Update on SSM and its redefinition of marriage

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only by people who actually read and think instead of being led blindly by all the feel-good propaganda about 'marriage equality' and 'love wins'.

 

A few more:

• Andrew Sullivan, a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."  (Link)
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ - Michelangelo Signorile (Link)
• "In our (gay) culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute …in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing." - Gareth Kirby (Link)
• In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: "Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.) (Link)
• The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.  (Link)
• In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."  (Link)
• A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.  (Link)
• In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."  (Link)
• A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.  (Link)
• In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.  (Link)
• A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."  (Link)

Another very important aspect of marriage - its relationship to childbearing and childrearing - is also very different in comparative terms between heterosexual and same-sex "families."  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Claims regarding the numbers of children being raised in homosexual and lesbian households vary widely and are often unsubstantiated. According to a study on homosexual parenting in the American Sociological Review, researchers have given figures "of uncertain origin, depicting a range of...6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States."  According to the study's authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, the higher estimates are based upon "classifying as a lesbigay [sic] parent anyone who reports that even the idea of homoerotic sex is appealing."  Instead, the authors favor a figure of about one million, which "derives from the narrower...definition of a lesbigay parent as one who self-identifies as such."  However, even the lower figure of one million children being raised in gay and lesbian households does not stand up to statistical analysis.  The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 594,391 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States (301,026 male homosexual households and 293,365 lesbian households). This indicates that only one percent of the total of 59,969,000 households contain same-sex partners. Assuming the Stacey/Biblarz estimate that one million children have a homosexual or lesbian parent, this would mean that, on average, every homosexual household has at least one child.  However, the 2000 Census figures show that only 33 percent (or 96,810) of female same-sex households and 22 percent (or 66,225) of male same-sex households have their own children living with them. These 163,035 same-sex couples (or 326,070 individuals) comprise only 8 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population. Put another way, 92 percent of the estimated adult population of homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. do not live with children. By comparison, the 2000 Census showed that 46 percent of married couple households have at least one child living in the household. However, this figure underestimates the total number of married couples who have had children, as many older couples have grown children who are no longer living at home.

To me, the defining attributes of marriage are emotional/sexual fidelity, having/rearing children, complementary exemplars for children (father figures and mother figures), pooling of resources, longevity, and so on.  Pretty much all of these attributes appear be largely missing from most same-sex "marriages."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It should surprise no one that those who were not given a place within the vast majority of our Judeo-Christian faith traditions do not share our same moral values.

I presume the Church will continue to be a great force within the world for teaching the value of commitment and fidelity.  It would be great if we could have the same influence within the gay marriage population, but that would require accepting some things that we aren't willing to accept right now.

Why would the “gay marriage population” (or anyone else) be more likely to accept moral guidance from those who are willing to change their moral standards in order to gain influence? 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It should surprise no one that those who were not given a place within the vast majority of our Judeo-Christian faith traditions do not share our same moral values.

Do you believe that the marriage fidelity figures for the “atheist marriage population” are comparable to those rep[orted for the “gay marriage population?” 

[california boy]

Cheating Statistics: Do Men Cheat More Than Women

Quote

About 70 percent of married men admitted to cheating on their wives! Another study found that 2/3 of women are not aware of their husband's affair. I can relate to that — It took a long time until I found out myself — when I decided to check his phone.

What about the women? Most statistics found that about 50 to 60 percent of women admitted to having an affair. This one really shocked me. Are there really millions of cheating women in the states? I never even imagined these statistics.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So that will be a good thing for the Church, right?

Well, it means if God wants to restore polygamy prior to the Second Coming, it won't be against the laws of the government he's about to topple...

Because that would be a concern for him. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Cheating Statistics: Do Men Cheat More Than Women

 

But then there's this:

Quote

How Common is Cheating & Infidelity Really?

By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. 

Sometimes I worry that society is becoming immune to infidelity and cheating in a romantic relationship. We hear things like, “Half of all marriages end in divorce” and “Half of people in a relationship admit to cheating.” We become desensitized and perhaps a bit pessimistic by hearing these disheartening statistics repeated over and over again.

It’s become so bad that some people are even making up statistics to either sell their infidelity-helping or infidelity-fighting services. For instance, one common statistic I hear thrown out there is that 50 percent of relationships involve infidelity.

Sadly, that statistic is not based upon any scientific research. It’s something marketing companies just made up and use to scare (or motivate) people into buying into their service.

So how common is cheating, really?

The short answer is, “Not nearly as common as you would be led to believe.”

I last talked about infidelity a few years ago, and why people cheat. But what I didn’t cover is exactly how common — or, to put it more accurately, uncommon — cheating actually is.

The Prevalence of Infidelity

Researchers Blow & Hartnett (2005)(1) took a comprehensive look at this issue and reviewed all the research on infidelity a few years ago. Here is what they have to say about how common cheating really is:

Quote

Many research studies attempt to estimate exactly how many people engage in infidelity, and the statistics appear reliable when studies focus on sexual intercourse, deal with heterosexual couples, and draw from large, representative, national samples. From the 1994 General Social Survey of 884 men and 1288 women, 78% of men and 88% of women denied ever having extramarital (EM) sex (Wiederman, 1997). The 1991-1996 General Social Surveys report similar data; in those years 13% of respondents admitted to having had EM sex (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001).

In the 1981 National Survey of Women, 10% of the overall sample had a secondary sex partner. Married women were the least likely (4%), dating women more likely (18%), and cohabiting women most likely (20%) to have had a secondary sex partner (Forste & Tanfer, 1996). […]

Compared with Laumann et al. (1994), other authors report significantly lower prevalence statistics. General Social Surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 showed that a mere 1.5% of married people reported having had a sexual partner other than their spouse in the year before the survey (Smith, 1991), and less than 3% of Choi, Catania, and Dolcini’s (1994) sample had engaged in EM sex in the previous 12 months.

In a 1993 probability sample that included 1194 married adults, 1.2% had EM sex in the last 30 days, 3.6% had EM sex in the last year, and 6.4% had EM sex in the last 5 years (Leigh, Temple, & Trocki, 1993). These results possibly indicate that the number of EM sexual involvements in any given year is quite low, but that over the lifetime of a relationship this number is notably higher.

