10. #7: “Once you have changed the definition of marriage – that monogamy is no longer a requirement, you won’t be able to say: that only applies to gay men. All men (well those who want to cheat) will say these are the new rules of marriage. Instead of working on their impulses, and making sex work within the marriage – they have their out.”

    Well said, Leah. A perfect articulation of the threat gay marriage poses to heterosexual marriage. The fact that marital infidelity among heterosexual couples still carries at least SOME degree of societal condemnation is one of the straining threads holding the institution together in these days of quickie divorces. You hit the nail on the head, but just in case anyone doubts your point, you can thank markie for helping to convince them:

    “he he he, it not a matter of monogamy. it’s a matter of why should i have to support heterosexual proclivities and be denied providing for the one i love.”

    Yuck. Without a doubt, one of the most vile, cavalier expressions of gay nihilism (and narcissism) I’ve ever read on this blog or elsewhere. Heterosexual proclivities? No doubt markie spends a great deal of time ranting and raving about those evil right-wing Christians that have the temerity to suggest that gays are out to destroy heterosexual marriage. It would appear from markie’s foul statements that they aren’t completely making it up.

    Oh man. Until now, I had been picturing markie as a garden-variety, ignorant, bitter, insecure, friendless, unattractive, harmless misfit that was either 40 pounds underweight or 140 pounds overweight. (You know, KosKid.) But his comments on this thread…Jesus…what a creep. I’m picturing…meticulously grand doll collection, rohypnol in the fridge butter compartment (just in case), 900 sq ft house inherited from grandmother, same wallpaper, some Franklin Mint, locked briefcase of seriously perverse weirdo-porn he had to order from Ecuador, definite it-puts-the-lotion-on-its-skin-vibe…

    Comment by Sean A — June 19, 2008 @ 2:05 am - June 19, 2008

  11. I think one answer you’ll hear is that if society’s expectations of monogamy are the only thing keeping some woman’s husband from cheating – rather than, say, love, or the husband’s moral character – then that woman’s marriage was already in big trouble.

    But, in this case, ILC, you have people flat-out SAYING they are going to be promiscuous and not monogamous. It’s hard to say someone’s marriage is “in trouble” because of promiscuity when people are turning around and flat-out endorsing that piggish behavior as “normal” for gay couples.

    Not even Hollywood celebrities are that stupid.

    The fact that a gay person actually said this, to the New York Times no less, proves one of four things:

    1) He is a moron

    2) He is supremely self-confident that no other gay person would dare criticize him

    3) He believes that liberals and the Democrat Party will support his decision

    4) All of the above.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2008 @ 2:15 am - June 19, 2008

  12. Leah writes:

    not all marriages fail due to infidelity – but I’ve yet to see anyone state that infidelity is an accepted part of marriage.

    Exactly.

    It’s one thing to slip up. But, for Eric Erberling, an “indiscretion” is not slipping up; it’s part of the agreement.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2008 @ 3:05 am - June 19, 2008

  13. [This commenter has been repeatedly banned for his/her inability to maintain the community code of conduct.]

    Comment by markie — June 19, 2008 @ 9:51 am - June 19, 2008

  14. based on many of points made regarding the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage, it would appear that unless children are produced the marriage is null and void.

    Here we go with Lib tactics again. Everything is black and white, no gray areas whatsoever.

    All traditions, laws, social constructs are based on the majority of the cases. Yes marriage is intended to unify two adults of the opposite sex, as well as the families they represent. The desired outcome is children.
    No one but a liberal says that if you don’t fulfill the child obligation – the marriage is void. No one says that people beyond the age of childbearing can’t get married. The ides of dinks was made possible only 40 years ago with the availability of the pill.
    The lack of children in many cases has led to a higher divorce rate. The couple still view themselves as selfish individuals. When their own needs aren’t met – the marriage is over.
    On the other hand, when you have a child, you are forced to place your needs after his/hers.

    Every time I hear of a gay couple who have adopted or had a child through suragecy, I celebrate. Children aren’t an insurance policy against divorce – but they go a long way to making two individuals into a family unit.

    Comment by Leah — June 19, 2008 @ 11:08 am - June 19, 2008

  15. Furthermore, Leah, you can point out the fallacy with a few points.

    1) While it is certainly possible that a heterosexual couple will not have their own children, it is absolutely certain that a heterosexual couple will not.

    2) Heterosexual couples may choose whether or not to have a child themselves, but it is impossible for a homosexual couple to choose to have a child themselves.

    3) Heterosexual sex can produce children that belong to both members of the couple without assistance and whether planned or not, but homosexual sex can never produce children that belong to both members of the couple, regardless of how much planning or assistance is done.

    4) Heterosexuality exists and can perpetuate itself without homosexuality, but homosexuality absolutely cannot exist or perpetuate itself without heterosexuality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2008 @ 1:27 pm - June 19, 2008

  16. No one is saying to anyone else, they have to get married. You want to get gay married, then go ahead. How you operate or function within that marriage is yours and your spouse’s choice. That may include monogamy or permiscuity. Children certainly aren’t a requirement or basis of marriage. If it is, then I guess all those couples in California better start adopting.

