Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Promoting Marriage
Shortly after posting my piece, Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?, I considered contacting the leading national gay organizations, California groups and other individuals at the forefront of the gay marriage debate to ask them how they felt Eric Erbelding’s comments in the New York Times might impact the movement for gay marriage, particularly the campaign to defeat the proposition on the Golden State ballot this fall.
Instead, I decided to check the websites of the various organizations and bloggers to see if in favoring extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, they recognized that marriage is based on the premise of monogamy. I also wonder if they sought to promote that notion in public statements on marriage.
To that end, I did a number of searches on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Freedom to Marry, Equality California (EQ CA), the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. (I could not find a search feature on Log Cabin’s website nor on those of the pro-gay marriage Equality for All and LetCaliforniaRing sites.)
I did word searches (without quotation marks) for the following: “marriage monogamy,” “marriage monogamous,” “marriage fidelity” and “marriage adultery.” Researching this post took a lot longer than I had anticipated.
And while I found more references than I had anticipated when I did the “marriage monogamous” search, most other searches came up short. On the site of Freedom to Marry, the one national group devoted primarily to promoting gay marriage, my searches yielded almost nothing, with no hits on marriage monogamy and only six for marriage monogamous.
None of those six hits indicated the ostensibly pro-marriage group supported monogamous gay unions. The closest they got was a footnote in the linked report, Black Same-Sex Households in the United States, observing that “Many gay, bisexual and straight people are monogamous.“
Most of the references I found were to other faiths’ definition of marriage and the experiences of individual couples. Nowhere did I find an organization’s representative or blogger saying that he or she believed monogamy to be an essential feature of marriage.
Yet I did find this hopeful note in a transcript of HRC’s morning news webcast “Equally Speaking:”
A new study on the hopes and aspirations of GLBT young people has found that most want to spend their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of young lesbians and more than 80 percent of gay males report that they expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. The study, conducted by the Rockway Institute, is believed to be the first major study of its kind.
An overwhelming majority of young gay men and lesbians expect to be in monogamous unions? This is big news. Advocates of gay marriage should make much of it if they are serious about promoting gay marriage.
If these advocates wish to deprive opponents of gay marriage of the gift the New York Times gave them when they featured a man in an open relationship in its recent article on gay marriage, they need to stand up and say that those who reject monogamy do not speak up for the vast majority of gay men and lesbians who want the state to recognize their monogamous unions.
So far they haven’t done that.
“monogamous relationship after age 30″ ?? If a person does not think in monogamous terms before the age of 30, it is very doubtful that they will become mongamous after age 30.
As someone who has always been mongamous, I hope that attitude with change.
Comment by Dan — June 20, 2008 @ 6:03 pm - June 20, 2008
I had a real aha moment when I read this:
One phrase we have heard too much of lately is: ‘for the children’. Of course, despite it’s overuse - it holds true.
But not for the gay groups, they are stuck in their own narcissistic world, what rights and privileges can I get for me!
Sure there is talk about how being legally married makes it easier on gay couples with children. Here’s the rub, the whole issue of monogamy is not only about the two partners in the marriage. It’s a very strong primal lesson in trust for the children. Children know what goes on behind closed doors. Often they know infidelity is going on before the injured party knows.
We have a generation of young gay men and women, who want what most people their age want - a loving monogamous relationship. The gay groups don’t see it as their responsibility to these people to curtail their own selfish desires. Seems to me that this time, the side that truly believes ‘it’s for the children’ will win, and that is not the pro gay marriage crowd.
Comment by Leah — June 20, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - June 20, 2008
I find it interesting that this whole monogamy issue has come up as a way to attack gay marriage has appeared in the last few weeks.
Interestingly enough, the majority of male couples I know (mostly together 12 years and longer) are not 100% physically monogamous. In all of these cases, both partners are aware that the other “plays around” some times and in some cases both of them are playing around with a 3rd person or maybe even more sometimes. The thing is, these guys are confident enough with themselves and their partners to know that their physical needs are not the same as their emotional and relationship needs. At the end of the day, they know who they’re going home with / going home to and the folks they play with are well aware of it to. It seems to me that most relationships (gay, heterosexual, whatever) get into trouble when people can’t be up-front and honest about their wants and needs with each other. It ends up with lying, cheating, control, etc, etc.
In the end….marriage is not defined by society; it’s defined by the people who decide to commit it together. I wonder about this whole issue to “defend marriage”. If defending marriage is so important, then why don’t we outlaw divorce? So far there’s been no call for state/federal amendments to do that. Or how about actually making it a crime again to cheat on one’s spouse? What’s the divorce rate in this country now, something like over 50% within the first 5 years? Or why don’t our citizens who call for marriage to be defended reject politicians who’ve been divorced? (well, then again, that would include people like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, John McCain)
Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - June 20, 2008
Um, Kevin, if you bothered to read my posts you’d know I’ve been talking about monogamy for as long as I’ve been blogging, almost four years now.
If your friends play around, then that’s their choice. They may well have very good relationships, but they don’t have marriages. And as I said in my previous post nor do “swinging” heterosexual couples.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 20, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - June 20, 2008
i believe in monogamy for myself but who am i to police others? i think one can be in a marriage with someone they love share benefits and if they choose to be open sexually that is their business.