In general, based on the above data, we can conclude that over the course of married, heterosexual relationships in the United States, EM sex occurs in less than 25% of committed relationships, and more men than women appear to be engaging in infidelity (Laumann et al., 1994; Wiederman, 1997). Further, these rates are significantly lower in any given year. […] (Blow & Hartnett, 2005)

Another study conducted on a population-based sample of married women (N = 4,884) found that the annual prevalence of infidelity was much smaller on the basis of the face-to-face interview (1.08%) than on the computer-assisted self-interview (6.13%) (Whisman & Snyder, 2007).2

Taken together, in any given year, it looks like the actual likelihood of your relationship suffering from cheating is low — probably less than a 6 percent chance.

But over the course of your entire relationship, the chances of infidelity may rise to as much as 25 percent. Twenty-five percent — over the course of an entire relationship — is a far cry from the 50 percent number we hear from many so-called professionals and services trying to sell you something.

...

Whisman & Snyder (2007) also found support that the likelihood of infidelity decreases the more religious you are, as you age, or if you’re better educated. They also found that the risk for cheating was greater for women who were remarried (compared to those who were on their first marriage), or for either gender with the greater number of sexual partners you have.

Wow!  So statistics on this topic appear to vary dramatically (25% per the above article versus 70% (men) / 50-60% (women)).  I wonder which are more accurate.

In any event, I am glad that the LDS Church teaches its adherents to A) be religious, B) educate themselves, and C) be faithful to their spouse.  I think rates of infidelity amongst active, observant Latter-day Saints are going to be quite low.

Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is about the rampant rates of increasingly out-and-proud infidelity/promiscuity that apparently pervade same-sex relationships, including "marriages."

Again, can anyone point me to published books/articles by the folks on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument in which sexual fidelity to one's legally-and-lawfully-wedded-same-sex spouse is encouraged?  The article in the OP makes it sound like many (most?) of the gay rights folks hold such a notion in contempt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Do you believe that the marriage fidelity figures for the “atheist marriage population” are comparable to those rep[orted for the “gay marriage population?” 

I don't know but atheists are not an adequate parallel to LGBT persons in my example.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know but atheists are not an adequate parallel to LGBT persons in my example.

Why not since your point was apparently outsiders to the JudeoChristian traditions naturally lack the morality of that tradition (if I understand you correctly)?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Why would the “gay marriage population” (or anyone else) be more likely to accept moral guidance from those who are willing to change their moral standards in order to gain influence? 

I'm not sure they would.  But every year good Mormon parents give birth to children who are blessed, taught, and baptized.  Those children develop faith in Christ, testimonies of the Church, and trust in the Brethren.  We, as a church, will have incredible influence on their personal moral compass.  And then some of them will realize that they are gay or lesbian...

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure they would.  But every year good Mormon parents give birth to children who are blessed, taught, and baptized.  Those children develop faith in Christ, testimonies of the Church, and trust in the Brethren.  We, as a church, will have incredible influence on their personal moral compass.  And then some of them will realize that they are gay or lesbian...

And we have no real numbers on how many of those experiencing these feelings choose to live within the standards of morality taught by the Church and are successful because generally only those who reject that morality and speak up about it can be counted.  Especially if those choosing to stay refuse to define themselves and their lives by sexual attraction parameters.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

But then there's this:

Wow!  So statistics on this topic appear to vary dramatically (25% per the above article versus 70% (men) / 50-60% (women)).  I wonder which are more accurate.

In any event, I am glad that the LDS Church teaches its adherents to A) be religious, B) educate themselves, and C) be faithful to their spouse.  I think rates of infidelity amongst active, observant Latter-day Saints are going to be quite low.

Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is about the rampant rates of increasingly out-and-proud infidelity/promiscuity that apparently pervade same-sex relationships, including "marriages."

Again, can anyone point me to published books/articles by the folks on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument in which sexual fidelity to one's legally-and-lawfully-wedded-same-sex spouse is encouraged?  The article in the OP makes it sound like many (most?) of the gay rights folks hold such a notion in contempt.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So basically you are saying we should question statistics on fidelity in straight marriages, but believe completely the article on gay marriage fidelity.  How quickly you and your buddies that are all high fiveing this latest article on gay fidelity forget that recently 39 million married people were on that wonderful straight Ashley Madison web site set up for married straight men and women can have affairs.   Got it.

This is just another of the endless threads that are started on a regular basis blasting gays and their relationships.  After all, they are sinners and apostates and should not be worthy of their civil rights like OUR marriages.  Our leaders have told us we should show kindness to all the gays, but we can still call them apostates and not allow their children to be a part of OUR church until they meet our special requirements because they come from sinful families.  

It must be a burden carrying all that righteous glory around all the time.  You must thank God every day that you and the usual 6 suspects are not like those unrepentant gays.  Posting this article that makes just the right claims you want it to make must make you feel so superior.  And completely ignoring any study that says what you don't like justifies your contempt for gay families.   Isn't that why these threads are started on a regular basis?  Shouldn't this thread be about infidelity in both straight and gay marriages?  Or is it always those apostate gays we must regularly point to as being unworthy of our respect while ignoring the infidelity of straight marriages.  It is after all "the gays" that are single handedly ruining the definition of marriage.  

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

So basically you are saying we should question statistics on fidelity in straight marriages, but believe completely the article on gay marriage fidelity.  How quickly you and your buddies that are all high fiveing this latest article on gay fidelity forget that recently 39 million married people were on that wonderful straight Ashley Madison web site set up for married straight men and women can have affairs.   Got it.

This is just another of the endless threads that are started on a regular basis blasting gays and their relationships.  After all, they are sinners and apostates and should not be worthy of their civil rights like OUR marriages.  Our leaders have told us we should show kindness to all the gays, but we can still call them apostates and not allow their children to be a part of OUR church until they meet our special requirements because they come from sinful families.  

It must be a burden carrying all that righteous glory around all the time.  You must thank God every day that you and the usual 6 suspects are not like those unrepentant gays.  Posting this article that makes just the right claims you want it to make must make you feel so superior.  And completely ignoring any study that says what you don't like justifies your contempt for gay families.   Isn't that why these threads are started on a regular basis?  Shouldn't this thread be about infidelity in both straight and gay marriages?  Or is it always those apostate gays we must regularly point to as being unworthy of our respect while ignoring the infidelity of straight marriages.  It is after all "the gays" that are single handedly ruining the definition of marriage.  

