At the bathhouse, monogamously
CommentsMany marriage equality advocates have reacted angrily to my Los Angeles Daily News piece about male-male non-monogamy hurting marriage and to the recent New York Times feature quoting a “married” gay man in Massachusetts saying most married gay couples are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”
“Most gay couples are monogamous!” they said. “Straight people commit adultery too!”
But I recently discovered there is a rarely publicized gay definition of monogamy that does not match the way virtually every straight person uses the term. The thorough “marriage equality” Web site of the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples features an article on “Keeping A Sexually Open Relationship Intact” in its “relationship tips” section. According to the article, monogamy “properly means individuals who only marry one person (as opposed to “polygamy”), which does not describe sexual agreements.” In other words two men who get married to no one but each other, but nonetheless allow each other to have sex with a different man every night of the week are monogamous in this new (to me) gay sense of the term.
The essay goes on to give 15 specific suggestions of rules that gay couples can consider for making sure the sex outside the relationship isn’t completely unrestricted. For example: no sex with mutual friends, sex is permissible only when one partner is out of town, and my favorite, sex is permitted at home, but not in the bedroom.
I am not making this up.
Now, before anyone screams that this is one minority opinion on an obscure Web site, I want to point out that the date of the article is 2002. If an article on even a medium-sized Jewish Web site said that married Jewish women could stay monogamous by having sex with as many other men as they wanted as long as they don’t marry them, it wouldn’t last a week. There would be an outcry by Jews who are offended at the open approval of adultery. The “how to have sex with many people while you’re still monogamous” article appears to have been posted for six years.
Further, as far as I can tell the Partners Task Force has never been condemned by major gay and lesbian groups. In fact, several of them actually recommend it as a “resource,” such as Marriage Equality USA, the Metropolitan Community Church (!), the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network, and statewide groups in Kentucky, Washington, Texas, New York, and Wisconsin. Both PlanetOut and lesbian.com also link to the site. Even a group you would expect to value faithfulness and fidelity - the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry - lists the Web site with the “slutty monogamy” article as one of only two American same-sex marriage issue resources.
I think the idea that in six years nobody ever clicked on the article about how monogamy doesn’t mean sexual exclusivity and thought to complain or publicize the idea is simply preposterous. I’m not saying every group that linked to this Web site knew about its definition of monogamy, but certainly some did. And even if they never read about the strange definition of monogamy, lots of gays and lesbians browsed through the list of articles, and the one about keeping your sexually open relationship intact doesn’t appear to have batted any eyes.
As long as major gay groups are linking to the Web site featuring this article, in fact as long as the article remains up at all, I recommend that anyone - journalists, undecided voters, marriage defenders engaging in debate - ask gays and lesbians to clarify whenever they use the term monogamy, whether they main marriage to only one person or sex with only one person. That’s the only way we can have an honest conversation.
Secondly, everyone should give further consideration to my argument that same-sex marriage will change marriage forever, for everyone, and for the worse. This one example is compelling evidence that the gay and lesbian community generally does not value fidelity and faithfulness in the way married people have been expected to. After all, lesbians have a better track record on sexual exclusivity than gay men, but none of the lesbians who clicked to this Web site promoted by at least a dozen prominent gay organizations convinced the group to correct its misleading definition of monogamy or if they refused, blogged about how offensive the situation is. I believe the people who have always defined marriage should continue to do so, because there is too much evidence the LGBT community simply does not understand what marriage is.
UPDATE: I realized it was possible that the article I have criticized was one of many different perspectives on monogamy represented on the Web site in question, so I checked what other things the site had to say about monogamy. I found:
• an essay by an openly gay anthropologist disagreeing with President’s Bush description of monogamous marriage as “the most enduring human institution” by arguing that “few societies find it beneficial to restrict marriage only to this form.”