Comment by queerunity — June 20, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - June 20, 2008
Well don’t demand society to regard your open relationships to be on par to their families. Then no one will “judge” you.
Comment by Vince P — June 20, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - June 20, 2008
Well said, Vince.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 20, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - June 20, 2008
Kevin is correct that there are couples (gay and straight) that have “open” relationships. But those are not marriages (IMHO, marriage != relationship).
I’ve lived a sheltered existence but I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly loves another (real love, not lust) isn’t a wee bit uneasy when their beloved is out “playing around”.
If that’s how people want to live, there’s not much we can do in a free country to stop them.
But marriage is a special arrangement where people put the needs of their marriage ahead of their own wants and desires (I wish I could better express this thought).
Nevertheless, it’s not reasonable to believe that gays will switch to “straight” mores instantly - just because of a court ruling.
People like Maggie Gallagher need to realize that marriage is (or used to be) a model for life: married people are expected to live within certain limits. Straights have been expected to conform to married norms for generations (and they’ve never been all that great at it). It’s new ground for gays.
Comment by Robert — June 20, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - June 20, 2008
Well God forbid actually taking responsibility for your (maybe not you sepcifically) own actions. Always point the finger at somebody else and use that as an excuse to fuck around. Just because somebody does it, that doesn’t make it right. Nor does it make them wrong for stating that divorce is wrong. It doesn’t change anything.
If you’re going to be that irresponsible, saying “why should I be monogamous when nobody else is?”, perhaps you’ve got no business getting married or having a relationship at all, for that matter. Why bother getting married if you’re just gonna fuck around?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2008 @ 11:54 pm - June 20, 2008
Okay, I’ve been with my partner for 15 years and we’ve always been 100% monogamous!
Yes, there is definately a problem with most gay relationships. We are always saddened when we hear that a couple we meet is having an open relationship.
I do wish that there was a monogamy/ no divorce/remarriage (i.e. serial monogamy)/ no adultry component to the marriage law. However, if that was the case, most heterosexual relationships in my extended family would have failed that test at my time or another. How about your families? Do you know all the family secrets?
My father cheated on my mom - they still had a marriage though, not a good one I admit, but the marriage did provide a framework, a structure.
Comment by Dan — June 21, 2008 @ 12:57 am - June 21, 2008
Kevin just confirms, gays have no intention whatsoever of honoring the institution. They have no interest in conforming to societal expectations about marriage, they expect society and marriage to adjust to them. Another great reason to not support gay marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:10 am - June 21, 2008
And I still remember a column I read on gay.com a year or so ago. it said roughly, “lets face it. monogamy isn’t realistic for most gays. open marriages are here to stay” or something very close to that.
I don’t care if people are monogamous or not, until the get married or until they are demanding the right to marry. Its part and parcel of the institution.
Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:30 am - June 21, 2008
#11: ” Kevin just confirms, gays have no intention whatsoever of honoring the institution. They have no interest in conforming to societal expectations about marriage, they expect society and marriage to adjust to them.”
Oh, it’s that bad and worse, AE. Even a society that falls all over itself accommodating these crybabies that make up less than 5% of the population (at the outside) will never be allowed to simply “conform” to gay culture. The grievances will never cease as long as there is even one Christian left in the world that refuses to march in the parade. No, gays are about celebration and affirmative acceptance—which is why it is not enough for the rest of the country to simply “tolerate” (ignore) those charming, committed gay couples who have simply decided that weekly 30-man gangbangs in their home is “what works” in their “marriage.” I’m sorry, but they’re going to have to see some documentation to substantiate that you are not judging them because it’s “intolerant” and “hateful” and they simply won’t stand for it.
So, in order to chip away at the “hatred” and “intolerance,” in addition to helping the world lower its standards and further erase our ability to distinguish between healthy behavior and destructive behavior, the practitioners of open relationships send easily-duped simpletons like Kevin out into the world to promote acceptance of the laughable rationalizations they use to excuse their crippling insecurities and inability to make decisions independent of sexual impulse. To see what I mean, read Kevin’s quote from
# 3:
”The thing is, these guys are confident enough with themselves and their partners to know that their physical needs are not the same as their emotional and relationship needs.”
Yeah, that’s right. All that bullshit propaganda–People in open relationships are “confident” and “have the courage to be honest,” and are “respectful” of their partner’s “needs” outside the relationship. They’re becoming more “complete people” by “embracing their desires without fear or shame.” Yes, that’s right—not only should these men not be “judged,” they’re better than the rest of us, more evolved and “in touch” with who they are. They are shining examples of pragmatic heroism—they don’t think their partner is worth making sacrifices for and they KNOW they aren’t worth it—but at least they are brave enough to be honest about it.
And the rest of us…well…we are just missing out on all that wonderfully fulfilling stuff that really makes a relationship tick. It’s like those commercials for prescriptions to prevent herpes “outbreaks”—sure, they’ve got herpes, but people with herpes do really cool things like hang-glide and paddle kyacks to Catalina. Herpes looks really fun! I’ve always wanted to ride a horse on the beach! I wish I had herpes!