First, I said this: "So statistics on this topic appear to vary dramatically (25% per the above article versus 70% (men) / 50-60% (women)).  I wonder which are more accurate."  

Did you catch the last bit?  Here it is again: "I wonder which (statistics) are more accurate."  I was posing a question, not making an assertion.

Second, the points being discussed here are verbatim quotes from gay rights folks and their perspectives on infidelity/promiscuity being an accepted/expected feature of same-sex "marriages."

Third, drop the victim card.  Nobody is "blasting gays" or calling them "sinners and apostates."  We are discussing what they are saying about marital (in)fidelity, and how disturbing that is.  I am sure that it is hard to face the reality of what so many of your compatriots are doing under the pretext of "marriage".  

This is not a comparison of or dispute between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, not really.  There is no reasonable comparison between, on the one hand, the expectations and requirements which the LDS Church impute into the marriage relationship (which also reflect, I think, a very common set of expectations and requirements in heterosexual marriages in society generally) and, on the other, the free-wheeling, pervasive promiscuity/infidelity that, according to your compatriots, is a natural part of same-sex relationships, including marriage.  As one fellow put it: “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”  This appears to be the predominant attitude about same-sex "marriages" amongst your compatriots.  Am I wrong?  I surely hope so.  I have twice asked this question, and here it is again: Can anyone point me to published books/articles by the folks on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument in which sexual fidelity to one's legally-and-lawfully-wedded-same-sex spouse is encouraged?  

Surely there must be some substantial body of literature advocating fidelity within same-sex marriages and discouraging the rampant promiscuity/infidelity described in the OP's linked article?  (It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I can point to literally hundreds and hundreds of instances where LDS general authorities have clearly and unequivocally condemned promiscuity, extra-marital sex, etc., and advocated total fidelity within marriage.)  Can you point to such materials?  

So no, this thread needn't be about infidelity in heterosexual marriages.  Nobody on this board is suggesting that infidelity/promiscuity is just okey-dokey in traditional marriages. Your apparent implication to the contrary is absurd and pernicious. And if you were to write an article discouraging infidelity in heterosexual marriages, I'd be right there with you and encouraging you.  You see, I think you and I have the same viewpoint on fidelity in marriage, and on the norms and expectations pertaining thereto.  That some people violate these norms and expectations does not eliminate those norms/expectations (particularly in the LDS paradigm, where infidelity in marriage is considered one of the most serious transgressions).  In contrast, however, your compatriots are proposing that rampant infidelity and promiscuity in same-sex marriages *are* the norm  and expectation of those relationships. 

Fourth, the bulk of your rant is unbecoming and not worthy of a substantive response.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2016 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

From my own research it seems men cheat just to have quick sex, and women cheat for emotional reasons. 

[readstoomuch]

We are commenting on the inspiration of our leaders in opposing the policy of SSM.  SSM from sources very empathetic to the SSM movement report that monogamy is not a big part of SSM.  I don't know how children are supposed to be raised In such families if they're exposed to this way of thinking.  Kudos to those in SSM relationships that have fidelity to their partners.  I don't want to persecute or talk badly of gays.  I wouldn't dare if I wanted to as the forces of political correctness would make sure I paid for my actions.  

SSM was thrust down my throat by a court system that rejected the voters of my state.  It couldn't be called a relationship or a union, it had to be marriage.  It is a marriage with a large majority who practice it expecting to be open to other sexual partners in their marriage.  At least that seems to be what I am reading.  It makes me sick.  That is where I find fault with the gay agenda.  

Would the liberal LDS who support SSM do so if they knew promiscuity was rampant?  Yes, heterosexuals are too promiscuous.  Isn't the gospel of Christ calling for us to all do better.  

Would those who talk about temple sealings in the future for SSM accept a pass on the commitment to sexual relations only with their spouse.  After all it isn't convenient or easy to do so apparently.  Heck we might as well clarify that heterosexual temple marriages don't have to be associated with fidelity.  How far can we water down the gospel of Christ before it would be acceptable to the Rainbow Coalition?

[california boy]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The points being discussed here are verbatim quotes from gay rights folks and their perspectives on infidelity/promiscuity being an accepted/expected feature of same-sex "marriages."

 

So Whitlock posts an article about how some gay activists views marriage.  Should I start a thread about how Charlie Sheen or Britney Spears or Wilt Chamberlin or half the couples in Hollywood feels about straight marriage?  Certainly their views of marriage must be how all straight people feel about marriage.

Quote

 

Third, drop the victim card.  Nobody is "blasting gays" or calling them "sinners and apostates." 

 

 

Isn't this exactly what the church calls EVERY married gay couple?

 

Quote

 

This is not a comparison of or dispute between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, not really

 

 

What you are really saying is you only want to talk about gay infidelity, not straight infidelity.  Yeah that was already made clear.

 

Quote

 

“There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”  

 

Same kind of pressure from who? For the most part, those very institutions that preach monogamy don't allow gays to be members.  Funny how that works.  I am shocked.

 

Quote

 

Surely there must be some substantial body of literature advocating fidelity within same-sex marriages and discouraging the rampant promiscuity/infidelity described in the OP's linked article?

 

This must come as a surprise for you but the "gay community" does not have any churches that speak for the gay community. You seriously are not suggesting that NO ONE in the gay community believes in mmonogamousrelationships are you?

Quote

 

So no, this thread needn't be about infidelity in heterosexual marriages.  Nobody on this board is suggesting that infidelity/promiscuity is just okey-dokey in traditional marriages. Your apparent implication to the contrary is absurd and pernicious

 

 

No this thread is only about those sinful gays that don't view marriage the same way as members of the Mormon church.  The church does view those marriages as sinful doesn't it?  Is that really an absurd and pemicous implication?

 

Quote

 

Fourth, the bulk of your rant is unbecoming and not worthy of a substantive response. 

 

The rest of my rant is exactly how some Mormons like the group posting on this thread view gay relationships.  As you well know the Mormon Church llabelsgay couples as apostates and their children are not allowed to be baptized.  They are viewed as unrepented sinners.  The church has also made it perfectly clear that gay couples are not worthy of their civil rights to marry.  