• a 1997 essay by a therapist that says “Gay couples are different from heterosexual ones, however, and several authors have noted that sexual exclusivity in relationships is optional, rather than required within long-lasting male couples.” Now, if I said that, I would be called homophobic and accused of representing the truth without proof. Yet this essay has been posted for 11 years without any apparent protest by the many LGBT people who had access to it, some of whom undoubtedly read it. Why is that? He goes on to criticize monogamy as “inadequate for male couples because of the complexity of male-to-male (sexual-predator-to-sexual-predator) relationships.” Do I really have to say that no mainstream Jewish, black, Asian, or Catholic Web site could get away with posting such an article for more than a decade?
• There are essays by politicians Ron Wyden and Thomas Keane that tend to support monogamy, but they are both married heterosexuals, so of course they understand what marriage is.
• The site quotes Gary who says “I would find it very difficult to be with someone who insisted that I be ‘monogamous.’ In fact, if would drive me crazy” and his partner Bob who says “I feel exactly the same way as Gary. I don’t want to base our relationship the same way heterosexuals do.” So why am I criticized for saying gay marriage will change marriage?
• There’s an interview with a lesbian couple, one of whom is a reverend who says “monogamy, sexual exclusivity” has been a “hard edge” for the couple.
• There’s a historical article without footnotes that makes some pretty bizarre claims such as that in Christianity, male-male marriages actually predated male-female ones, and that Western culture “did not view monogamy as essential to marriage” until the 14th century. Do I really have to ask if the same claim would go unchallenged for 15 months at the Web site of even a liberal religious group like the Union for Reform Judaism or the Unitarian Universalist church?
• An interview with Charlie and Bill (I happen to know Charlie) said that in nine years together they were monogamous “most of the time.”
• An interview with Bruce, who bragged that he and Sam “can afford to be non-monogamous.”
• An interview with Andy and Peter, who say they were monogamous for about half the eight years they were in a “committed relationship.”
Now, if this Web site totally misrepresented the gay community’s attitudes toward monogamy, why am I the first gay person to have protested it so far? If these ideas offend gay sensibilities, wouldn’t all major gay and lesbian organizations refuse to link to the site?
I’d be very interested in someone honest on the “marriage equality” side to just accept my assertion that gay people do not value monogamy the way straight people do. Then, you can still argue that it’s not fair to refuse same-sex couples marriage, but at least you won’t try to earn marriage rights through fraudulous misrepresentation.
UPDATE: I am stunned by the following statistic: I contacted 100 of the top linguists in the country, including virtually the entire departments at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, and Texas. Within 48 hours, exactly half (50) had answered my query. None had ever heard of a language that did not differentiate between “mother” and “father” - and several said they did not think I would ever find one. There are some arguments I have made in which I could be fairly criticized for not consulting enough experts, or experts with strong enough qualifications. This is, um, not one one of them.
Okay, I’ll see your web site and raise you the infamous books that were written in the 70s on open marriages and wife swapping.
Sure, people are going to rationalize infidelity. The 1972 book “Open Marriage” said that heterosexual couples could have better relationships if they got rid of sexual jealousy.
Despite that some heterosexuals have advocated adultery, and some have even claimed it as a norm, I do not think that we should forbid heterosexuals from getting married.
There are some people, straight and gay, who don’t see monogamy as a necessary part of marriage. I don’t agree with them, but as long as they don’t seek to make non-monogamy compulsory, I don’t see any reason to get into their face about it. They’re not stopping me from being monogamous.
You are clutching at straws.
Perhaps you should read the recent New York Times piece on same-sex couples, “Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1214011389-M6aHF1AftZbitZYq7ZthoQ).
Apparently, heterosexual relationships are less egalitarian and more prone to damaging conflict.
I’m still okay with them getting married.
David: ‘Secondly, everyone should give further consideration to my argument that same-sex marriage will change marriage forever, for everyone, and for the worse. ‘
Pardon? Excuse my California-centric approach but I just checked and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of monogamy in the Family Code. How therefore is this a change? Like, I get it that it’s a change from religious marriage, but it seems to me that you lost that battle ages ago. For example, adultery used to one of the few enabling conditions for a divorce. Now it doesn’t rate a mention, and irreconcilable differences is the standard. Straight people made it that way because they didn’t like the old system. Why are we still arguing about it?