And as with all bad behavior that liberals want to engage in without feeling guilty or condemned, it has a booby-trap for us “haters” built right in because naturally, if you disapprove of the behavior, you must not be “confident” in your self or your partner. Obviously, if you do anything less than open your home to your friends and the junkies they picked up to host an orgy, well, obviously you’re afraid of your sexuality, or you have “trust issues” with your partner. The only thing these people are truly “confident” about is their ability to have sex with a whole lot of people they don’t give a damn about and won’t remember two days later, a quality they share with a broad spectrum of the very best people, including crack whores.
When I read some of Kevin’s typically retarded statements to my partner, I have to admit we spent a lot of time laughing at him and his pathetic ideas. I think I said, “Oh Shane, I just don’t know what to do! I mean, I WANT to go to a bathhouse tonight and have sex with lots and lots (AND LOTS) of people right now, that would be really awesome (especially if it’s strictly bareback), but I just don’t feel CONFIDENT enough in our relationship at the moment. Know what I mean?” And he said, “Yes! I do know what you mean! Just the other day I thought,…you know what would be fun? Heading over to the park and sucking off 6 or 7 guys in a row. That sounds really good right now, and I do feel CONFIDENT enough in our relationship to do it, but at the same time I’m not sure that I’m quite to the point where I can be HONEST ENOUGH to admit to MYSELF that my monogamous relationship with you satisfies my emotional needs, but not my physical need to let 6 or 7 random strangers blow their wads in my mouth. Does that sound needy and co-dependent?”
Comment by Sean A — June 21, 2008 @ 3:59 am - June 21, 2008
Because Kevin is clearly the one and only voice that speaks for all THE GAYS. (Should I put fear quotes around that for you, too? I did fear caps and fear italics.)
I would say something about allowing and accounting for individuation in all groups, something about how there isn’t a Borg-like entity called GAYS and about how Kevin can speak only for himself until THE GAYS appoint him official ambassador to THE STRIAGHTS. I would say that, but it’s done no good any other time.
So instead, let’s play the your game, just with your words this time:
Hmmm…let me think… GOT IT!
AE just confirms it; straights want the government to have the power to monitor monogamy and sexual relations.
Ridiculous statement, isn’t it?
Trust me, it’s just as ridiculous when you do it.
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:32 am - June 21, 2008
All this talk of monogamy and what constitutes a “real” marriage raises all kinds of questions for me, both practical and moral. Now, right off the bat, I’d like to note again, contrary to what the tired voices keep on squawking, there are plenty of gay people who want and expect monogamy in their relationships. (The squawking, I might add, occurs without regard to that 80% statistic—which I’d wager is at least as good as the one for the straight population.)
So here are the questions that come to mind. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but I’m think it’s very easy to just say, “I think that monogamy is a necessary condition for marriage and monogamous couples are not married.” It’s harder when it gets “messy”.
–What about couples where one person cheats just once? They’re not monogamous anymore, but can we still call them married, if the other partner is faithful? What if they work through it and it doesn’t happen again? I’d think we could call them married. What if it does happen again, but the faithful partner and the unfaithful work through it again? What if it’s an affair, but the affair is ended and they work through it? Shouldn’t marriage be stronger than a mistake? And even if it’s deliberate on the unfaithful ones part, does the faithful partner get any say in the matter?
–What if both couples cheat? What if they work through it and it doesn’t happen again?
–What if they both have an affair, but realize it’s not right and end it? If they work through that, who are you to say they’re not “married”?
–Who gets to define marriage anyway? Just you? Just the commenters on this site? Just the commenters at the Daily Kos? Just legislators? Just historians and sociologists? Just anthropologists (they would be the academic experts)? Just the church? Just the government? It’s an important question if we’re going to establish a society-wide definition.
–If monogamy is to be a part of marriage law, who is going to enforce that? Do we really want to give the government that kind of oversight power? What will be the punisment for adultery? Annulment/auto-divorce? That would seem a bit unfair to the non-adulterous partner. Or is the measure merely symbolic? If it’s just symbolic, how does that actually change anything and ensure that legal marriages are “real” marriages?
–If we’re denying same-sex marriage because of the unwillingness inability of just a segment of the gay population to be monogamous, then shouldn’t heterosexuals receive the same treatment?
–Plenty of heterosexual married (or “married”, depending on your taste) couples engage in swinging and sleeping around. Why aren’t we talking about taking marriage away from them until they can all behave?
==================================================================
Don’t get me wrong—I understand that most of you do apply the same moral strictures about relationships across the board. I congratulate and appreciate your consistency. I really do.
I guess my point is twofold. First I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.
But more importantly I want to convey that if we’re waiting for 100% monogamy (as some here seem to require) from specific groups of people before they can be allowed to marry, then there should be nobody getting married. Anywhere. Ever. And if we’re willing to overlook (in just a legal/governmental sense) the non-monogamous heterosexual couples in order to protect the ones which are monogamous, should we not be willing to do the same for gay people, a majority of whom seem to be aspiring (at the least) to monogamy?
