I had an interesting conversation with a hard-working volunteer at the close of Outfest about loneliness in the gay community–and how our sexual ethic often exacerbates the isolation that many of us feel from time to time. Too many of us, alas, particularly in the town where I live, see sex not as a means of human connection, but as a means of personal pleasure (& release).
When you’re young and it’s easy to hook up, you often don’t realize how lonely you are when you’re not getting any. (You know that option is always available.) Regular sexual contact almost allows you to bypass those fleeting moments of loneliness. But, as you get older, the ruse (of using sex to cover up our desire for connection) doesn’t work as well as it once did.
With that notion in mind, I offered that if gay people talked more about the potential of sexual contact as an opportunity to connect with our fellows, we might lessen the loneliness, so ubiquitous in our community–as it is in society at large. This wise volunteer wondered if state recognition of gay marriage might help foster that understanding.
And I replied that it would if we talked about gay marriage as Jonathan Rauch does in his book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. If we saw it as a sacred institution rather than a right, we might understand why marriage has survived for so long.
That is why, I believe, we need have this conversation about the meaning of gay marriage. Not only will it show our straight peers that we’re serious about the institution (making it easier for them to support it at the ballot box), but it will also help improve our own lives.
When we recognize that in channeling our sexual desires into an enduring, intimate relationship, we see that many in such relationships have found the happiness that all too often eludes us, that their loneliness is lessened. So, if we try each time to see that potential in the objects of our desire, we humanize those individuals and create opportunities for deeper affection and understanding.
Here’s a previous post which didn’t seem to catch on, but dealt with this topic:
“I think a lot of men who identify as gay expect gay sex to give them something which it doesn’t have the power to impart. I think one reason for the promiscuity in the gay community is that men keep having sex with each other over and over again trying to find something that isn’t there. It’s like eating a whole bunch of potato chips trying to get your fill of fiber. You can have all the chips in the universe, but you’re never going to find any fiber.
I’m not sure anymore that sex is the best way for men to express intimacy with each other. I think men need love from each other, but the more they try to find that love by having sex with each other, the more frustrated they become. I think men are trying to experience sex the way women experience sex. Sex communicates intimacy to a woman in a way it doesn’t to men. Women experience feelings of safety and security with sex that men don’t have. I think men experience their deepest intimacy with other men when they are playing sports with each other. I think that trying to express love to a man using the techniques which work for expressing love to a woman only frustrates everyone involved.
I think the reason I’m attracted to the male/male love of the 19th century is because it is ambiguously sexual. Melville writes about the intimacy on board a whaler. Whitman talks about meeting soldiers. Lincoln slept in the same bed with a man. Thoreau talks about intellectual connections. Tennyson talks about mourning. All of these men expressed deep feelings for other men, feelings that were much stronger than their feelings towards women. But there is no clear indication that they had sex with men.
The desire for male intimacy and love is not the same as the desire for sex. I’m not sure if I can express my deepest feelings for men with sex. I think that these feelings are better expressed in other ways–but expressing love for men without using sex does not diminish the importance or depth of my feelings for men.
But, for the gay community, if you’re not doing it up the pooper, you’re in the closet.”
Here, too, is part of a statement from Integrity about the Episcopal Church’s recent decision to ordain gays and bless gay relationships:
“Inclusive Church welcomes the clarity of the new resolutions passed at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the USA (TEC). They accurately and honestly describe the current situation, affirming that homosexual orientation should not be a bar to ordination as priest or bishop, and recognising that same sex blessings are being performed in some parishes and dioceses.
It is our wish that such honesty prevail in all current dialogues within the Anglican Communion – for example, recognising that within the Church of England there are a great many gay and lesbian clergy, single or in committed relationships, and many churches offer blessings or thanksgivings for same-sex relationships.”
Gays now have an alternative to the local gay bar–the local Episcopal Church. Gays now have a place to find both affirmation and direction. Young gays no longer have to run the gauntlet of multiple partners, STDs, drugs, and potential suicide–they can join a church youth group and learn to value their bodies and make responsible, moral decisions. Thanks be to God.