    That being said, the gay community is more permiscious, in my opinion, because we don’t have those role models, except for maybe our parents. It is way too early to tell how equal marriage will affect the gay community. There is a chance that once we have the right, more and more couple will get married and be monogamous. And then there is the chance that they won’t really care and go on living their lives. The reality is that the gay community is supposed to be accepting, or at least tolerant, of everyone. We are one of the most diverse communities in the world. The least we can do is respect one’s choice to do what they want with their own life.

    Comment by Daspion — June 19, 2008 @ 1:41 pm - June 19, 2008

  17. this blog is so queer

    I thought in the gay world that was a compliment!

    Comment by Leah — June 19, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - June 19, 2008

  18. It is putting respectability to a situation. But, a document is not behavior. A pig is a pig.

    Comment by Richard — June 19, 2008 @ 3:24 pm - June 19, 2008

  19. Unfortunately, Daspion, marriage is not a matter of “privacy”, inasmuch as it revolves around the granting of PUBLIC privileges and benefits.

    Simply put, if the government is going to give you tax breaks or other things, it is perfectly legitimate to attach strings based on your behavior. Classic example: in 2006, when the domestic partnership laws were equalized here in California, gays and lesbians started screaming bloody murder about how “unfair” it was that they would be subjected to the household limits on disability payments (a married couple gets a combined payment that is less than the combined value of two single peoples’ payments). That limit exists because married/partnered couples are EXPECTED to be financially responsible for each other and produce efficiencies in living through shared expenses, i.e. being able to live in the same apartment. But gays and lesbians didn’t want to accept that; they demanded that the government pay them as if they were single EVEN THOUGH they were enjoying all the privileges and benefits of marriage.

    Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

    That being said, the gay community is more permiscious, in my opinion, because we don’t have those role models, except for maybe our parents.

    What? The gay community insists that there are no differences whatsoever between gay and straight couples. Therefore, if there are no differences whatsoever, then heterosexual parents ought to be perfectly good role models for what gay and lesbian relationships should emulate.

    What’s happening here is that gay and lesbian couples insist that they should have the same thing, but they don’t want to follow the same rule or example. They insist that gay couples are the same when it comes to demanding benefits and privileges, but they insist that they are different when it comes to following the same rules and examples.

    Again, pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. Eric Erbelding wants to have all the things that married couples do while continuing his promiscuous lifestyle.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - June 19, 2008

  20. I find the complaint about homosexuals, now that they are married, trying to further change the definition of marriage to include multiple partners, a bit ironic. I have often said that if you or some judge or a legislator is able to change the definition marriage, then anyone can change it to whatever they want. Of course this was called a slippery slope argument and the response was the predictable name calling. “Homophobe”, etc… But it only took two days of legalization before I see the pro-gay marriage advocates already trying to redefine it further.

    This was NEVER about equal rights. Gay couples already had that. It was ALWAYS about a word – “marriage”. They wanted to take it and redefine the very word. They are stealing something that belongs to the past 6,000 years of human history. How does gay marriage hurt my heterosexual marriage, because now I’m not sure what the word even means anymore or will mean in the future. These people have made a mockery of my and my husband’s faithful committment. Get your own word if it’s only about rights and define it any way you want!!

    Comment by Michelle — June 19, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - June 19, 2008

  21. Children certainly aren’t a requirement or basis of marriage.

    No, its not a requirement that anyone have children. The government would have no right to demand it. But children are the reason government is involved in marriage in the first place. You see, when we encourage men and women to pair up and bind themselves legally, then when children are born, they will be raised by their biological parents and the legal ties will make it much less likely that either of the parents will skip out on them. Children raised by their biological parents. That really is the only interest government has in marriage to begin with.

    There is a chance that once we have the right, more and more couple will get married and be monogamous. And then there is the chance that they won’t really care and go on living their lives.

    Theres also a very likely chance that they will get married and continue to be promiscuous anyway, dragging attitudes towards the institution down with them. But the point is, marriage isnt a social experiment. Its the fundamental building block of society. When marriage rates decline, its bad for society. When out of wedlock births increase its bad for society. When birth rates decrease, its bad for society. And when an institution is so important to society you dont fundamentally change the definition to see what will happen.

    hahahahaha. thats a good one. here’s an experiment for you. go into a gay chat room and mention Jesus. Just in some non confrontational way, and watch all the tolerance that ensues.
    We are one of the most diverse communities in the world

    the gay “community” is one of the most homogenous lockstep groups there is.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 19, 2008 @ 8:40 pm - June 19, 2008

  22. The desired outcome is children.
    No one but a liberal says that if you don’t fulfill the child obligation – the marriage is void.

    Leah, at the risk of being a dreaded “liberal”, I have to disagree with you here. Another desired outcome of a State marriage license is the formation of a mini-mutual-welfare system between the adults involved. Many states impose VD tests, but none that I know of impose fertility tests: in other words, the State understands the couple will be having sex and wants them to bond sexually (among other ways) and care for each other, but doesn’t inquire if they are even capable of having kids.