You talk a lot about morality and the role/purpose of marriage. If marriage law is to have a social purpose for gay people, shouldn’t it be to incentivize precisely the faithful relationships that most young gay people like myself envision? Why does it currently send us precisely the opposite message? How does that further the monogamous ideal?
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 5:21 am - June 21, 2008
I think you’re missing the point.
The last thing anyone wants to do is 1) know all the gritty details about two people’s sex lives and then 2) make pronouncements about what sort of relationship they are in.
Which is why gays should just avoid the whole “BUT WE WANT TO BE MARRIED TO”
Straight married people laugh at gay people about this issue. These families struggle every day with their family and kids… and then they see gay people, rich and pampered, making yet more demands,, making themselves a public distraction yet again.
What I hear over and over is that straight people are sick of every little group bitching about what it wants cuz it thinks its entitled.
And because marriage’s foundations are in religion, they see this whole debate as a frontal assault on their religion.
And for what? To have questions of just how many simultaneous sex buddies is it ok to have? Most people are revolted by the thought.
Comment by Vince P — June 21, 2008 @ 5:32 am - June 21, 2008
I find it interesting that Kevin comments on this blog apparently without knowing what it’s been saying for years.
Ya think?
Translation: Like infants, these guys are consumed by their own alleged “needs”, treat all their partners like appliances, and fortunately have at least found partners who will ‘understand’.
What a charming, heartwarming thought! (/sarc)
Newsflash, Kev: It’s lying and cheating anyway. “We have a great relationship because we love each other enough to have sex with other people” is BOTH lying and cheating. Just a different (and in some ways, greater) form of lying. Not that it’s the end of the world. Not that some straights don’t do it too. But geez, let’s use words honestly. Let’s not expect me, Kev, to participate in those guys’ (and your) lies to yourselves.
Then why are we having a public controversy over it? No one wants to stop gay couples from honestly committing. Most people think “More power to ‘em… if it’s real.”
Marriage has 2 dimensions, public and private. The private marriage - the commitment between the 2 people - is indeed NOT defined by society, just as you say. While the public dimension - the State license that creates a new legal entity (”the marriage”) with distinct interests of its own, legally able to compel different behavior from the rest of society - is obviously defined by society.
Your one fair-ish point. Not that we should outlaw divorce, but at least go back to “fault” divorce. That is the elephant in the room, for those who would “defend” marriage. The ‘threat’ posed by gay marriage - which might be very slightly there; that gay marriage, in today’s conditions, would make a culture of cheating a bit more acceptable - is 1/1000th of the damage that has already been done to marriage (and continues to be done) by easy, no-fault divorce. Let marriage’s defenders work on that.
Back to the nuttiness. You had me, then you lost me.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 9:31 am - June 21, 2008
OK, so heterosexuals fail at monogamy, the point is, monogamy is the ideal and the expectation. We don’t improve ourselves if we set out to aim for mediocrity.
If people want to have open relationships and jump into bed with anything that moves, then they should do that to the extent that they can bear the consequences. But that’s not what marriage should be regardless of sexual orientation.
Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 10:20 am - June 21, 2008
agreed
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 10:47 am - June 21, 2008
ILoveCapitalism:
Absolutely. No-fault divorce has done nearly immeasurable damage to marriage, turning it into some sort of social contract for narcissists, instead of an institution for the family. When you get married, life is no longer about you. It’s about the family. If you’re unhappy with your career or your life, you suck it up, you don’t get a divorce just to make life more convenient. I would say that this is a more fundamental issue than monogamy, although monogamy flows from it.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 21, 2008 @ 11:17 am - June 21, 2008
I can attest to that! I’ve seen many a marriage fail due to the narcissistic desires of one of the parties. Then I’m told not to be judgmental, since I don’t know what really went on.
Remember in the days of Fault Divorce - the fault was adultery! That was deemed the breaking point of marriage! Of course people can repent, atone, make amends and repair a marriage after infidelity. I never understand the liberal mindset that won’t accept forgiveness and repentance.
Kevin, I feel sorry for you if the sexual act and the emotional connection are completely divorced from one another in your world. What a sad lonely, alienating place you live in.
On a brighter note, Dan has asked for a real dialog about gay marriage to take place. The Wall street Journal listened! Jonathan Rauch has an excellent article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Also, a little unknown film, Quinceañera http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451176/. Paints a rather ugly picture of a gay couple indulging in a three- way, and guess what, there actually is a victim in all this - it’s not all fun and games.
Comment by Leah — June 21, 2008 @ 11:46 am - June 21, 2008
The extent to which marriage between one woman and one man has been dumbed down by hormonal promiscuity is really just awful. I have watched college kids fight being torn apart because of parents who suddenly go roving.
We have a whole industry of divorce lawyers, marriage counselors, social workers and family courts to deal with marriages that are in jeopardy of failing.
When I look at the attitudes of some gays, it appears that they do not want to join the ideal of marriage and act accordingly. Apparently, they hunger for the “title” of being married, but are perfectly comfortable expanding the possibilities of misery by acting on impulse, hormonal urge and flights of idiotic fancy.
Our society is torn apart by dumb straight people who can not control themselves within the institution of marriage. Why add the multiple combinations that gays can add to the failure side of the equation?