David, John D. is right on this one. You keep coming up with these examples of objectionable (at least from your standpoint) ways in which some gay people behave and ignore the myriad ways in which straight people engage in objectionable behavior. You then make the unsupportable assertion that this will change marriage. It would not surprise me at all if we found that married “swingers” outnumber gay people (who HRC recently reported are less than 3% of the population) and I’m fairly certain that they far outnumber gay people who engage in the behaviors that you see as counter to traditional marriage. Your arguments here are selective and anecdotal at best and trivial hyperbole at worst. You follow the tried and true path of so many of those on your side of this issue by highlighting how wierd gay people are (always lead with the picture of the drag queens at the gay pride parade). From that vantage point you take the ridiculous leap that these few odd people will somehow fundamentally alter an institution where they would represent an incredibly small minority. It just doesn’t make sense.
The redefintion of monogamy is mainstream among the openly gay male population.
Now, the comments above may have a point that a minority of that population ought not to be dumped in the same pile as the majority of gay men; and that the majority of gay men ought to be in the same pile as the tiny minority of straight “swingers”.
However, where among the pro-SSM advocates and their organizations are the public objections to the redefiniton of monogamy? The practice of non-monogamy, as the default position in gay relationship formation and maintenance, is the inverse of the social institution of marriage.
Mark Barton has at least shown that the pro-SSM rules of argumentation can be called into play whenever it is convenient for dismissing even a key feature of gay culture in this society. If there is no legal requirement, enforced absolutely, then, monogamy is not at the core of the social institution of marriage. And if it can occur outside of marriage, it is not essential to marriage.
Is there even a cultural argument, among SSMers, that there is a preferred type of relationship formation that best serves both the individuals and the common good — within the context of the sexual ecology of male homosexuality?
If there is, it is very muted. If there is not, its lack speaks volumes about the social and cultural reform that SSMers seek to impose via legal reforms.
To clarify: the pro-SSM rules, not I, say that monogamy is not essential. These rules say so both in terms of the law and culture, because that is the result that SSM argumentation is meant to produce.
David, I couldn’t disagree more with the first few posters. I don’t think that this is “grasping at straws;” frankly, I think this is your home run swing. What this points to for so much of the sheep-like Americans who used to trust their instincts about homosexuality is that SSM will redefine fidelity, morality, and basic bonds of love.
Because I’ll be jumped on and called a homophobe, I’ll elaborate a wee bit to try to answer some of their attacks. First, please don’t confuse homophobes with people who believe that homosexual sex is immoral. I don’t want to prosecute or intimidate you. I don’t want to shame, taunt, or attack you. I’m comfortable enough in my skin and with my own sexuality that I could happily shake your hand and give you a big bear hug (though I think many of you are conservativephobes and you wouldn’t dream of hugging me).
I’ve watched as the LGBT community has “succeeded” at moving the typical reaction to the announcement of one’s coming out of the closet from utter horror to a place where it now is more likely to be somewhere between a shocked and begrudging acceptance to a complete embrace. On a sociological level, I applaud you. Many and great strides. However, I believe that this has come with a lot of deception, and this point of David’s highlights one aspect of this deception.
We’re not the same, and this insistence on SSM is another step towards normalizing something not normal and giving legitimacy that is not legitimate. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful aspect of a healthy monogamous heterosexual marriage. It is a component, but it is be dedicated solely to each other. You can argue that morality changes, but I don’t believe that morality changes. (Don’t confuse this with situational ethics. I’m talking about eternal values.) I believe that cheating on one’s spouse was/is/will be immoral. The swinging of the 60’s and 70’s was a dismal blight on mankind’s trek through time/space. Yes, heterosexual couples cheat, but it’s disgraceful.
David, this is what needs to be focused on. We need to reclaim some of the lost foothold on the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is moral. We need to be able to declare it as wrong without being persecuted as being hate filled. (Someone come and tell me how much hate I have! I’ll still love you!) We need to bring the focus back to what REALLY is happening in gay circles. There are a lot of spokespeople who paint a face of monogamy and mutual love - the American dream with Dick and Jim. But reality is different. Homosexuality is not normal. It is not moral. You have a problem and you want/demand/insist and legislate that we should call your problems normal. You’ve taken so much control of the language that I have to be afraid of saying this. Only 15-20 years ago, so many people understood this. You are definitely “winning,” but I hope the fight is not over.