    Going on to some others…

    1) While it is certainly possible that a heterosexual couple will not have their own children, it is absolutely certain that a heterosexual [sic; homosexual] couple will not.

    No it isn’t. A homosexual couple is reproductively equivalent to a heterosexual couple where one of the partners is infertile; that is, *as a couple* they can choose to raise children together and, with the assistance of technology and outsiders, to bring forth new children that are genetically related to at least one of them. (Both, within the next decade.)

    It is way too early to tell how equal marriage will affect the gay community.

    Agreed.

    …homosexuals, now that they are married, [are] trying to further change the definition of marriage to include multiple partners…

    I’ve seen nothing like that, Michelle. Kindly provide an example we can look at.

    children are the reason government is involved in marriage in the first place

    Yes… one of the reasons. (See above for another.)

    And when an institution is so important to society you dont fundamentally change the definition to see what will happen.

    That is what people once argued about changes to institutions such as work arrangements (indentured servitude, slavery, etc.), financial relations (poor houses), governing institutions (monarchy), religion (having the State establish one), and so forth. Just because a change is proposed to a basic institution, doesn’t mean it’s good – or bad. Time will tell. The Framers of the Constitution set up a federal system partly in hopes that the People could experiment differently in different States.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - June 19, 2008

  23. I was referring to the original post, quoted below.

    According to the New York Times, one “married”* gay man, Eric Erbelding says, “men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything,” adding that while “most married gay couples he knows are ‘for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.’”

    Sorry, Eric, that ain’t marriage. If you want to engage in occasional threesomes or any other extramarital liaisons, you should certainly be free to do so, but once you do, you can’t call yourself married. Nor should a swinging heterosexual couple call their non-exclusive union marriage.

    I was referring to the original post, quoted below.

    Comment by Michelle — June 20, 2008 @ 12:10 am - June 20, 2008

  24. A homosexual couple is reproductively equivalent to a heterosexual couple where one of the partners is infertile;

    When a heterosexual couple is infertile, there’s something wrong with at least one of the members physically. On the other hand, even the most physically healthy homosexual couple is infertile.

    The vast majority of heterosexuals do not need help to produce children. ALL homosexual couples, no exceptions, do. Homosexual families cannot exist without heterosexuality, since homosexuality cannot produce children.

    It is that deep, fundamental, and abiding biological truth that is why there is no issue whatsoever with treating homosexual and heterosexual couples differently.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2008 @ 3:23 am - June 20, 2008

  25. Another desired outcome of a State marriage license is the formation of a mini-mutual-welfare system between the adults involved.

    If that were the case, there would be no valid rationale for limiting marriage in any way. Siblings can take care of one another. A group can take care of one another better than a couple.

    The desired outcome is children.

    Kind of. the desired outcome is that children be born into stable, legally binding relationships between their biological parents. the state has not involved itself, nor should it, in telling people to procreate.

    [the state] doesn’t inquire if they are even capable of having kids.

    It doesn’t need to. By simple encouraging men and women to couple it is encouraging the desired outcome.

    No it isn’t. A homosexual couple is reproductively equivalent to a heterosexual couple where one of the partners is infertile

    No, they really aren’t. There is always the couple who has been unable to conceive for years then suddenly does when they least expect it, and there is also always the possibility that the infertility could be treated or cured. But more importantly, the gay couple is not morally equivalent to the heterosexual couple. the sexes are different. they are not interchangeable. two men are not equivalent to a mother and a father.

    to bring forth new children that are genetically related to… [b]oth, within the next decade.

    Ah yes, the Frankenchild argument. Even if this were to become possible, which I don’t believe it will, I don’t think for a minute that society will allow it, nor should they, for the same reasons human cloning won’t be allowed. Let’s put aside the theological arguments and whether or not these children would even have souls, advances in cloning have come about through trial and error. The errors being animals born terribly deformed, or that only lived for a few days, weeks or a few years. Society will never allow that type of experimentation on humans, and God help us if we ever do just so that gays who are supremely fucked up in the head can pretend that they made a baby together. Talk about the ultimate expression of selfishness, narcissism and moral indifference. I’m sorry, but its simply repugnant.

    Yes… one of the reasons [government is involved in marriage in the first place]. (See above for another.)

    Yes, I saw that, and while you may think that is one of the reasons, that has not been a reason given by any legislature or initiative of the people. But they have clearly stated that the purpose is to encourage the best possible scenario for child rearing. Again, the purpose of civil marriage is something the people get to decide as a whole, it is not up to judges or individual opinion.

    That is what people once argued about changes to institutions such as work arrangements (indentured servitude, slavery, etc.)