Comment by heliotrope — June 21, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - June 21, 2008
No, because he confirms what I have seen over and over and over again. Do try not to be so hysterical.
I never said anything of the sort. Hysterical and illogical.
But I do want the people to decide what the definition of marriage is. And because of the policial agenda of the gay left, their history of using gay marriage, once codified into law, to attack people’s freedom of speech, association, and religious expression, and their open disdain for the ideals of the institution, I am absolutely going to encourage people against including gays in it.
Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 1:51 pm - June 21, 2008
I agree that no fault divorce has been horrible for marriage and would love to do away with it, but I think you underestimate the damage gays can do to the institution and to society once accepted into the institution. Gays in New jersey have sued religious organizations that refused to perform their civil union ceremonies and won. Gays in massachusetts have sued the Catholic adoption services for refusing to adopt to them and won, stating your disapproval of homosexuality in canada can get you charged with a hate crime. where gay marriage is legal in europe, marriage rates are much lower, divorce rates are higher, and out of wedlock births are much higher. Causation? I don’t know, but its plausible and certainly a correlation that is worrisome.
Nonetheless, history shows the gay left is determined to use gay marriage as a weapon to force society to approve of them. Prevailing attitudes in the gay “community” about marriage are at odds with mainstream society. And, I’m sorry, but freedom of speech, association and religious expression are real rights that I’m not willing to sacrifice over the phony “right” of gays to be included in an institution thats purpose they can’t fulfill and which a majority of them have no intention of honoring anyway.
Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:28 pm - June 21, 2008
What’s actually kind of funny is that after denying that Kevin speaks for all gays, PSUDain goes on to cpmpletely agree with Kevin that monogamy really doesn’t matter that much.
Which is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.
Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 2:45 pm - June 21, 2008
THAT WAS MY POINT! It was supposed to be ridiculous! It was equally ridiculous as saying Kevin’s statement is proof that the entire gay community thinks exactly the same. How did you miss that? I even said it, explicitly in my post:
As my sixth grade english teacher, Mrs. Smith, used to say, “When the guy on the street corner offers you the dum-dum pills before school, don’t take them.”
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:02 pm - June 21, 2008
It’s a good thing you’re here VK, to tell me what I think. You know before you posted, I would have said that I disagreed with Kevin. Thanks for straightening me out on that. I’ll try harder to conform to what you think I should think in the future.
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - June 21, 2008
The problem PSUdain, that you fail to grasp, is that my statement was acknowleging the truth of precisely what Kevin said, your statement was putting words in my mouth that had nothing to do with what I said.
So, while it may have been your point, you not only failed to make it, you were wrong to begin with.
But keep poppin those dum dum pills!
Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm - June 21, 2008
And, I notice, that PSUdain never said Kevin was wrong. Indeed, PSUdain has agreed with other gay people who state that monogamy is “authoritarian”.
Another thing; PSUdain talks a lot about couples who “cheat” — but amazingly has nothing to say about couples who are married and choose to REPEATEDLY have promiscuous sex, as the example GPW cited describes.
“Cheating” implies that something is an exception, that it is wrong, and that it shouldn’t be repeated.
But then PSUdain tries to use the fact that people cheat and stop doing it as justification for people who are married and continue to have promiscuous sex with other people with no intention of stopping.
And I loved this whine from him:
If marriage law is to have a social purpose for gay people, shouldn’t it be to incentivize precisely the faithful relationships that most young gay people like myself envision?
As GPW’s example showed, it is doing nothing of the sort; indeed, it is encouraging more gay promiscuity.
What you are trying to do, PSUdain, is blame your inability and unwillingness to control yourself sexually on your lack of marriage. But, as GPW’s example shows, marriage is going to do nothing, repeat NOTHING, to stop you from continuing to be irresponsible and promiscuous, under the rationalization that “men are pigs” and that makes it OK.
V the K nailed it when he described your statements as “the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 5:23 pm - June 21, 2008
4: Okey dokey. Then can someone present to me a definition of marriage that everyone in this country agrees on? Everything in the relationships of these friends looks like a marriage to me, plus I guess even the few I know in MA who have that license. I just spent some vacation time with a couple who has been together 15 years and married in MA form the moment licenses became available. “Honey, did you remember to pack the sunscreen?” “Dear, can you call the housesitter and make sure the animals are OK?” “Why don’t we split that dessert?” “Let’s get that picture together so we can have it framed.” I was thinking specifically of the whole gay marriage issue a few times as I watched them, and frankly, you can’t tell me that these 2 aren’t married.
How about all those “heterosexual” couples out there who are married by law, but they engage in things like wife-swapping? Do you say they are not married? Should the government get involved and revoke their marriage licenses? Nope, because they don’t have to prove their relationship, they don’t have to make justifications to people. They got that little piece of paper.
Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2008 @ 6:16 pm - June 21, 2008
How about all those “heterosexual” couples out there who are married by law, but they engage in things like wife-swapping? Do you say they are not married?
Yes, GPW did — in the previous post.
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.