David, you could lead this fight to change some of the tone of the language of our time. Keep up the good work. Keep pointing out the depravity that exists in the LGBT world. Yes, it’s in the heterosexual world as well, but we, by and large, call it wrong.
These worlds are not equal. This conversation is close to insane. Of course, you and me will be called the insane ones, but keep up the good work. I don’t think the victory comes through only the legal work that you do, but through changing some of the cultural language. I, like you, want it to be respectful language. I don’t want to lock up people, but I want to be able to tell my children that this behavior is wrong without being seen as the bigoted nut job. Please, counter posters, resist the obvious temptation to call me a bigoted nut job or other names. Show me where I’m wrong - spiritually, psychologically, sociologically, or morally. Show me the error of my ways.
Lovingly posted!
John D-
What evidence do you have that most or even a substantial minority of straight people today approve of open marriage and wife swapping? I’d be happy to consider it.
You say you don’t agree with people “who don’t see monogamy as a necessary part of marriage.” Are you willing to take the Marriage Pledge? If not, why not?
You linked to a New York Times article, so I assume you think its sources are reliable. Two of the four experts quoted, Sondra Solomon and Esther Rothblum, reported in 2005 that more than half of men in civil unions have had sex outside the relationship. Do you accept that statistic? If not, why is a New York Times article reliable but not the two experts it cites who you think are somehow lying when they say that most men in civil unions are not sexually exclusive?
The most “notable” finding described in the article you referenced (you picked it, not me) is that “same-sex relationships, whether between women or men, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones.” I think that’s really notable, particularly because I do not believe marriage historically has been nor should become egalitarian. When I marry, my wife and I will have clearly defined, different roles. I’m not saying I won’t help with the laundry and the dishes, but my main job will be as provider and my wife’s main job will be as nurturer. I respect that you don’t have the same values.
The key question is: do I have the right to support the vision of marriage that is consistent with my beliefs? If so, can you agree that since gay marriage is more egalitarian than normal marriage (which is the point of the article you brought up), if I want to promote non-egalitarian visions of marriage, I should oppose same-sex marriage? If I’m not supposed to react to your article using my values, why did you bring it forward? Am I supposed to react to your article using your values?
Mark-
To be clear, you are saying that in your mind marriage is not and should not be linked to sexual exclusivity. Is that right? Because if it is, you’re exhibit #1 in my argument.
Dan-
I have responded to your points, thoughtful as usual, in my “Take my Marriage Pledge” post. If you feel I have overlooked something, I humbly request that you ask again.
Oh, and you suggest that I emphasize how weird gay people are. Well, I know a lot of damaging information about batthouses that would embarrass the gay community. Why do I never mention bathhouses (except for the headline of my monogamy post that may not have been a good choice)? I also have tons of damning information about the sizable minority of LGBT people that do not have a problem with adult-child sex. While I’ve alluded to it here and there (mostly in response to unfair attacks on me) I have never blogged about it or written an op-ed about it. Believe me, I could publish information on those two topics in prominent outlets if I tried. But I don’t want to win by distracting people with the shocking things I know about the gay community. I want to win by solid and fair argumentation, which is why I cherish and honor the contributions of people like you to my blog.
Until a government agency of morality enforcers starts denying marriage licenses to hetersexuals who have been in consensual non-monogamous relationships, or who have a history of infidelity, the argument that anyone harms marriage by not valuing fidelity is discrimination. If heterosexual polyamorists can get a license for civil marriage because the are heterosexual. No one runs a background check, and no one revokes the marriage license of a straight married person when they cheat.
I support monogamy in belief and in practice. I do not support government policing to ensure that we all do.