    I can’t believe you’re comparing the inability of gay couples to have their relationships subsidized by the taxpayer to slavery. I know you know better than that ,ILC! But in case you don’t.
    1. Slavery is not the fundamental building block of society, nor is it even necessary
    2. Marriage is
    3. Slavery is the denial of God given inalienable rights.
    4. Gays are being denied popular approval of their relationships, which is all marriage is, a set of incentives to encourage a behavior society deems beneficial. And no one ever has a right to another’s approval.

    financial relations (poor houses)

    poor houses are a welfare program, not a fundamental building block.

    governing institutions (monarchy), religion (having the State establish one)

    the right of the people to determine how they are governed and freedom of religious are also God given, inalienable rights. Society’s approval of your relationship is not. Moreover, changing the institution of monarchy in favor of self rule is not an experiment to see what will happen. The goal of self rule is known, and overturning monarchy is the necessary means to get there. Gay marriage proponents have no idea what will happen to the institution of marriage or society if gay marriage is approved, they have only a stated goal (by some), of trying to civilize gay men. Unlike your examples, there is no evidence that changing the institution would even produce the desired results in the first place.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 20, 2008 @ 6:01 am - June 20, 2008

  26. Has anyone ever heard of this:

    I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

    Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.

    Comment by Vince P — June 20, 2008 @ 9:09 am - June 20, 2008

  27. When a heterosexual couple is infertile, there’s something wrong with at least one of the members physically. On the other hand, even the most physically healthy homosexual couple is infertile.

    Yes. Which in NO way affects or alters my point:

    A homosexual couple is *reproductively* [emphasis added] equivalent to a heterosexual couple where one of the partners is infertile

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 10:11 am - June 20, 2008

  28. I was referring to the original post [about Erbelding].

    Thank you, Michelle!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 10:15 am - June 20, 2008

  29. AE, I’m sorry, I normally respect you tons, but you’ve written a post where almost every point is flawed. I will only respond to a subset of points, for lack of time.

    If that were the case [that one goal of a State marriage license is to get grownups to settle down into mini-welfare societies of 2], there would be no valid rationale for limiting marriage in any way. Siblings can take care of one another. A group can take care of one another better than a couple.

    How many siblings normally do that, to the degree married couples can and do? (Or, for that matter, ought to?) And how many groups? And why do States blithely issue tens of thousands upon thousands of marriage licenses each year to couples that are *blatantly, obviously* infertile? (woman in her 80s, say)

    Anyway, your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. Paraphrasing, ‘If one State goal in issuing licenses for marriage is to have unrelated grownups pairing off in mini-welfare societies, then there would be no valid rationale for limiting marriage in any way’…. huh???????????! Achievement of *any* policy goal through a State licensing procedure, *by definition* requires that the State impose limiting qualifications (which, of course, it can adjust later).

    Society will never allow that type of experimentation on humans

    Sorry, it’s already happening.

    I can’t believe you’re comparing the inability of gay couples to have their relationships subsidized by the taxpayer to slavery blah blah blah…

    Except I didn’t.

    Rather, I noted that *the following argument*

    “And when an institution is so important to society you dont fundamentally change the definition to see what will happen”

    is an argument I don’t respect, because of its past use against a vast array of “experiments” on basic institutions that turned out to be beneficial experiements. That’s what I did.

    Slavery is not the fundamental building block of society, nor is it even necessary

    Human societies didn’t think that for thousands of years. It took the Industrial Revolution / America / Britain / capitalism to demonstrate otherwise, and even then, many people fought it to the death, motivated by arguments (among others) such as “How dare you change a basic social institution!” And that’s only been in the last 150-200 years.

    I seriously doubt that history will prove us anti-slavery types wrong, but you never know. Some today still practice slavery (out of the public eye). And some say that a capitalist / industrial / anti-slavery society is not “sustainable”. We’ll see.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 20, 2008 @ 10:47 am - June 20, 2008

  30. How many siblings normally do that, to the degree married couples can and do? (Or, for that matter, ought to?) And how many groups?

    Normally they don’t, but that’s not terribly surprising; society currently makes it illegal for you to act exactly towards your sibling or a group of people as you would your spouse.

    The question is, ILC, why you are using the formation of a mini-mutual welfare system as justification for one set of adult relationships receiving legal recognition, but not other ones like sibling-sibling or group relationships.

    And why do States blithely issue tens of thousands upon thousands of marriage licenses each year to couples that are *blatantly, obviously* infertile? (woman in her 80s, say)

    If I were to pick 100 heterosexual couples at random, it would be impossible for me to predict with any degree of accuracy whether or not they would be fertile and capable of producing their own children together. However, if I were to pick 100 homosexual couples at random, I can predict exactly how many of them are fertile and capable of producing their own children together — 0%.

    Your “woman in her 80s” argument is taking a specific group of heterosexuals and generalizing onto all heterosexuals. You are using what is clearly the exception to generate the rule.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - June 20, 2008

  31. Ilc, you are right, another reason the State supports marriage is so the couple will take care of each other – rather than the State. In the old days, it was the children’s responsibility to take care of their aging parents as well.

    There was never any thought that siblings needed a governmental stamp of approval either. They are already family, once again, in the old days it was very common for unmarried, or widowed siblings to set up house together when they were older.

    Marriage is the union of two unrelated people, of the opposite sex, who will hopefully create their own family structure that will take care of their own.

    One can’t look at every exception and say: gotcha. Every rule will have exceptions. Personally, I wish we had given the Domestic Partnership a chance here in CA. Down the line, people may have seen that it helped Gays and society, and had been willing to say, gee maybe gays fit into the mold of marriage.