And I’d be all for revoking their marriage licenses. In fact, let’s make it easy; in a married relationship, if one person can prove the other strayed, the marriage is immediately invalidated and the unfaithful spouse gets nothing. No assets, no kids, nothing — and they owe the other person half of their income as alimony.
Now, to the point, Kevin; obviously you support promiscuous extramarital affairs. Can you state publicly that your attitude is common among gays and lesbians, or are you willing to admit that gays and lesbians like you who support promiscuous extramarital affairs are a distinct and fringe group in the gay community, whose opinions are opposed by the vast majority of gay people?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - June 21, 2008
NDXXX, thank for the spirited defense.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 21, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - June 21, 2008
I do agree that government isn’t the thing that oughtta be enforcing monogamy, and it’s telling that government is the first place lefties go to when they think some pattern of behavior needs to be enforced.
The best prophylactic against promiscuity is social stigmatization, and that sure as hell isn’t comin’ from the gay community. Or, for that matter, from a substantial portion of the heterosexual community; particularly that part of the heterosexual community that votes blue and rejects traditional family values.
Frankly, if you happen to be a bitter old queen, it’s not because the right-wing Christianist breeders did anything to you. It’s because of the choices you made, the values you embraced, and the attitude you picked. Taking away marriage from the Christian right isn’t gonna make you any happier about your own circumstances.
Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - June 21, 2008
It’s because of the choices you made, the values you embraced, and the attitude you picked.
Sheesh, for a gay liberal to acknowledge that is roughly the same as a vampire going into a tanning booth.
The best prophylactic against promiscuity is social stigmatization, and that sure as hell isn’t comin’ from the gay community.
That’s a gross understatement. You’ve got Kevin on one side openly promoting promiscuity, and you’ve got PSUdain on the other going, “Well, uh, you know, it’s too complex, there is no black and white, you really can’t say that something is right or wrong.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - June 21, 2008
Frankly, the dynamics of gay relationships are changing. Who could really realistically think that in 1969 things would have changed so much in a mere 39 years. Monogamy is something we should all approve and support. In 1969 living openly as a gay male was nearly unthinkable.
Comment by Swampfox — June 21, 2008 @ 9:13 pm - June 21, 2008
Gee, after reading these postings one might think marriage is all about sexual preferences (I didn’t say same sex preferences). And here I always thought it was about love and two people committing to each others journey through life together. Guess I was wrong.
If people marry based on rules and regulations set in place by archaic religions and intrusive governments, and not what they both want out of their life as a couple, they are bound to fail. Life is full of diversity and that also applies to marriage. It’s just not possible for one set of rules to work for everyone.
Monogamy or Polyamory, that’s strictly up to the couple and nobody else. Marriage was established in a time when the average life expectancy was rarely beyond three decades, if even that long, and more so about property rights. It’s just not realistic to expect those rules established under different circumstances to adequately apply to the changing times. Life is all about the ebb and flow and the willingness to bend with the wind. The self righteous have no authority to place the burden of their fairy tale beliefs on anyone else.
Most of what I’ve read here seems to confirm many people’s narrow mindedness reduced to name calling, insults, and a total lack of respect for someone’s opinion that doesn’t exactly match their own.
Debate as much as you want what one should think “marriage” is or isn’t, but when one affords secular rights to a diversity of married couples, then deny other couples those same privileges by not allowing them to marry, where is the equality in that? How can a couple even attempt to follow the rules and regulations or your definition of marriage, when they aren’t even allowed to marry in the first place?
Comment by kene — June 21, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - June 21, 2008
I think there’s a greater similarity than that. You take Kevin and extrapolate views outwards. I took you and extrapolated views outwards. Now I admit that I may have exaggerated somewhat, but you have in the past called for monogamy to be a part of marriage law. I’m not sure how that would be enforceable without government oversight…but that’s off topic. The point is, don’t extrapolate from one person to all gay people, please. I just get really tired of hearing “gays want to do this or that or the other thing.” Say “some gays” or something–just be accurate.
Actually, I may never have said so explicitly here, but I have in the past. And while I don’t like to cede ground to an online bully (more on that later), I will make it clear: I do not agree with Kevin. I think Kevin’s ideas are flawed. I think ideal marriage is monogamous, but there is room for forgiveness if cheating occurs, even repeatedly. I do not think swinging is a lifestyle I would enjoy or could ever live, nor do I think it’s a good one in general. I have certainly never called monogamy “authoritarian”.
Clear enough?
On to the third bit: I am not trying to rationalize people who “swing” or have “open marriages”. All I was doing was responding to what I see as a habit of commenters to focus on only one aspect of marriage at a time (a few weeks ago it was only about child-rearing, now its only about monogamy) and speak in black and white terms, leaving no room for gray. If the statement “Marriage is monogamous, period,” is to absolutely true, people who have cheated are no longer married, ever. So clearly there is room for grey in real life.
This does not absolve swingers, and you are right, cheating does imply something wrong was done because something wrong was done. And the fact that cheating does not (and should not, depending) end marriages is not justification for swinging.
Is that also clear enough? Probably not. Since you seem to have some beef with me, you’re going to find some reason to discount what I’ve said and claim that I don’t actually mean it. But now I can’t say I didn’t try.
