* * *

David, I have also noticed that it is common among gay men to refer to their social circle of sexual partners (usually intermittent rather than monogamous) as their family. That is, these men are like siblings to a not insignificant extent.

There is also the quasi-parental type relationship that is sexualized. Not in the sense of a deliberate playing out of an incest-based fetish.

I am not here referring to people actually related by blood; but to people related socially in such a way that they informally “adopt” one another as relatives.

It is not literally a type of incest. Merely a social equivalent. Close friends can become like family and that’s not unique to gay people, of course.

Considering the sort of ostracization that some gay people experience within their families of origin, this social practice would be an understandable attempt to fill a painful void. Creating an extended family based on gay socialization.

However, what I am referring to is the sexualization of such very close related-like friendships.

If someone is like a sister to me, apart from the fact that I am happily married, I understand that there is a line that we shouldn’t cross — not even in appearances alone. Treating someone like a member of the family means there is an incest-like rule.

This doesn’t seem to commonly apply where gay people create family but do not categorically rule-out sexualization — even if only intermittently — such relationships.

Maybe this is not actually as common as I’ve noticed in my experience. What has been your experience?

I imagine it’s possible for someone to have never confronted the Daddy-boy subculture if you’ve never:
• Been to a major urban gay pride parade
• Cruised AOL, gay.com, or any of the other popular chat settings for men seeking men
• Visited a leather bar.

Most of us who have done at least one of those things has encountered this subculture. But I have searched the Web and found no evidence of parallel subcultures among male-female couples. Age differences don’t mean the eroticization of incest. And I don’t think a man and woman who model their love on the incest framework have any business getting married, so at least I’m consistent.

However, pick of Dan Savage’s “Skipping Toward Gamorrah”. In the chapter on “Adultery” you’ll find statistics from a Swingers Conference that show that there are more Straight swinging couples than there are POSSIBLE gay couples. Meaning there are more straight people involved in swinging than the largest estimate of homosexuals in America.

And if you don’t know what a daddy daughter relationship is, you’re blind. Anna Nicole and Howard ring a bell? That may-december romance on Northern Exposure? Half the atttractive 40-50 year old men in Hollywood have someone young enough to be their daughter on their arms. I know they may not be honest about their fetish, but you can’t be telling me that there are no straight folks into this. There are several fetish community events throughout the year, and they often have straight people there.

That’s some lousy logic, especially since the law does not require a specific relationship type in order to be husband and wife. It does not require monogamy. Hell, “Traditional” marriages included polygamy, something your side seems to want to forget. Your argument is designed more to incense those already grossed out by homosexuality than to appeal to reason, logic, fairness, or matters of law.

Most of the heterosexuals on that list contain at least one genderqueer person. Given that my criticism is that too many LGBT people’s relationships are so far from marriage that I’m reluctant to let them redefine it, I think counting transgender people’s relationships as “heterosexual” is kind of cheating.

I originally wanted to name Rabbi Angelina, but my rabbi told me not to and Orthodox Jew are supposed to take their rabbis’ advice. I also have legitimate concerns about Rabbi Angelina’s innocent family members, who may be humiliated if her open relationship comes to light. I have E-mailed you more information about Rabbi Angelina, and you can do some investigating and get back to the blog readers.

I come up with:
2 posts by bisexuals,
3 posts by homosexuals,
8 posts by heterosexuals.

In statistical terms, heterosexuals are 37.5% more prevalent in this thread than those who experience -any- attraction to the same gender. Heterosexuals are 62.5% more prevalent than Homosexuals, those who are only attracted to members of their own sex.
Homosexuals are not “most of the posters” by any means.

Incidentally, the ftm is in -your- camp as a heterosexual. As the law defines gender by body parts, she will be able to marry a woman if she so chooses once becoming physiologically male.

As for Rabbi Angelina:
If you’d like to email me the details, I would be quite happy to peruse them; and, of course, I fully agree not to disseminate the contents of that email to any third party.
Unfortunately… you realize that even if you do divulge the identity of Angelina, -nothing- is resolved, isn’t that true?

You give me the identity of Angelina; but, given my pledge not to reveal her identity to third party, I am still left with nothing but your word that this person you’ve identified as Angelina actually -feels- the way you say she does about marriage.
The only way to prove this matter, I’m afraid, would be to publicly ask the real Angelina in -real life- what her stance on marriage is; or, given that Angelina appears to feel no guilt whatsoever for her behavior, could it be that she has already publicly made her non-monogamous-marriage public knowledge? (Although if that were the case, I imagine there would be an uproar far bigger than just on this blog.)
So while I am pleased that you trust me enough with the true identity of this pseudonymous individual, I’m afraid that it will not lead anywhere in the vein of connecting Angelina’s remarks with flesh and blood. (I will take you up on your offer, however, because I’m curious. I of course still vow confidentiality.)
It’s not that I feel you would deliberately lie to us; but, given that in this case of he said/she said, the integrity of a leader in the marriage equality movement is on the line, surely you will forgive my caution?

Sincerely,

Andy

It sounds like we agree: people like Rabbi Angelina and people like Ted Haggard should not be taken seriously when discussing the future of marriage. Because I think Rabbi Angelina is an extreme but not completely exceptional case, I urge voters to ask “marriage equality” people specific questions about their ideas about marriage before deciding which side to support. If you want people to do the same for conservative clergy, I would be quick to agree to that.

Did you even read the Web site you sent me to? It is titled “Queers 4 Mommy/Boy Dynamics” and most of the posters appear to be lesbians and transgender men. Examples:

“I’m a good little boy, er…well, legally female. But you know. Any interested, hit me up! 19/ftm/NY.” (ftm indicates a transgender male.)

“I *love* cute momma’s who like sweet and sexy, but sometimes bratty boidykes like me!”

“I’m dating a somewhat old-school fag who recently let me know that one of his roles was that of an 8-year old boy.”

Do you think such relationships, along with the far more popular “Daddy-boy” configuration, should be extended marriage rights? I definitely don’t.

Your “proof” of opposite-sex relationships based on the incest model reminds me of the gay man who wrote to point to the “straight” song “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.” I responded that the song was written by a gay man (Cole Porter), sung by singers very popular among gay men (like Marilyn Monroe and Eartha Kitt), and has a gay-themed movie about a drag contest named after it.

As for Rabbi Angelina’s identity, I wanted to reveal it but was told not to by one of my rabbis. Andy, if you E-mail me offlist I will give you some more information on a confidential basis that will support Rabbi Angelina’s importance. If you can think of another way I can show I’m telling the truth without hurting the rest of her family, especially her offspring who have done nothing wrong, I’d like to hear it.