    Our problem is we want something, we want it now and damn the consequences!

    Comment by Leah — June 20, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - June 20, 2008

  32. I’m sorry ILC,

    I respect you very much as well, but I assure you, it is your reasoning that is flawed, nor mine :) Case in point:

    ‘If one State goal in issuing licenses for marriage is to have unrelated grownups pairing off in mini-welfare societies, then there would be no valid rationale for limiting marriage in any way’…. huh???????????!

    You threw in the word “unrelated” in order to make your reasoning work, but it is the “unrelated” that is precisely what is arbitrary in your stated goal.

    If the goal is for people to take care of eachother (a goal which, I remind you, you have made up out of whole cloth and has been proffered by no legislature or initiative of the people), then whether they are related to one another is irrelevant.

    It is only when the purpose of marriage centers on procreation that the relationship between the parties has any significance at all. If the goal is taking care of one another, that can be accomplished by any two or more people, and as I said before, groups would actually be BETTER at it than couples.

    ALL the restrictions on marriage exist because the goal, as legislatures have confirmed, is promoting the nuclear family, and they all become arbitrary if the goal is something else.

    Achievement of *any* policy goal through a State licensing procedure, *by definition* requires that the State impose limiting qualifications

    The problem for your argument is that those limiting qualifications can’t be arbitrary — as saying that only unrelated people can get government goodies for taking care of one another would be. Only people who lack the ability or maturity to drive can be denied drivers licenses. No one, other than criminals, can be denied a passport. And the only couples who can be denied marriage licenses are those who arent old enough to consent, who are related closely enough that birth defects become a concern, and who dont possess the requisite genitalia. Restrictions that are all relevant in procreation, but which are all arbitrary in regards to taking care of one another.

    Sorry, [same-sex reproduction in humans] already happening.

    It is? I was completely unaware of this. Could you provide a source?

    Except I didn’t [compare gay marriage to slavery]

    I’m sorry, you did, and you continue to:

    I seriously doubt that history will prove us anti-slavery types wrong, but you never know. Some today still practice slavery (out of the public eye). And some say that a capitalist / industrial / anti-slavery society is not “sustainable”. We’ll see.

    A comparison that is ridiculous, not to mention offensive. Slaves were denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gays couples are being denied a pat on the head and a cookie from their fellow citizens. Society ceases to exist without reproduction — it is necessary. the fact that some people said slavery was necessary does not make it so. And unless you care to argue that reproduction is not necessary, this is easily the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen you make.

    is an argument I don’t respect, because of its past use against a vast array of “experiments” on basic institutions that turned out to be beneficial experiements. That’s what I did.

    No, what you did is make bad and invalid comparisons.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm - June 20, 2008

  33. Ilc, you are right, another reason the State supports marriage is so the couple will take care of each other

    I’m sorry, if you want to assert this, you have to provide the legislation or initiative that says so. Just as judges don’t get to decide what the purpose of marriage is, neither do individuals. I have seen the legislatures assert that promoting the nuclear family is the purpose of marriage, but i havent seen any say that taking care of each other is.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 20, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - June 20, 2008

  34. [...] after posting my piece, Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?, I considered contacting the leading national gay organizations, California groups and other [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Discussing Marriage — June 20, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - June 20, 2008

  35. AE, I’m gonna be honest. One thing I don’t respect about you is when you stick stubbornly to straw men / false accusations. My patience with such behavior, and the people who engage it in stubbornly, does not last very long.

    Anyone can check what I said. Here it is:

    [responding to:] And when an institution is so important to society you dont fundamentally change the definition to see what will happen.

    [I said:] That [line of argument] is what people once argued about **CHANGES** [emphasis added] to institutions such as work arrangements (indentured servitude, slavery, etc.), financial relations (poor houses), governing institutions (monarchy), religion (having the State establish one), and so forth. Just because a change is proposed to a basic institution, doesn’t mean it’s good – or bad.

    Let those with eyes to see, see now. And let AE keep arguing with his own straw men ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 11:02 am - June 21, 2008

  36. One can’t look at every exception and say: gotcha.

    Leah, why have any exceptions then? In other words, why isn’t an 80 year old woman automatically denied a marriage license?

    As NDT might say, if you have 100 random married couples where the wife is at least 70 on an island, I can predict how many children there will be, 0. Yet, we still issue marriage licenses to these women.

    Your “woman in her 80s” argument is taking a specific group of heterosexuals and generalizing onto all heterosexuals. You are using what is clearly the exception to generate the rule.

    NDT, you’re taking obvious biological facts, which no one is arguing, and arbitrarily making conclusions from it as if your stating of those facts by itself justify it.

    As for changing institutions, ILC made a compelling argument for at least considering change long standing and traditional institutions. In fact, marriage has changed during the course of time anyway, and IMO, for the better. Now many of us advocate one more change.

    Comment by Pat — June 21, 2008 @ 11:31 am - June 21, 2008

  37. If I were to pick 100 heterosexual couples at random, it would be impossible for me to predict with any degree of accuracy whether or not they would be fertile…

    But the State doesn’t pick them at random. It knows their ages. It verifies their identities and residency. It even gives them *blood tests*, for crying out loud. Blood tests having anything to do with fertility? Why, no.