P.S. Here’s a bit from one of the resolutions:
“The baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.”
I like that definition.
Show me too while you’re at it. Because my experience is that almost no one is the gay community is serious about the institution. They just consider it an entitlement.
and how exactly is it good for America again?
“The baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.”
Ashpenaz, I’m guessing this also applies exactly to opposite sex married couples. Sounds good to me.
Here’s a previous post which didn’t seem to catch on, but dealt with this topic:
Ashpenaz, I think by the time you posted this, the blog post was about to be relegated to the second page. I posted a response, and it appears below. I made some changes for typos and/or for clarity purposes.
I think a lot of men who identify as gay expect gay sex to give them something which it doesn’t have the power to impart.
Ashpenaz, I think men, straight or gay, have sex with someone they are attracted to, is because it feels good. If it didn’t, men would hardly do it.
I think one reason for the promiscuity in the gay community is that men keep having sex with each other over and over again trying to find something that isn’t there.
That could be part of it. For example, if a man is looking to find that special someone, he may feel that having sex with that person off the bat, could lead to it. Once in a blue moon, it does. But usually it doesn’t. Again, I think it’s more because it feels good to have sex. Granted, over time, men realize that having sex only has temporary results. And as someone stated, it can be soul deadening.
Sure, as part of the sex act, men are looking for intimacy. But for many, they’re only looking for intimacy of the moment, not necessarily something permanent, and are able to not develop any emotional attachment with the person they are being intimate with (I personally can’t).
There are men who are looking to find that special someone, but yet continue to be promiscuous. Your potato chip analogy may apply here. They may feel they can’t find that special someone, but by having sex with all these men, they are holding out hope that one encounter may lead to something, and when it doesn’t, well, at least they had a good time. Frankly, I think that strategy doesn’t work.
I think men experience their deepest intimacy with other men when they are playing sports with each other. I think that trying to express love to a man using the techniques which work for expressing love to a woman only frustrates everyone involved.
This may be true for straight men, that is, if they really want to be intimate with another man. But it obviously has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
Sure, gay men can bond with other men playing sports. Many do that, in fact. But I disagree with your latter point regarding gay men. In fact, I believe it’s the opposite. It’s not being able to express love to a man similar to a way a straight man expresses love to a woman frustrates everyone involved.
Now this doesn’t mean that being gay means you’re only goal with other men is having sex with them. There are other attachments that develop. Besides the sex, there are other things that I do with my partner that I would not do with someone who was just a friend (male or female).
I think the reason I’m attracted to the male/male love of the 19th century is because it is ambiguously sexual.
That’s fine. But it seems to me that the known behaviors of those you mention was done out of necessity and/or survival, given the anti-gay culture that existed in the 19th Century. I can’t imagine that most of these men wouldn’t prefer the freedom we have today and (most likely) in the future. Then they wouldn’t have to be ambiguous, which I frankly believed they abhorred doing.
But, for the gay community, if you’re not doing it up the pooper, you’re in the closet.
Not sure I believe that. Even if true, I don’t have to take every (or any, for that matter) lead from the gay community.
Show me too while you’re at it. Because my experience is that almost no one is the gay community is serious about the institution. They just consider it an entitlement.
AmericanElephant, I can’t argue that too many gay people look at same sex marriage with either looking for an entitlement, and/or just getting something that somebody else has. If that’s what it was all about, then I wouldn’t be a supporter of same sex marriage either.
and how exactly is it good for America again?
This point has been made by several of us here. ILC, for example, has made very compelling argument for same sex marriage. Bruce Bawer and other moderate or conservative authors also have. You simply disagree with the arguments, which is certainly your right.
From various discussions, I pointed out my belief that marriage still benefits society, even if the couple is infertile and/or do not plan to have children. My understanding is that you are willing to still allow such opposite sex couples to marry, not because there is any direct benefit to allow them to do it (except in the case where a couple does change their mind and decide to procreate), but only as a means to encourage straight couples to marry and procreate. So our basic disagreement is that you don’t see any direct benefit for people to enter a marriage if they do not procreate. If that’s the case, then that’s where we disagree. I guess those that do marry who are unable to procreate, or choose not to, disagree with you as well.