Look, I am not defending how some gays view marriage, just like you would not defend how some straights view marriage.  My point is, this little group that constantly posts about the gays NEVER starts threads on how SOME straights view marriage.  But if they can find some gay guy who has a different perspective on what he thinks marriage is, and is willing to spout off about it, a thread is started.  After these multi weekly posts about gays, it is pretty clear how they and a lot of members want everyone to believe about gays.  It is a constant smear campaign.  They are endless.  It is an obsession with this little group.  When is the last time one of these guys posted something positive about the gay community?  Why do you think there is a constant stream of these negative threads?  You don't think it is some justification for how they and the church views gay relationships?   I know propaganda when I see it.  This is propaganda against gay relationships.  There.  More rant for you to ignore.  Not a shred of truth in it.  Right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/3/2016 at 0:38 AM, california boy said:

 

So Whitlock posts an article about how some gay activists views marriage.  Should I start a thread about how Charlie Sheen or Britney Spears or Wilt Chamberlin or half the couples in Hollywood feels about straight marriage?  Certainly their views of marriage must be how all straight people feel about marriage.

 

Isn't this exactly what the church calls EVERY married gay couple?

 

 

What you are really saying is you only want to talk about gay infidelity, not straight infidelity.  Yeah that was already made clear.

 

Same kind of pressure from who? For the most part, those very institutions that preach monogamy don't allow gays to be members.  Funny how that works.  I am shocked.

 

This must come as a surprise for you but the "gay community" does not have any churches that speak for the gay community. You seriously are not suggesting that NO ONE in the gay community believes in mmonogamousrelationships are you?

 

No this thread is only about those sinful gays that don't view marriage the same way as members of the Mormon church.  The church does view those marriages as sinful doesn't it?  Is that really an absurd and pemicous implication?

 

The rest of my rant is exactly how some Mormons like the group posting on this thread view gay relationships.  As you well know the Mormon Church llabelsgay couples as apostates and their children are not allowed to be baptized.  They are viewed as unrepented sinners.  The church has also made it perfectly clear that gay couples are not worthy of their civil rights to marry.  

Look, I am not defending how some gays view marriage, just like you would not defend how some straights view marriage.  My point is, this little group that constantly posts about the gays NEVER starts threads on how SOME straights view marriage.  But if they can find some gay guy who has a different perspective on what he thinks marriage is, and is willing to spout off about it, a thread is started.  After these multi weekly posts about gays, it is pretty clear how they and a lot of members want everyone to believe about gays.  It is a constant smear campaign.  They are endless.  It is an obsession with this little group.  When is the last time one of these guys posted something positive about the gay community?  Why do you think there is a constant stream of these negative threads?  You don't think it is some justification for how they and the church views gay relationships?   I know propaganda when I see it.  This is propaganda against gay relationships.  There.  More rant for you to ignore.  Not a shred of truth in it.  Right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much here that could be countered. I'll just make a couple of points. 

I don't know if I'm included in your rogue's gallery of the "six usual suspects," but I have on multiple occasions over the years made posts reflecting my contempt of the sexual revolution that began in my youth and the attitude that there can be anything respectable or acceptable about infidelity or for that matter any sex outside of marriage. It is abominable. I thought so in the 1960s, and I continue to feel that way today. It won't do to point to sexually promiscuous heterosexuals and accuse faithful Mormons of hypocrisy, as we find such behavior gravely unacceptable.

Secondly, Smac has raised a pertinent question that merits a response: Can anyone point to a body of literature among gay rights advocates that supports or encourages fidelity between couples in homosexual relationships? If it were the norm, surely there must be a substantial archive of published material reflecting it. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mikegriffith1]

When I worked in Portland, Oregon, my job brought me into contact with many gays. I got to know a lot of them pretty well. A number of them said they had turned to homosexuality because they had given up on women and/or because they had had their hearts broken by women. And, as for monogamy, most of them had multiple partners.

[jwhitlock]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

So to sum up then, the movement to redefine marriage has been, at its core, a movement to define marriage out of existence by making the term marriage essentially meaningless. 

It appears that what the sexual revolution has not quite been able to accomplish the gay rights movement will finish. 

And that, my friends, is why the same-sex marriage advocacy movement threatens marriage as an institution. And that is why inspired prophets and apostles have opposed it. 

I think you hit a key point on the head here.

The issue is not that SSM introduces a lack of strict monogamy into marriage. That has been part of the steady decline with marriage itself over the years.

What SSM does is codify monogamish as part of marriage. It does, as you mentioned, accomplish what the sexual revolution was trying to do.

[jwhitlock]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

It should surprise no one that those who were not given a place within the vast majority of our Judeo-Christian faith traditions do not share our same moral values.

I presume the Church will continue to be a great force within the world for teaching the value of commitment and fidelity.  It would be great if we could have the same influence within the gay marriage population, but that would require accepting some things that we aren't willing to accept right now.

Gays were offered a place on the same terms that everyone else was. Some chose to accept that offer, others chose to reject it.

What you seem not to understand is that gay relationships, by their very nature, tend towards a lack of monogamy. That's not the fault of the church, though there are some who would like to play the victim card and say it's all the church's fault.

What the church will not accept is a lack of total fidelity. And since SSM downplays total fidelity as not necessary, SSM will never, ever be acceptable to the Lord or to His church.

[jwhitlock]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

But then there's this:

Wow!  So statistics on this topic appear to vary dramatically (25% per the above article versus 70% (men) / 50-60% (women)).  I wonder which are more accurate.

In any event, I am glad that the LDS Church teaches its adherents to A) be religious, B) educate themselves, and C) be faithful to their spouse.  I think rates of infidelity amongst active, observant Latter-day Saints are going to be quite low.

Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is about the rampant rates of increasingly out-and-proud infidelity/promiscuity that apparently pervade same-sex relationships, including "marriages."

Again, can anyone point me to published books/articles by the folks on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument in which sexual fidelity to one's legally-and-lawfully-wedded-same-sex spouse is encouraged?  The article in the OP makes it sound like many (most?) of the gay rights folks hold such a notion in contempt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Excellent response to the rant. I too would like to see evidence of the studies or agendas by SSM advocates pushing for fidelity and lasting (not just long term) monogamy in gay relationships.

I would expect, since Massachusetts legalized SSM in 2004, I would like to see some statistics on how may gay marriages have been totally monogamous in all respects for at least 5 years or more. We should somewhere be able to get some data on that. And we should have at least some verifiable examples of total monogamy in longer term gay relationships somewhere. I haven't been able to find that information at this point.

[jwhitlock]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So much here that could be countered. I'll just make a couple of points. 