Shmuel-
I appreciate your enthusiasm but I want to caution you about a few things. I do not see the point in debating whether homosexuality is “normal.” If everyone was having gay sex would that make it moral? Sometimes, the very fact something is NOT normal makes it all the more morally praiseworthy. Think of the few Polish Catholics who saved Jews during the Holocaust or some person everyone wishes would have rescued poor Kitty Genovese. Do you believe in this complicated world that Jews are normal? Do you have a text you can quote? Because I happen to be proud that Jews are so abnormal, given the moral standards in the world today.
I know you don’t mean it, but you insult me when you say homosexuality is not moral. Is my homosexuality not moral? Do you believe I am not really gay or bisexual? Because my rabbis have told me that my approach to same-sex attractions is so moral that some of them have called me a hero. (Eizehu gibor? - google it.)
David,
I appreciate your correction. Normal is a funny word, and you’re right. I believe you accidental used the word “moral” once instead of “normal.” (”If everyone was having gay sex would that make it moral?”)
I was trying to avoid terms that also don’t cut it, like unnatural. As for insulting you with the use of the word moral, you have officially confused me. I know that the blog is focused on marriage, but . . . I guess I’m confused by the label. Who am I to label you, but if I were forced to, I would say something like a man who formerly identified his sexuality as bisexual. If you are to succeed in your stated goal of marrying and fathering lot of Benkofs, would you still call yourself gay? Isn’t a decision to not give in to your desires to have sex with men a change in a label. I used to give in to attractions that I no longer do. I’ve stopped being that. You may always have an attraction to males, but if you’ve decided to control this attraction, does that not make you “straight?”
We’ve communicated enough that you’ve figured out correctly that I don’t want to hurt you (or even your angry bloggers who disagree with you), but I don’t think that I disagree with your rabbis. Though, since I have s’micha, I would if I disagreed with them. As for what you call your homosexuality, of course that is moral. You’ve made a choice to not bring the thoughts to fruition.
I don’t want to insult, but as I said, (and I realize this isn’t my blog), I’d like to see a shift in the language. Help me out. I don’t appreciate the idea of a lifestyle choice. I’d like there to be more of a culture that offers assistance to people with homosexual tendencies to seek options that you (and many others) have chosen.
Thanks for not calling be a nut job bigot!
LAWaters27-
I appreciate your decision to share your opinion that “the argument that anyone harms marriage by not valuing fidelity is discrimination.” It backs up my opinion that same-sex marriage supporters do not know what marriage is, and that changing the definition of marriage will harm marriage.
You say you “support monogamy in belief and in practice.” Would you take the Marriage Pledge?
Shmuel-
No, I meant normal. If everyone were having gay sex it would be by definition normal, but it would not be moral.
It just shouldn’t be my role to go over basic concepts with you like what is sexual orientation, when there are dozens of Web sites far more articulate than I on the subject. But a man who is predominantly attracted to men but only has sex with his wife is bisexual or gay. He’s not straight.
Soooo, when you’re referring to “the gay community” you’re really only referring to gay men?
I mean, it’s pretty clear that the examples you cite are only of gay male relationships. Yet, you use what may or may not be typical male-male relationship behavior to make generalizations about “the gay community”- which also includes women.
What I said was that until you are willing to support applying your definition of harm and restriction of marriage on that basis to everyone - not just gays, that is discriminatory.
My personal position is for monogamy. I practiced it for 23 years with the man I was married to for 19 years. What I do not support is gov’t enforcement of that moral aspect of marriage. I would not sign your Monogamy Pledge because I do not believe I have the right to honor (or not) another person’s legal marriage, even if they practice polyamory.
Fannie-
I appreciate your commenting today because you are always reasonable, rational, and respectful (the three Rs) and you’re pretty good at keeping me honest.
You’re right, I’ve never specifically addressed the question of lesbian monogamy. I certainly know that lesbians value monogamy in their relationships far more than gay men, and if people started to propose we extend marriage only to lesbian couples I’d have to drop several of my arguments and focus on different concerns I have with same-sex marriage. But I’ve never heard such a proposal.