    The question is, ILC, why you are using the formation of a mini-mutual welfare system as justification for one set of adult relationships receiving legal recognition, but not other ones like sibling-sibling or group relationships.

    As Leah suggests – and as I have said before, in other threads: sibling relationships already have recognition under the law. No more is needed (or appropriate).

    Furthermore, group relationships are inherently unstable and not worth it for society / the State to particularly encourage. Leah put it this way:

    Marriage is the union of two unrelated people, of the opposite sex, who will hopefully create their own family structure that will take care of their own.

    I would add the following:
    - May I add a qualifier for ‘voluntary’? (no forced marriages)
    - May I add a qualifier for ‘adults’? (no kid marriages)
    - Can we have a qualifier for ‘unattached’?
    - Can we cut the adverb ‘hopefully’?
    - Finally: Straight marriages are a union of 2 people of the opposite sex. Perfectly true. No dispute from me. While gay marriages happen to involve a union of 2 people of the same sex.

    So I would put it this way:

    Marriage is the voluntary union of two adults, adults not already in a close family relationship with each other and not already married or attached to anyone else, who thus create a new family that will care for its members, which may or may not include children, according to the choice and/or abilities of the couple.

    I assert that definition both normatively and descriptively. In other words:
    - As of this writing, that *is* what marriage already *is*, in the State where I live; and
    - IMHO it’s what marriage should be.

    Having said all that: I continue to believe that gay marriage should be brought about legislatively, not judicially. I reject my State Supreme Court’s decision to impose it by judicial means.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am - June 21, 2008

  38. Now, getting back to topic – Yeah, it should come with an expectation of monogamy. Leah put it so beautifully:

    Marriage isn’t easy – it civilizes both men and women. With men, it is their ‘piggishness’. With women – it is their overused sense of justice based only on emotion.
    [...]
    I’ve yet to see anyone state that infidelity is an accepted part of marriage. It is always outside the norm and in most cases – leads to the end of the marriage.

    Eric Erbelding is a pig who has expressed a disgusting attitude, that would be sexist if there were a woman involved. I daresay we agree on that. And P.S., thanks Pat.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 11:40 am - June 21, 2008

  39. And the only couples who can be denied marriage licenses are those who arent old enough to consent, who are related closely enough that birth defects become a concern, and who dont possess the requisite genitalia. Restrictions that are all relevant in procreation,

    AmericanElephant, and yet, infertile couples, or couples who have no intention of having children are not denied marriage licenses. If procreation is a requisite for marriage, then why not at least have that question on a marriage license? Or is it because, as ILC suggested, there are other compelling reasons to have marriage?

    And FWIW, ILC in no way compared lack of same sex marriage to slavery in the sense that you interpreted it. Some here made the argument that it would be a bad idea to change a long standing institution. ILC correctly showed that that argument by itself is extremely flawed.

    Comment by Pat — June 21, 2008 @ 11:45 am - June 21, 2008

  40. why have any exceptions then? In other words, why isn’t an 80 year old woman automatically denied a marriage license?

    Because it never occurred to the law makers that we would get down to stupid nitty gritty of terminology??? For thousands of years marriage has only been between a man and a woman – or one man and multiple women.

    Changes have taken place, in the western world, no more polygamy, people are living longer – so we are now seeing 70 and 80 year olds getting married. With availability of birth control we have many childless couples. But no where, no how has marriage been anything but between the two sexes.

    So what ever changes are happening don’t mean that the next logical leap is to same sex marriage RIGHT NOW!

    I continue to believe that gay marriage should be brought about legislatively, not judicially.

    I would like to see that as well, but I also believe in baby steps – like domestic partnership first. I’m willing to look at the long view – maybe it will take 20 or 30 years. But when the NYT makes a point that gay marriage has the right to be called marriage but actually be a very different construct. I have a problem. If you want into the institution, please accept it as it is, don’t enter it in order to make radical changes.

    Comment by Leah — June 21, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - June 21, 2008

  41. Because it never occurred to the law makers that we would get down to stupid nitty gritty of terminology??? For thousands of years marriage has only been between a man and a woman – or one man and multiple women.

    Fair enough. Now, I’m simply saying that restricting same sex couples is stupid nitty gritty as well.

    But when the NYT makes a point that gay marriage has the right to be called marriage but actually be a very different construct. I have a problem. If you want into the institution, please accept it as it is, don’t enter it in order to make radical changes.

    I don’t know what the NYT said about different constructs of marriage, but I suppose they have a right to their opinion. But gay people, by themselves, are powerless to make radical changes to marriage, whether or not gay people get the right to marry.

    Comment by Pat — June 21, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - June 21, 2008

  42. I guess I should also comment on the point of Dan’s post too.

    I do believe that marriage will tame men’s piggishness somewhat. We won’t know for sure if that’s the case until there is a tradition of gay marriage. Then gay children, while growing up, will see, like their straight counterparts, that marriage (I’m not referring sham marriages here) is a goal that can be attained.