Thing is I just want to provoke discussion beyond the same old lines I always hear here. I also get sick of everybody (including some gay people) being so down on “the gays”. Why can’t we talk more about the 80% figure? Why can’t we express happiness that people are planning on monogamy instead of relying on the last generation’s (which may be your generation, but is not mine) stereotypes and statistics to be down on all “the gays”?
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - June 21, 2008
NDT, you need to learn manners. I always hated bullies in childhood; I tolerate them no better on the internet. Look at this statement:
That might be true if I exhibited a lack of control. Or if I was promiscuous. Not that it’s any of your business. I’ve just had it with your arrogant demeanor and general inability to be civil, and I’m calling you out.
If some “gay leftist” came on here and accused you of being anti-gay, you’d have a shit fit. But you think you are justified in calling me promiscuous, just because you think I have a contrary position on any particular issue?
And this is not the first time you have called me promiscuous or claimed I “couldn’t control myself sexually”. What the hell gives you the right to make claims about my private life when you don’t even know me? Who the hell are you to make these bold and BOLDLY WRONG assumptions about me. Do you think you’re omnipotent and can discern my entire character from one post? Just who the hell do you think you are? God??
Well, asshole, I am abstinent. And I will remain so until I am in a committed relationship. (Can’t say I’m waiting for marriage, as I can’t get one of those yet. At least not the kind that is most important to me—religious marriage. I’m glad the ELCA is (cautiously–we are Lutherans, after all) moving closer to having a service for same-sex couples.) And that committed relationship will be monogamous.
[Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - June 21, 2008
The hell I can’t.
You might have a “little piece of paper” that says you can drive a car. That don’t mean you can drive worth a damn. You might also have a “little piece of paper” that says you went to skrewl, but it doesn’t mean you know everything or, in fact, are particularly smart.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 21, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - June 21, 2008
#36: “If some “gay leftist” came on here and accused you of being anti-gay, you’d have a shit fit.”
Actually, if some “gay leftist” posted a comment on GP accusing NDT of being anti-gay, I suspect he would deal with it the way he has the other 652,421 times that it has happened in the past. With facts, logic and his signature, politically-incorrect candor that hysterical, emotional queens just can’t deal with. Obviously.
Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 12:26 am - June 22, 2008
[...] example, my gay friend Dan Blatt, who supports same-sex marriage, did a lot of research for his GayPatriot Web site and found that “marriage equality” Web sites say very little about [...]
Pingback by GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE » Take the Monogamy Pledge — June 22, 2008 @ 1:36 am - June 22, 2008
The biggest lesson I learn from reading this blog and its comments is that gay people are awful American-society-destroying-and-hating folks.
Comment by jimmy — June 22, 2008 @ 1:41 am - June 22, 2008
Oh, come on, I hear it all the time, complaints (almost always valid) about misrepresentation of gay Republicans (like myself) and gay conservatives. It is a valid grievance. I was not debating that.
And it is also a valid grievance when a person impugns my character by accusing me of being promiscuous. (I might add that if I felt that monogamy held no particular value that I would not be offended by such an accusation.) He has every right to disagree and debate. He has no right to make slanderous accusations against me in the course of that debate, and I have had quite enough. I should be able to comment and disagree or agree without being accused of being “loose” or promiscuous.
And apparently all you can do in response is name call. “Hysterical, emotional, queen,” indeed. God forbid you agree that personal attacks of the nature that he made are both unnecessary and unwarranted. I would remind you of their nature:
Would you be pleased if I flat out accused you of sleeping around or of being a slut? I doubt it. But clearly it’s fine to do so, as long as you disagree with the person you’re doing it to.
Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 2:02 am - June 22, 2008
Based on…….???
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 22, 2008 @ 2:18 am - June 22, 2008
TGC: he read his older comments and forgot he was the one who wrote them.
Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 2:49 am - June 22, 2008
Oh, please provide a quote. I’d love to see it! The fact is I’ve never said any such thing nor would I.
Please quit lying about what I’ve said in order to make your asinine arguments.
Comment by American Elephant — June 22, 2008 @ 4:15 am - June 22, 2008
Moral standards are not subject to consensus.
All of the back and forth about cheating is a metaphor, or if you prefer, a representation of a more fundamental issue: Liberals do not understand morals.
Morals are ideals. Human beings are flawed. When we fail to live up to these ideas, this is not hypocrisy; this is sin. All of us are guilty. That does not imply, however, that we should debase moral standards to better fit our flawed natures.
And so it goes with monogamy. It is a moral idea. There is a very real difference between the couple, gay, straight, or other, who repeatedly, and without guilt, play around with others, and the couple (again, gay, straight, or other) where one cheats and repents. The former can only be said to be married in the most meaningless, legalistic sense. The latter are.
The difference is that the former couple have no moral standard. The latter couple do, even though one cheats, because he repents. Should the husband or wife try to forgive and heal the marriage? Of course, but again, we are flawed, and the husband or wife may not be able to. Still, the couple has morals.
Morals are not relative. Morals do not reflect what we do. They reflect what we should do.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 22, 2008 @ 8:13 am - June 22, 2008
#44: Based on leftist trolls like jimmy and his emotionally underdeveloped brethren.