I don't know if I'm included in your rogue's gallery of the "six usual suspect," but I have on multiple occasions over the years made posts reflecting my contempt of the sexual revolution that began in my youth and the attitude that there can be anything respectable or acceptable about infidelity or for that matter any sex outside of marriage. It is abominable. I thought so in the 1960s, and I continue to feel that way today. It won't do to point to sexually promiscuous heterosexuals and accuse faithful Mormons of hypocrisy, as we find such behavior gravely unacceptable.

Secondly, Smac has raised a pertinent question that merits a response: Can anyone point to a body of literature among gay rights advocates that supports or encourages fidelity between couples in homosexual relationships? If it were the norm, surely there must be a substantial archive of published material reflecting it. 

I second a call for an answer to Smac's question. I would hope that CB would be able to provide such information to intelligently counter what has been posted, rather than continuing to falsely portray what this thread is about.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

I second a call for an answer to Smac's question. I would hope that CB would be able to provide such information to intelligently counter what has been posted, rather than continuing to falsely portray what this thread is about.

Well, CB?

[Teancum]

Here is an excerpt from an article that explores this issue from 2013.

One comment.  It would seem that the lack of the ability for same sex couple to marry may be in part one of the drivers to the heavy promiscuity among gay homosexuals.   just speculating really.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-gay-guide-to-wedded-bliss/309317/

THE SEX PROBLEM

When, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Pepper Schwartz asked couples about their sex lives, she arrived at perhaps her most explosive finding: non-monogamy was rampant among gay men, a whopping 82 percent of whom reported having had sex outside their relationship. Slightly more than one-third of gay-male couples felt that monogamy was important; the other two-thirds said that monogamy was unimportant or that they were neutral on the topic. In a funny way, Schwartz says, her findings suggested that same-sex unions (like straight ones) aren’t necessarily about sex. Some gay men made a point of telling her they loved their partners but weren’t physically attracted to them. Others said they wanted to be monogamous but were unsupported in that wish, by their partner, gay culture, or both.

Schwartz believes that a move toward greater monogamy was emerging among gay men even before the AIDS crisis. Decades later, gay-male couples are more monogamous than they used to be, but not nearly to the same degree as other kinds of couples. In her Vermont research, Esther Rothblum found that 15 percent of straight husbands said they’d had sex outside their relationship, compared with 58 percent of gay men in civil unions and 61 percent of gay men who were partnered but not in civil unions. When asked whether a couple had arrived at an explicit agreement about extra-relational sex, a minuscule 4 percent of straight husbands said they’d discussed it with their partner and determined that it was okay, compared with 40 percent of gay men in civil unions and 49 percent of gay men in partnerships that were not legally recognized. Straight women and lesbians, meanwhile, were united in their commitment to monogamy, lesbians more so than straight women: 14 percent of straight wives said they had had sex outside their marriage, compared with 9 percent of lesbians in civil unions and 7 percent of lesbians who were partnered but not in civil unions.

The question of whether gays and lesbians will change marriage, or vice versa, is at its thorniest around sex and monogamy. Private behavior could well stay private: when she studied marriage in the Netherlands, Lee Badgett, the University of Massachusetts economist, found that while many same-sex couples proselytize about the egalitarianism of their relationships, they don’t tend to promote non-monogamy, even if they practice it. Then again, some gay-rights advocates, like the writer and sex columnist Dan Savage, argue very publicly that insisting on monogamy can do a couple more harm than good. Savage, who questions whether most humans are cut out for decades of sex with only one person, told me that “monogamy in marriage has been a disaster for straight couples” because it has set unrealistic expectations. “Gay-male couples are much more likely to be realistic about what men are,” he said. Savage’s own marriage started out monogamous; the agreement was that if either partner cheated, this would be grounds for ending the relationship. But when he and his husband decided to adopt a child, Savage suggested that they relax their zero-tolerance policy on infidelity. He felt that risking family dissolution over such an incident no longer made sense. His husband later suggested they explicitly allow each other occasional dalliances, a policy Savage sees as providing a safety valve for the relationship. If society wants marriage to be more resilient, he argues, we must make it more “momagish".

“I have a list of like 12 issues that people need to talk about that cause conflict,” said Hall, who is lanky, with short gray hair and horn-rims, and who looks like he could be a dean of pretty much anything: American literature, political philosophy, East Asian studies. As we talked in his office one morning this spring, sunlight poured through a bank of arched windows onto an Oriental rug. Over the years, he has amassed a collection of cheesy 1970s paperbacks with names like Open Marriage and Total Woman, which he calls “books that got people into trouble.” The dean grew up in Hollywood, and in the 1990s was a priest at a church in Pasadena where he did many same-sex blessings (a blessing being a ceremony that stops short of legal marriage). He is as comfortable talking about Camille Paglia and the LGBT critique of marriage as he is about Holy Week. He is also capable of saying things like “The problem with genital sex is that it involves us emotionally in a way that we’re not in control of.”

When Hall sees couples for premarital preparation, he gives them a list of hypothetical conflicts to take home, hash out, and report back on. Everybody fights, he tells them. The people who thrive in marriage are the ones who can handle disagreement and make their needs known. So he presents them with the prime sticking points: affection and lovemaking; how to deal with in-laws; where holidays will be spent; outside friendships. He talks to them about parenting roles, and chores, and money—who will earn it and who will make decisions about it.

Like Esther Rothblum, he has found that heterosexual couples persist in approaching these topics with stereotypical assumptions. “You start throwing out questions for men and women: ‘Who’s going to take care of the money?’ And the guy says, ‘That’s me.’ And you ask: ‘Who’s responsible for birth control?’ And the guy says, ‘That’s her department.’ ” By contrast, he reports, same-sex couples “have thought really hard about how they’re going to share the property, the responsibilities, the obligations in a mutual way. They’ve had to devote much more thought to that than straight couples, because the straight couples pretty much still fall back on old modes.”