    I have no illusions that if same sex marriage was adopted federally, that gay promiscuity will immediately be lessened to the same level as straight persons. I do believe in time, it will be lessened. For those who wish to remain promiscuous all of their lives, then marriage is not for these people. Leave it to those who are worthy of marriage.

    Further, I also understand that there are going to be gay people who enter marriage with no intention of being monogamous. Yep, bad idea. However, that is also the case for straight persons as well. They tend to not be open about it, while more gay persons are open about. I suppose we could argue whether it’s worse to be honest about one’s intentions or deceptive. And we could also argue which group (when married) will be less monogamous than the other. It shouldn’t prevent those couples, straight or gay, who do want to be monogamous (and everything else that goes with marriage) from being married.

    Comment by Pat — June 21, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - June 21, 2008

  43. Fair enough. Now, I’m simply saying that restricting same sex couples is stupid nitty gritty as well.

    No its’ not stupid. The European and White American are at negative birth rates. that means we’re shrinking.

    The Islamic maniacs will take over Europe by the end of the century. That will put to an end all of these decadent experiments.

    Once European nations start falling, you will see an end of birth control and abortion here… as well as a religious revival.

    My suggestion is to leave it alone.

    Comment by Vince P — June 21, 2008 @ 12:34 pm - June 21, 2008

  44. gay people, by themselves, are powerless to make radical changes to marriage, whether or not gay people get the right to marry.

    True; straight people will remain the >95% majority of married couples and would have to change marriage themselves, in their own lives.

    But gay people, by poor example, can help push things in the wrong direction. Some gay male couples (and most lesbians) are monogamous… and many are not. The difference vs. non-monogamous straight couples is that the non-monogamous gay male is out there boasting in the New York Times. There is a cultural shift or issue there.

    So I don’t blame straights for being skeptical. And I think gays, as a group, should do a much better job of addressing that skepticism – by developing a culture of monogamy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - June 21, 2008

  45. there are going to be gay people who enter marriage with no intention of being monogamous. Yep, bad idea. However, that is also the case for straight persons as well.

    I am so sick and tired of the canard ‘everybody does it’. Sorry to burst your bubble – that statement is an outright lie.

    Do people stray in marriage, are they unfaithful at times, yes. But please show me a sample of 1000 marriages (that’s a very small number in the scheme of things) that stated from the outset that they would have an open marriage.

    Sorry Pat, I’ve been married almost 30 years, I actually have quite a few friends here in Los Angeles who also have very long term marriages. Some of them have had to put up with real difficulties – like raising disabled children. We never make headlines, we’re never quoted, but you know what, I actually think we are the silent majority in the married world.
    Some had to go through a bad marriage first, before figuring out the ropes.

    But every single couple I know, (and by now, I’ve known plenty) started out vowing to be faithful to one another – in sex, in intimacy, in accepting the good along with the bad. Some failed, others succeeded, but please, come up with a new excuse – everybody does it just doesn’t fly.
    Not everyone cheats on their wife, or their taxes, or their business partners. Most of society is made up of good honorable people, and we’re sick and tired of being a lame excuse for people who can’t stick with anything.

    Comment by Leah — June 21, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - June 21, 2008

  46. ILC,
    I’m sorry, but there is no red herring here. I’m not saying I think you believe that denying gay marriage is akin to denying slaves freedom, but nonetheless, in making your argument you made an analogy between changes in the institution of marriage and changes in the institution of slavery. In your analogy, the institution of marriage is analogous to the institution of slavery, and freeing slaves is analogous to granting gay marriage.

    I’m sorry thats the way analogies work. It doesnt mean I believe you think slavery and gay marraige are the same, it means you made a bad anology. And it was your bad analogy so, please dont blame me for knocking it down.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 3:26 pm - June 21, 2008

  47. AmericanElephant, and yet, infertile couples, or couples who have no intention of having children are not denied marriage licenses. If procreation is a requisite for marriage, then why not at least have that question on a marriage license? Or is it because, as ILC suggested, there are other compelling reasons to have marriage?

    I’m glad you asked this because it seems to be a sticking point that many people share.

    Procreation isn’t a prerequisite for marriage. Thats why infertile couples etc are allowed to marry. The government really has no business telling people that they have to have children. But the purpose of marriage, is rather — and this is an important distinction — to encourage procreation to happen within a legally binding nuclear family unit. As long as the government is encouraging men and women to couple up, it is furthering this goal, regardless of their ability or intentions to have children.

    But above and beyond that, if the government instead starts encouraging men and men to couple up, or women and women, not only is it not furthering the goal, it is counterproductive to the goal because every person that couples with the same sex is a person that could at least theoretically couple with a person of the opposite sex.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 4:00 pm - June 21, 2008

  48. As NDT might say, if you have 100 random married couples where the wife is at least 70 on an island, I can predict how many children there will be, 0. Yet, we still issue marriage licenses to these women.

    “Where the wife is at least 70″ means that it is not random. You are stacking the deck to ensure an outcome — or, more precisely, trying to make an exception prove a rule.

    But the State doesn’t pick them at random. It knows their ages. It verifies their identities and residency. It even gives them *blood tests*, for crying out loud. Blood tests having anything to do with fertility? Why, no.