Thanks, Pat. I did read your earlier post. You make good points, as usual. I was sad that the thread fizzled out.
Here’s another solution to gay loneliness–marry a woman. Why not? The fact that my strongest feelings are about men doesn’t necessarily mean that a man would make the best lifelong, monogamous partner. I don’t have to base my decisions on trying to maintain a group identity. It’s not being in denial to recognize that this particular person who happens to be a woman is better suited for the type of relationship which I think marriage requires. And she might realize that I have qualities which many men she’s met don’t have. Perhaps the solution to ending the loneliness of older gays is to realize that there might come a time in each gay man’s life when a woman is the best man for the job of marriage.
Both Dan and American Elephants points are well taken. The gay community is not monolithic. A few months back on Chuck Norris´blog on the subject, I commented that it was not gay marriage that I was interested in as much as gay divorce. A canadian responded to my comment that gay marriage is legal where lives. A gay couple after one year decided to divorce and the court didn´t know how to handle it because the legislation that legalized gay marriage made no provision for divorce.
Dan says that the conversation will show our straght peers how serious we are about the institution. I have known of several rare cases where the couple have been together for more than twenty years. They are few and far between. Current statistics show that one out of every two straight marriages end in divorce. I would like to know what makes us think we can do better? Over my lifetime I have had as many serious attempts at a permanent relationship as Mickey Rooney. If gay mariage and divorce were legal I probably would have been in bankruptcy in as many times as he because of palimony.
Ashpenaz is a genius.
Great points Ash.
I am a straight dude. Your comment about the deep affection men get through sports and such is very well taken. I have tried to explain to my wife (unsuccessfully) the amazing bond that I feel with a really good sparring partner. Yes you are beating the bejeezus out of each other, but in a joyful and friendly way.
That is just how men are.
Your later point about “Marry a woman” is outside the box thinking. Great stuff.
(oh yeah…and the original post was good too) 🙂
Here’s another solution to gay loneliness–marry a woman. Why not?
Ashpenaz, as long as both parties are aware of what the expectations are, that’s one thing. I suppose a straight male who is lonely and has had bad luck with women, could also marry a man.
I don’t really prefer either scenario. Traditional marriage, as I see it, is the bringing together of two people who love each other, romantically, and connect emotionally. This is what I believe should be encouraged, whether or not the couple has children. This type of environment, IMO, is beneficial for those couples who do have children.
“The gay community is not monolithic.”
Yes, it is.
“Current statistics show that one out of every two straight marriages end in divorce.”
No, they don’t.
OK, the discussion can continue now that those two myths of the Gay Borg have been discarded.
Ashpenaz
The gay community is monolithic? Are we all Democrats?
If one of two straight marriages don´t end in divorce, what is the current ratio of divorces to marriages?
What is the ratio of gays who support multiple partners/open relationships as the norm to those who support lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships?
You don´t answer a question with a question. You denied my statement that one out of every two straignt marriages end in divorce. Which is a statistical fact. If you think that you know the ratio to be lower, what is it?
Pat,
Yes, you and others have asserted that gay marriage would be beneficial to society.
What I am STILL waiting for is any evidence to support your claim. Gay marriage exists in other countries. Could it be that the reason you have no evidence to support your claim from those countries is because the state of the institution in those countries continues to decline?
evidence please.
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
Ok, maybe you’re right. Now, let’s look at my question.
Personally I don´t care if somebody wants a monogamous relationship or and open or multiple one. People will do what they think will bring joy and fulfillment into their lives. It is not my place to judge which is better. Happiness lies within, (Religious Science). I bring up divorce as part of the conversation of gay marriage because as the canadian said, the courts did not no exacttly how to handle it since it was not factored into the legislation legalizing gay marriage.
You didn’t answer my question. What is the ratio of gays who support multiple partners/open relationships as the norm to those who support lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships?