Now when Hall counsels heterosexuals, “I’m really pushing back on their patriarchal assumptions: that the woman’s got to give up her career for the guy; that the guy is going to take care of the money.” Every now and then, he says, he has a breakthrough, and a straight groom realizes that, say, contraception is his concern too. Hall says the same thing is happening in the offices of any number of pastors, rabbis, and therapists. “You’re not going to be able to talk to heterosexual couples where there’s a power imbalance and talk to a homosexual couple where there is a power mutuality,” and not have the conversations impact one another. As a result, he believes there will be changes to marriage, changes that some people will find scary. “When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”

Hall argues that same-sex marriage stands to change even the wedding service itself. For a good 1,000 years, he notes, the Christian Church stayed out of matrimony, which was primarily a way for society to regulate things like inheritance. But ever since the Church did get involved, the wedding ceremony has tended to reflect the gender mores of the time. For example, the Book of Common Prayer for years stated that a wife must love, honor, and obey her husband, treating him as her master and lord. That language is long gone, but vestiges persist: the tradition of the father giving away the bride dates from an era when marriage was a property transfer and the woman was the property. In response to the push for same-sex marriage, Hall says, the General Convention, the governing council of the entire Episcopal Church, has devised a liturgy for same-sex ceremonies (in most dioceses, these are blessings) that honors but alters this tradition so that both spouses are presented by sponsors.

“The new service does not ground marriage in a doctrine of creation and procreation,” Hall says. “It grounds marriage in a kind of free coming-together of two people to live out their lives.” A study group has convened to look at the Church’s teachings on marriage, and in the next couple of years, Hall expects, the General Convention will adopt a new service for all Episcopal weddings. He is hopeful that the current same-sex service will serve as its basis.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is likely to affect even members of churches that have not performed such ceremonies. Delman Coates, the pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist, a predominantly African American mega-church in southern Maryland, was active in his state’s fight for marriage equality, presenting it to his parishioners as a civil-rights issue. The topic has also led to some productive, if difficult, conversations about “what the Scriptures are condemning and what they’re confirming.” In particular, he has challenged his flock over what he calls the “typical clobber passages”: certain verses in Leviticus, Romans, and elsewhere that many people interpret as condemnations of homosexuality. These discussions are part of a long-standing effort to challenge people’s thinking about other passages having to do with divorce and premarital sex—issues many parishioners have struggled with at home. Coates preaches that what the Bible is condemning is not modern divorce, but a practice, common in biblical times, whereby men cast out their wives for no good reason. Similarly, he tells them that the “fornication” invoked is something extreme—rape, incest, prostitution. He does not condone illicit behavior or familial dissolution, but he wants the members of his congregation to feel better about their own lives. In exchanges like these, he is making gay marriage part of a much larger conversation about the way we live and love now.

Gay marriage’s ripples are also starting to be felt beyond churches, in schools and neighborhoods and playgroups. Which raises another question: Will gay and lesbian couples be peacemakers or combatants in the “mommy wars”—the long-simmering struggle between moms who stay at home and moms who work outside it? If you doubt that straight households are paying attention to same-sex ones, consider Danie, a woman who lives with her husband and two children in Bethesda, Maryland. (Danie asked me not to use her last name out of concern for her family’s privacy.) Not long after she completed a master’s degree in Spanish linguistics at Georgetown University, her first baby was born. Because her husband, Jesse, works long hours as a litigator, she decided to become a full-time parent—not an easy decision in work-obsessed Washington, D.C. For a while, she ran a photography business out of their home, partly because she loves photography but partly so she could assure people at dinner parties that she had paying work. Whenever people venture that women who work outside the home don’t judge stay-at-home moms, Danie thinks: Are you freaking kidding me?

She takes some comfort, however, in the example of a lesbian couple with whom she is friendly. Both women are attorneys, and one stays home with their child. “Their life is exactly the same as ours,” Danie told me, with a hint of vindication. If being a stay-at-home mother is “good enough for her, then what’s my issue? She’s a huge women’s-rights activist.” But while comparing herself with a lesbian couple is liberating in some ways, it also exacerbates the competitive anxiety that afflicts so many modern mothers. The other thing about these two mothers, Danie said, is that they are so relaxed, so happy, so present. Even the working spouse manages to be a super-involved parent, to a much greater extent than most of the working fathers she knows. “I’m a little bit obsessed with them,” she says.

Related to this is the question of how gay fatherhood might impact heterosexual fatherhood—by, for example, encouraging the idea that men can be emotionally accessible, logistically capable parents. Will the growing presence of gay dads in some communities mean that men are more often included in the endless e‑mail chains that go to parents of preschoolers and birthday-party invitees? As radically as fatherhood has changed in recent decades, a number of antiquated attitudes about dads have proved strangely enduring: Rob Hardies, the pastor at All Souls, reports that when his partner, Chris, successfully folded a stroller before getting on an airplane with their son, Nico, he was roundly congratulated by passersby, as if he had solved a difficult mathematical equation in public. So low are expectations for fathers, even now, that in Stephanie Schacher’s study of gay fathers and their feelings about caregiving, her subjects reported that people would see them walking on the street with their children and say things like “Giving Mom a break?” Hardies thinks that every time he and Chris take their son to the playground or to story hour, they help disrupt this sort of thinking. He imagines moms seeing a man doing this and gently—or maybe not so gently—pointing it out to their husbands. “Two guys somehow manage to get their act together and have a household and cook dinner and raise a child, without a woman doing all the work,” he says. Rather than setting an example that fathers don’t matter, gay men are setting an example that fathers do matter, and that marriage matters, too.

THE SEX PROBLEM

When, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Pepper Schwartz asked couples about their sex lives, she arrived at perhaps her most explosive finding: non-monogamy was rampant among gay men, a whopping 82 percent of whom reported having had sex outside their relationship. Slightly more than one-third of gay-male couples felt that monogamy was important; the other two-thirds said that monogamy was unimportant or that they were neutral on the topic. In a funny way, Schwartz says, her findings suggested that same-sex unions (like straight ones) aren’t necessarily about sex. Some gay men made a point of telling her they loved their partners but weren’t physically attracted to them. Others said they wanted to be monogamous but were unsupported in that wish, by their partner, gay culture, or both.

Schwartz believes that a move toward greater monogamy was emerging among gay men even before the AIDS crisis. Decades later, gay-male couples are more monogamous than they used to be, but not nearly to the same degree as other kinds of couples. In her Vermont research, Esther Rothblum found that 15 percent of straight husbands said they’d had sex outside their relationship, compared with 58 percent of gay men in civil unions and 61 percent of gay men who were partnered but not in civil unions. When asked whether a couple had arrived at an explicit agreement about extra-relational sex, a minuscule 4 percent of straight husbands said they’d discussed it with their partner and determined that it was okay, compared with 40 percent of gay men in civil unions and 49 percent of gay men in partnerships that were not legally recognized. Straight women and lesbians, meanwhile, were united in their commitment to monogamy, lesbians more so than straight women: 14 percent of straight wives said they had had sex outside their marriage, compared with 9 percent of lesbians in civil unions and 7 percent of lesbians who were partnered but not in civil unions.