    And you know what, ILC? That STILL doesn’t change the fact that, while we cannot predict whether the heterosexual couples will be fertile and procreate with any degree of accuracy, we can be 100% certain that the homosexual couples will not.

    I am so sick and tired of the canard ‘everybody does it’. Sorry to burst your bubble – that statement is an outright lie.

    Right on, Leah.

    You would think that gay liberals would realize that their claiming that all heterosexual people are promiscuous is both untrue and insulting to heterosexual people — not to mention being a fine demonstration that they consider “everybody else does it” to be a valid excuse and rationalization for their doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 5:40 pm - June 21, 2008

  49. No its’ not stupid. The European and White American are at negative birth rates. that means we’re shrinking.

    Vince, marrying infertile couples and other couples who refuse to have children is not going to increase birthrates of whatever class of people you want to increase the birthrate of.

    FWIW, I am just as concerned with the Muslim problems going on in Europe as well. I don’t see banning gay marriage, which Muslims also support, is going to help there either.

    I am so sick and tired of the canard ‘everybody does it’. Sorry to burst your bubble – that statement is an outright lie.

    Take a deep breath, Leah. What part of that statement is a lie? What do you think I meant by that statement? That ALL straight people cheat? I meant no such thing. If you really believe that’s what I meant, then let me clarify again. I do NOT believe that all straight married persons cheat.

    Or do you actually believe that EVERY straight person who marries (at the time of their marriage) intends to stay monogamous. If that’s the case, all I can tell you is that I know that it’s false.

    Sorry Pat, I’ve been married almost 30 years

    No need to apologize. I’m very happy for you. And I’m glad you’ve had the opportunity to marry. Further, I’m sure you regard your wedding and marriage as something very important in your life. Is it any wonder that many same sex couples want the same thing.

    in sex, in intimacy, in accepting the good along with the bad. Some failed, others succeeded, but please, come up with a new excuse – everybody does it just doesn’t fly.

    And yet, despite the failures that do exist, marriage was not denied to you and other straight persons. Yet any failure by gay couples is used as an excuse to deny same sex marriage.

    But above and beyond that, if the government instead starts encouraging men and men to couple up, or women and women, not only is it not furthering the goal, it is counterproductive to the goal because every person that couples with the same sex is a person that could at least theoretically couple with a person of the opposite sex.

    AmericanElephant, we disagree here. We should DISCOURAGE gay persons from marrying people of the oppositie sex.

    And you know what, ILC? That STILL doesn’t change the fact that, while we cannot predict whether the heterosexual couples will be fertile and procreate with any degree of accuracy, we can be 100% certain that the homosexual couples will not.

    And it still doesn’t change the fact that repeating obvious facts over and over justifies your arbitrary conclusions.

    Comment by Pat — June 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - June 22, 2008

  50. Oops. meant “doesn’t justify” in the last line above.

    Comment by Pat — June 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - June 22, 2008

  51. And yet, despite the failures that do exist, marriage was not denied to you and other straight persons. Yet any failure by gay couples is used as an excuse to deny same sex marriage.

    That would be because heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing force in society, both in terms of the present and in terms of assuring society’s perpetuation and future.

    On the other hand, gay marriage is simply a matter of making gay people feel better about themselves. As we see in this post, it does nothing to stop gay promiscuity, nor does it increase sexual responsibility or commitment. Furthermore, since gay couples are incapable of natural procreation, it has no value in terms of protecting children or stabilizing parental relationships.

    Heterosexual marriage is so important for society that the greater good of having it outweighs the possibility of its failures. However, gay marriage is neither necessary or required for society; it is a convenience, not an imperative. Since, as we see in this example, it fails to provide the societal benefits its supporters claim it will provide, there is no compelling reason to have it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - June 22, 2008

  52. On the other hand, gay marriage is simply a matter of making gay people feel better about themselves. As we see in this post, it does nothing to stop gay promiscuity, nor does it increase sexual responsibility or commitment.

    NDT, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on those two points.

    Comment by Pat — June 23, 2008 @ 8:45 am - June 23, 2008

  53. “And yet, despite the failures that do exist, marriage was not denied to you and other straight persons. Yet any failure by gay couples is used as an excuse to deny same sex marriage.”

    Pat has hit the nail on the head here. Marriage is not denied to other people based on their failure to abide by the rules (though it can be ended by consent due to said violations), and we all know those rules have been violated time after time. But to lump in the majority of heterosexual marriages with philanderers is disingenuous, just as it would be to lump all theoretical gay marriages together. How would sufficient moral rectitude be proven before granting a marriage license, regardless of sexual orientation?

    But if gays want marriage rights, they had damn well better accept the responsibilities that come with it. I am more than willing to accept them.

    Comment by Attmay — June 23, 2008 @ 9:23 am - June 23, 2008

  54. [...] the many troubling things the non-monogamous “married” man Eric Erbelding said to the New York Times was his repetition of the refrain we hear all too often, [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Men Aren’t Pigs — June 24, 2008 @ 1:15 am - June 24, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.