This is about my comment that the gay community is monolithic. Your answer will be helpful.
Why on Earth not, you are being asked to subsidize it.
What I am STILL waiting for is any evidence to support your claim. Gay marriage exists in other countries. Could it be that the reason you have no evidence to support your claim from those countries is because the state of the institution in those countries continues to decline?
evidence please.
AmericanElephant, let’s assume for the moment that you are correct that marriage is in decline in countries that have same sex marriage. Then the question is, Is having same sex marriage contributing to the decline? I don’t think we have an answer to that question, but whatever the answer is, it’s pretty sad. If no, then the decline has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If yes, then that’s pretty damning, too. Because the vast majority of marriages in those countries are opposite sex marriages.
In any case, I am more interested in how same sex marriage will affect marriage in this country. And we have zero evidence as to how same sex marriage will benefit society, unless you have a crystal ball that can look 100 years into the future, in this country. If marriage continues to decline, you can scapegoat same sex marriage all you want. It will still be a small majority of marriages.
Personally I don´t care if somebody wants a monogamous relationship or and open or multiple one.
I do, Roberto. The only thing I want to change about marriage is the restriction on genders. I believe that a monogamous, exclusive relationship is what the ideal should be and what all marriages should strive for. On the other hand, while we can punish adultery if one of the party is aggrieved, there is nothing stopping opposite sex couples from having open relationships either, and many apparently do. This issue is separate from whether or not there should be same sex marriage.
You didn’t answer my question. What is the ratio of gays who support multiple partners/open relationships as the norm to those who support lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships?
Ashpenaz, I’ll try to answer it, by giving a non-answer, since I don’t know. It is some positive number. It’s not 0, because there are people who do support multiple partners/open relationships as the norm. But it is also not positive infinity, because there are posters, e.g., you, me, and several others, who do not support multiple/open relationships as the norm. Now to get back to your other question.
This is about my comment that the gay community is monolithic. Your answer will be helpful.
I’m not sure how the answer to the previous question would prove that the gay community is monolithic. If the answer is even as high as 4 to 1, then 20% (not 0%) view monogamy as the norm. And even if the answer is 100 to 1 or higher, there are other issues in the gay community. There are consistently about 25% of the gay voters who vote for Republicans. On this blog, we see varying opinions on issues such as health care, taxes, gun laws, to name a few. So I just don’t see this gay monolith.
Your later point about “Marry a woman” is outside the box thinking. Great stuff.
Joseph, are you saying that if you had difficulty finding a woman to marry, you would consider marrying a man?
Anyway, good point about sports. It’s a shame your wife doesn’t get it, because more and more women are getting it, and playing/watching sports.
“Joseph, are you saying that if you had difficulty finding a woman to marry, you would consider marrying a man?”
I can’t speak for him, but I’ve said if it wasn’t for loving women so much, I’d consider it. I can at least understand other men 😛
Ashpenaz
Pat amplified my original observation to your claim that the gay community is monolithic by asking, ¨Are we all Democrats? As Pat so rightly staes that we have differing opinions on a variety of issues. To say we are a monolith is indefensible. We don´t all go out dressed in leather nor wear a little moustache.
Pat.
The fact that you care about monogamy is fine. As I continued, ¨People will fo what they think will bring joy and fulfillment into their lives. It is not my place to judge which is better.¨
AE
Would you mind explaining how I am being asked to subsidize gay or for that matter, human relationships. Thank you.
There is no real support in the gay community for people seeking to have sex only within a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. If you are waiting for marriage to have sex, you don’t get invited to the parades. If you want to encourage young gays to wait until marriage to have sex, you are mocked. That’s what I mean by monolithic.
I can’t speak for him, but I’ve said if it wasn’t for loving women so much, I’d consider it. I can at least understand other men
Livewire, my younger brother feels the same way. Actually, he’s still married, almost 20 years. But he says he still doesn’t understand women. But no, he would never marry another man, even if he was single, and it was non-sexual.