The question of whether gays and lesbians will change marriage, or vice versa, is at its thorniest around sex and monogamy. Private behavior could well stay private: when she studied marriage in the Netherlands, Lee Badgett, the University of Massachusetts economist, found that while many same-sex couples proselytize about the egalitarianism of their relationships, they don’t tend to promote non-monogamy, even if they practice it. Then again, some gay-rights advocates, like the writer and sex columnist Dan Savage, argue very publicly that insisting on monogamy can do a couple more harm than good. Savage, who questions whether most humans are cut out for decades of sex with only one person, told me that “monogamy in marriage has been a disaster for straight couples” because it has set unrealistic expectations. “Gay-male couples are much more likely to be realistic about what men are,” he said. Savage’s own marriage started out monogamous; the agreement was that if either partner cheated, this would be grounds for ending the relationship. But when he and his husband decided to adopt a child, Savage suggested that they relax their zero-tolerance policy on infidelity. He felt that risking family dissolution over such an incident no longer made sense. His husband later suggested they explicitly allow each other occasional dalliances, a policy Savage sees as providing a safety valve for the relationship. If society wants marriage to be more resilient, he argues, we must make it more “monagamish.”

Gary Hall, the dean of the National Cathedral, believes that there will be changes to marriage, changes that some people will find scary. “Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be,” he says.

This is, to be sure, a difficult argument to win: a husband proposing non-monogamy to his wife on the grounds that it is in the best interest of a new baby would have a tough time prevailing in the court of public opinion. But while most gay-marriage advocates stop short of championing Savage’s “wiggle room,” some experts say that gay men are better at talking more openly about sex. Naveen Jonathan, a family therapist and a professor at Chapman University, in California, says he sees many gay partners hammer out an elaborate who-can-do-what-when sexual contract, one that says, “These are the times and the situations where it’s okay to be non-monogamous, and these are the times and the situations where it is not.” While some straight couples have deals of their own, he finds that for the most part, they simply presume monogamy. A possible downside of this assumption: straight couples are far less likely than gay men to frankly and routinely discuss sex, desire, and the challenges of sexual commitment.

Other experts question the idea that most gay males share a preference for non-monogamous relationships, or will in the long term. Savage’s argument that non-monogamy is a safety valve is “very interesting, but it really is no more than a claim,” says Justin Garcia, an evolutionary biologist at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. Garcia points out that not all men are relentlessly sexual beings, and not all men want an open relationship. “In some ways, same-sex couples are healthier—they tend to have these negotiations more,” he says. But negotiating can be stressful: in many cases, Garcia notes, one gay partner would prefer to be monogamous, but gives in to the other partner.

So which version will prevail: non-monogamous marriage, or marriage as we conventionally understand it? It’s worth pointing out that in the U.S., same-sex unions are slightly more likely between women, and non-monogamy is not a cause women tend to champion. And some evidence suggests that getting married changes behavior: William Eskridge and Darren Spedale found that in the years after Norway, Sweden, and Denmark instituted registered partnerships, many same-sex couples reported placing a greater emphasis on monogamy, while national rates of HIV infections declined.

Sex, then, may be one area where the institution of marriage pushes back against norms that have been embraced by many gay couples. Gary Hall of the National Cathedral allows that in many ways, gay relationships offer a salutary “critique” of marriage, but argues that the marriage establishment will do some critiquing back. He says he would not marry two people who intended to be non-monogamous, and believes that monogamy will be a “critical issue” in the dialogue between the gay community and the Church. Up until now, he says, progressive churches have embraced “the part of gay behavior that looks like straight behavior,” but at some point, churches also have to engage gay couples whose behavior doesn’t conform to monogamous ideals. He hopes that, in the course of this give-and-take, the church ends up reckoning with other ongoing cultural changes, from unmarried cohabitation to the increasing number of adults who choose to live as singles. “How do we speak credibly to people about their sexuality and their sexual relationships?” he asks. “We really need to rethink this.”

So yes, marriage will change. Or rather, it will change again. The fact is, there is no such thing as traditional marriage. In various places and at various points in human history, marriage has been a means by which young children were betrothed, uniting royal houses and sealing alliances between nations. In the Bible, it was a union that sometimes took place between a man and his dead brother’s widow, or between one man and several wives. It has been a vehicle for the orderly transfer of property from one generation of males to the next; the test by which children were deemed legitimate or *******; a privilege not available to black Americans; something parents arranged for their adult children; a contract under which women, legally, ceased to exist. Well into the 19th century, the British common-law concept of “unity of person” meant a woman became her husband when she married, giving up her legal standing and the right to own property or control her own wages.

Many of these strictures have already loosened. Child marriage is today seen by most people as the human-rights violation that it is. The Married Women’s Property Acts guaranteed that a woman could get married and remain a legally recognized human being. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia did away with state bans on interracial marriage. By making it easier to dissolve marriage, no-fault divorce helped ensure that unions need not be lifelong. The recent surge in single parenthood, combined with an aging population, has unyoked marriage and child-rearing. History shows that marriage evolves over time. We have every reason to believe that same-sex marriage will contribute to its continued evolution.

The argument that gays and lesbians are social pioneers and bellwethers has been made before. Back in 1992, the British sociologist Anthony Giddens suggested that gays and lesbians were a harbinger of a new kind of union, one subject to constant renegotiation and expected to last only as long as both partners were happy with it. Now that these so-called harbingers are looking to commit to more-binding relationships, we will have the “counterfactual” that Gary Gates talks about: we will be better able to tell which marital stresses and pleasures are due to gender, and which are not.

In the end, it could turn out that same-sex marriage isn’t all that different from straight marriage. If gay and lesbian marriages are in the long run as quarrelsome, tedious, and unbearable; as satisfying, joyous, and loving as other marriages, we’ll know that a certain amount of strife is not the fault of the alleged war between men and women, but just an inevitable thing that happens when two human beings are doing the best they can to find a way to live together.

[Teancum]

Sorry I think I double pasted some of the article above.

[california boy]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, I can't seem to get rid of this quote box.  