Comment by Attmay — June 22, 2008 @ 9:59 am - June 22, 2008
We are not any different from our heterosexual brethren. Some of us are monogamous and some are not. And I have to say I have known men who spent their 20s chasing every skirt in town who met one woman and were monogamous. It does happen, even if it is rare. Some people just need to sow their wild oats and one day they have had their fill and are ready to settle down. Paul McCartney is the most famous example of this. He dated actress Jane Asher in the mid 60s and their made relationship problem was that he cheated on her. Within weeks of her turning down a marriage proposal he had begun dating Linda Eastman who he married and was faithful to until her death. It happens.
I hate these conversations. I am not promiscuous nor are most of my friends. A few of them are. I also have friends who are in monogamous relationships, supposedly but not really monogamous relationships and open relationship. While I myself would be miserable in an open relationship other people seem to be happy in them and it seems to me that it’s a better arrangement than the lies and deceit that destroy way too many marriages.
I won’t accuse people who have opted for honesty to have no morals. They know they are going to have sex outside the relationship and it’s been agreed to as part of the terms of the relationship. A good many marriages work that way. It’s just that straight people are usually reluctant to broadcast that fact that both partners have affairs. Gay couples are just (sometimes) more honest in that regard.
But I do think it’s foolish to think that a piece of paper will change one’s nature. It hasn’t worked for straight couples and it’s not going to work for gay couples either. It will provide legal protection for those couples who are committed to each other (and yes I do know couples who are emotionally and otherwise committed to each other in spite of having sex with other people). Again, not something I fully understand but it’s something I have observed and I can’t discount that it exists.
If extramarital sex is grounds for not allowing gays to marry then I guess no one should be allowed to marry since about half of straight men cheat on their wives. (And I suspect that number is a little low since we all lie a little about our sex lives.)
Comment by Houndentenor — June 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am - June 22, 2008
Already tried that argument. Didn’t fly–they accused me of trying to justify non-monogamy. Watch out or NDT will call you promiscuous. Because clearly anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a promiscuous gay leftist (who also wants to kill puppies and kittens, probably).
Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 10:56 am - June 22, 2008
Hmmm. And I thought my comment applied across the board, if anything, more to heterosexuals, since I was addressing marriage.
Yes, but the topic of the post was specifically about gay marriage. You can find my comments about traditional marriage on any number of different blogs, although (as I said above), narcissism has done a great deal of damage to the institution, and narcissism is not restricted to any group, sexual or otherwise.
A social contract is a social contract. A social contract is amoral. Marriage is not a social contract. It is not a list of benefits you can take advantage of. The Anchoress has on a number of occasions suggested that we divorce the social contract from the institution, letting the Church handle the Sacrament (but not sign the license), and the county clerk, the license. It’s a pretty good idea. Anything that disconnects social contract from marriage is a good idea.
But the fundamental problem is that people are unwilling to think of anything but themselves. Look at people talking about their divorce. They grew apart. Or she wasn’t happy with the relationship. Or he had midlife crisis and dumped her for the secretary. The common denominator here is that all of these people didn’t have marriages in the first place; they had living arrangements, and their top priority is themselves.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - June 22, 2008
(I might add that if I felt that monogamy held no particular value that I would not be offended by such an accusation.)
I quote:
I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.
Which V the K described spot-on:
Which is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.
And which “kene” put into practice a few comments later.
If people marry based on rules and regulations set in place by archaic religions and intrusive governments, and not what they both want out of their life as a couple, they are bound to fail. Life is full of diversity and that also applies to marriage. It’s just not possible for one set of rules to work for everyone.
Monogamy or Polyamory, that’s strictly up to the couple and nobody else. Marriage was established in a time when the average life expectancy was rarely beyond three decades, if even that long, and more so about property rights. It’s just not realistic to expect those rules established under different circumstances to adequately apply to the changing times. Life is all about the ebb and flow and the willingness to bend with the wind. The self righteous have no authority to place the burden of their fairy tale beliefs on anyone else.
Simply put, PSUdain, if you value marriage and monogamy so much, one would think you would be incensed at people like kene, Kevin, and Eric Erbelding who are flagrantly and blatantly violating every tenet of marriage and relationships that you claim are “important” and “special” — and then claiming their gender and sexual orientation make it right.
But instead you fall right back into the moral relativist’s position that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it’s convenient for them, and that there should be no rules or limits around marriage. You are more than willing to trash everything that marriage is and represents rather than admit that gay promiscuity is wrong or to call out another gay person’s idiotic behavior.
That’s because you value the acceptance of other gays and sexual promiscuity more than you do what marriage represents or means — and if you’re willing to cheapen marriage rather than require gay and lesbian people to abide by it, you should never have it.
And, as far as slander goes, I find it beyond amusing that you whine about being called promiscuous, but say nothing when gay and lesbian people like Houndentenor excuse gay promiscuity by claiming that heterosexuals in committed relationships are promiscuous, but just lying about it. There’s far more proof that you are promiscuous, especially given your attitude that promiscuity is perfectly OK and that monogamy is merely a matter of convenience, than there is that heterosexual couples are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - June 22, 2008 <