There is no real support in the gay community for people seeking to have sex only within a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.
That may be true, Ashpenaz. When my mother’s cousin, who is gay, found out I was gay, he invited me to give him a call, when I was ready, as a show of support. When I was finally about able to begin the dating thing, I called him to go out for lunch. I was thinking this was going to continue into him introducing me to people, whatever. He cut me loose, and I was on my own. My mother’s (and cousin’s) uncle, also gay, also encouraged me, but was not helpful in establishing connections. I first resented it, but soon realized I had to get out there myself and make a go of it. It had nothing to do whether I was going to choose to be promiscuous, or be very selective. In fact, we didn’t even have that discussion. In other words, we have to rely a lot on ourselves to get things going, and to do things the way we believe is right.
If you are waiting for marriage to have sex, you don’t get invited to the parades.
This is also true, somewhat. I never got invited to parades. Just as well, I never really wanted to go to one. Still may, someday. I’m not waiting for an invitation. I’ll go when I damn well want.
If you want to encourage young gays to wait until marriage to have sex, you are mocked.
Hmm. Okay, I never advocated for any person to wait for marriage to have sex, although I always advocate being selective and responsible. People may have disagreed with that, but I don’t recall ever being mocked for it.
That’s what I mean by monolithic.
Even if the above were completely true, that doesn’t make the gay community a monolith. There’s more to being gay than sex, marriage, and monogamy. And even with your definition, I find it hard to believe that, where you live, 25% of the gay people either don’t share your values regarding monogamy or at least do not mock you for your values. All I can tell you is that I can say the majority of gay men I know either share my values, or if they don’t, respect my values.
Thanks for the report from the Hello Kitty and Precious Moments World you live in, Pat–now, is there any response from the world the rest of us live in?
We need to force acceptance of homosexuality on the whole country so gays won’t be lonely? Please! If gays are lonely it’s not because their sexual behavior doesn’t have the blessing of the state. Gays, lonely or not, can already have any kind of a relationship they want: open, monogamous, committed, transient, etc. If granting state approval to sexual behavior cured lonliness then there wouldn’t be any lonely straight people. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Legalizing gay marriage is NOT about granting civil rights to homosexuals; it’s about destroying the Judeo-Christian foundation of our society, and I will fight to the death to stop that from happening.
I never understand what that expression is supposed to mean. Release from what?
I’m having trouble following that, as well. It sounds as though the type of gay men who have sex with near-strangers are supposed to (at your say-so, GPW) try to make something better of their tawdry encounters… and, according to your friend, the passage of gay marriage might persuade them to. Somehow I doubt it. The ‘hookup’ types are, by definition, those least ready or willing to marry, hence those least likely to be influenced by gay marriage. Anyway I don’t think it’s a great way to approach (or converse about) the “meaning” of gay marriage.
Pat, if we lived on the same coast and were both available, I would totally want to get to know you.
And Ash #29: Sorry, but people who live in glass houses (i.e., in their own world in many ways) shouldn’t throw snark. It doesn’t quite work.
Ok, that was snarky. I’m sorry. And I do have my own little glass house to take care of.
Pat, if we lived on the same coast and were both available, I would totally want to get to know you.
Thanks, ILC. Same here.
Thanks for the report from the Hello Kitty and Precious Moments World you live in, Pat
Ashpenaz, I kind of wish that were true right now. I spent the last two hours desperately trying to get my 15-year-old puppy to eat something.
Ok, that was snarky. I’m sorry. And I do have my own little glass house to take care of.
I appreciate that, Ashpenaz. I heard a little maxim once that went something like this. You end up with a person (or people) that has the qualities of what you expect from people. This supposedly applies to relationships, friends, etc. I don’t know if I believe it, but it does seem to happen quite often with people.
Again, I’m not saying that gay people are always nice, responsible people. And even if one does seem to be a magnet of persons with behaviors one abhors, it doesn’t excuse the bad behavior of others. I have met plenty of class A jerks out there. I simply choose not to hang with them. Heck, it seems more like they don’t want to hang with me.