Why I  Believe in Monogamy--A Response to Barrett Pall

 

Quote

 

Just because we're sexually attracted to someone, it doesn't mean we want to have sex with them. Being attracted to someone and wanting to engage in sexual contact with that person are two different things. I wouldn't mind if I was in a relationship with someone who followed a bunch of male models on Instagram or reblogged racy images on Tumblr. I would, however, have a big problem with them having sex with someone other than myself.

I am very protective of my body and health. If my partner is having sex with other people, it would put us at greater risk of catching STDs. But more importantly, it would cause a painful jealousy to rise within me. First of all, there's the obvious fear of losing that person. Your partner may say it's just sex and you're the one they come home to. But it doesn't mean they won't fall for that person and leave you out in the dust. As I said, we can't control our feelings.

Second of all, it would show itself to be the ultimate sign of disrespect. I value sex. It's very special and important to me. I can't possibly view sex as something nonchalant. It's not possible. So, if my partner had sex with someone else, it would show that he doesn't value sex. If he did, he wouldn't be giving it away to others so easily. I would've been lied to. If you're in a relationship with me, everything is communicated. Nothing is off-limits. So, we would've agreed to be monogamous if we got that far in the relationship.

 

 

SL Letter of the Day: Do Monogamous Gay Couples Exist?

 

Quote

 

A few years ago I saw a video on Youtube of you talking about monogamy and open relationships. I find your stance on the subject very unappealing. Before that video I knew nothing about you. After watching it I despised you.

I’ve just recently come out of the closet to my mom and the rest of my family. Now that I am out I will soon be looking for a relationship. But what bothers me most about the gay community is the amount couple who are in open relationships. You have a major voice in the gay community, Mr. Savage, and I have come to respect you. I hope one day to have make a difference, as you have. I have watched countless “It Gets Better” videos, and they are a big part of the reason wy I'm still alive today. So thank you for that.

 

 

 

Dan Savage's response

Quote

I could respond to your letter by my lonesome, SFMCN, taking pains to reassure you that, yes, there are gay men out there in successful, long-term, monogamous relationships. But I think hearing from one of those gay men directly would be more valuable. So I passed your letter on to Jeremy Hooper, a writer, author, and LGBT rights advocate. Hooper regularly breaks news at Good As You, his must-read blog, and his first book, If It’s a Choice, My Zygote Chose Balls: Making Sense of Senseless Controversy, was released earlier this month. Hooper is married and he and his husband are monogamous. Hooper's response is after the jump.

·······················

 

I've been with my husband for nine years. The last time I so much as intimately kissed anyone else? Nine years ago. So yes, my friend—monogamy does happen within the gay community. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

But let's actually back up to where you now are in life. If you are aspiring to be in a loving, exclusive marriage, then you are worlds away from where I was in my teens and very early twenties. When I was a teenager, I didn't give even a passing thought to monogamy and how it might apply to my life. Don't get me wrong—I wasn't anti-monogamy. But I wasn't pro-monogamy either. I wasn't anything. Coming from the kind of non-accepting background that I did, all I could think about was getting to a place where I could live as an out and proud gay man, not what form that outward pride might take in a relationship.

That's one of the great positives of the growing awareness within our culture and the vivid focus the past decade has placed on marriage equality: current and future generations of young people get to think about being LGBT in a way that the younger versions of Dan and I did not. With these increased freedoms comes an increased consciousness—one that allows people like you to see your dating and mating possibilities with a much more focused, down-the-road goals in mind. That's awesome!

 

Personally it wasn't until I actually began dating seriously that I allowed myself to think about how such a coupling needed to look for me. Again, I didn't go into this figuring-it-out process with any concrete visions of weddings or, "Hi honey, I'm home!" refrains, so I didn't really need to make my relationships match any sort of perfect picture. I had no reason to lead the witness, as it were. Nevertheless, it took me about a millisecond of dating time to realize that I was, in fact, a monogamist, and that such would be the course for me and any potential mate.

The first time I remember making a clearly defined commitment towards monogamy actually happened in a weird way. It was at the end of my first same-sex relationship, actually. I had been dating a total sweetheart for several months and we had fun together. But I was so young and very green and it was clear that he, being a few years older and vastly more experienced, was much more focused on the longterm than I was. It had also become clear that another guy, a friend whose conversation I was finding more interesting by the day, was a better match for me. This all playing out only in my mind, until one night, hanging out with this friend while still in a relationship with my first boyfriend, I felt a need to make a move—one step onto a new romantic path and one step away from my fading relationship.

But not simultaneous steps. Ya see, I had made a monogamous commitment to my boyfriend—the first monogamous commitment I had made to any boyfriend—and I wasn't going to break it. Instead, I picked up the phone and broke off the relationship before planting a smooch on my friend-turning-lover. Looking back, it actually might've been nicer and more sensitive of me to have put off the breakup until we could get together for a face-to-face conversation, even if that would've meant a one-night overlap. But what can I say? My commitment to fidelity was stronger than my capacity to craft a tactful exit strategy.

As the years passed and other relationships ebbed and flowed, that commitment remained unchanged. I did give the other ideas the old college try, allowing my mind to consider an open relationship or flexible setup. I was certainly open to the possibility. The experimentation just never worked for me.

When I met my husband, the whole thing went to an even more clarified place. Andrew and I made a vow to not only be partners for life, but to be on the tightest of teams in every way. In the kitchen, this might mean nothing more than him opening the wine while I bring the water to a boil. In the living room, it can be as simple as instinctively pausing the DVR when the other needs to pee. But in the bedroom? It means knowing that you have a physical and emotional awareness of one another that no one else in the world possesses, and knowing that you share a truly unique space that you both regard as sacrosanct.

Some have other takes, and I am completely respectful of the different views. I'm confident that Dan and Terry, for instance, have a fantastic relationship and are as committed to being a team. But just as there are different ways of viewing just about any element within a relationship (e.g. parental decisions, financial setups, prenups, views on divorce, etc.), there are different ways of defining a team. I tell you my story, young'un, because I want you to see that there are many of us gay monogamists out there and to know that what you seem to want is 100% obtainable. Dan tells you his take, because he feels strongly about cutting through the sort of landscape where people greet monogamish couples like his with immediate skepticism or questions of loyalty. The great thing is that neither of us will define your life and relationships—you get to do that all by yourself, with no one to answer to but yourself and your mate(s).—Jeremy Hooper