Even so, my main argument is whether gays and lesbians understand what marriage is, and I think by and large they do not. Why does lesbian.com recommend a Web site that says adultery and monogamy are compatible and openly praises open relationships? I think the general attitude in the lesbian community is “Boys will be boys. We find it distasteful, but they’re our allies and we’re not about to infringe upon their lifestyle.”
The lesbians I have known are hardly shrinking violets. Lesbians fought harder than gay men to get NAMBLA out of the parades. At several pride parades, lesbians have insisted that the men be restricted from various open displays of sexual activity because they didn’t want their children to be exposed to that. Yet somehow, the lesbians involved with MarriageEqualityUSA and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network and the Metropolitan Community Church never seem to have gotten offended at the pro-open-relationships Web site all three organizations recommend as a marriage resource. At the very least, no lesbian leader like Kate Kendall or Tammy Baldwin or Sheila Kuehl or Robin Tyler seems to have ever said to their gay male allies, “Cool it, guys. If you’re not going to stop screwing around on your husbands, will you at least stop bragging about it? It’s a roadblock to marriage equality.” Why? Because deep down, I think they respect people’s decisions, even married people, to have as much sex with as many people as they want, according to their personal preferences. If I’m wrong, ask them for me. They don’t take my phone calls.
Also, lesbians are hardly rushing to take the marriage pledge. If they start to, I will be happy to reconsider applying my complaint that the gay community doesn’t understand marriage to men only and not to women.
LAwaters27-
I have no objection to your decision not to take the Monogamy Pledge because you do not believe you have the right to dishonor someone’s legal marriage who practices polyamory. Fannie, LAwaters27 is an example of a lesbian who doesn’t get what marriage is, and another reason why I apply my complaint to both gays and lesbians.
As I pointed out before, I was married for 19 years and monogamous. I not only “get what marriage is”, but I practiced it.
I also “get” what democracy is, as opposed to theocracy, hence my statement - which was clearly an extreme example, and a reference to the current legal right of even polyamorous straight couples to marry. It was clearly about my not wanting a GOVERNMENT morality police enforcing marriage for anyone. But then, you are smart enough to know that.
Why do you prefer to attack people rather than discuss their ideas and questions? You have done this with me in each of four sites where I have raised questions. Is that reasonable, rational and respectful?
David,
I appreciate your response.
My point was that non-monogamy is not a particularly pervasive phenomenon among lesbians. Thus, I think it is inaccurate to say that “gay people” (including lesbians) do not value monogamy the way straight people do. We may be more accepting of gay men (or anyone) who practices non-monogamy, but for ourselves I think many lesbians do strongly value monogamy. Too often, lesbians are rendered invisible by discourse that only talks about what (some) gay men are doing as though the behavior of gay men is indicative of what lesbians are also like.
LAwaters27-
No, you don’t get what marriage is. If you did, you would see no reason to honor as legitimate someone’s decision to make a farce of their marriage. I never said I favor a government morality policy. I don’t think the government should force marriages to be sexually exclusive. That doesn’t mean I won’t openly criticize people I know to be mocking the concept of marriage by screwing around, even consensually. And I certainly am not about to favor a legal change that suddenly honors a whole new class of people that overwhelmingly believes there is nothing wrong with consensual adultery.
As for your charge that I “attack people rather than discuss their ideas and questions” I have no idea what you’re talking about. I am scrupulous at this blog (not that I don’t make mistakes) about focusing on people’s ideas instead of their personalities or identities. If any of the frequent posters like Dan, Andrea, or Mark (all same-sex marriage supporters) want to show me how I’ve unfairly “attacked” LAwaters27, I’m open to hearing it.
Fannie-
As you often are, on this point you are 100% right. I have not done an adequate job of making it clear that I do not believe most lesbians are personally non-monogamous. Do you have an idea how I can be clear that most lesbians are monogamous, but they nonetheless don’t understand what marriage is because they see no problem in gay men (or anyone) openly committing adultery when they are supposed to be married? I’m open to suggestions.
“…ask gays and lesbians to clarify whenever they use the term monogamy, whether they main marriage to only one person or sex with only one person. That’s the only way we can have an honest conversation.”
Throw remarks around about gays’ ‘bathhouse monogamy’ if you like (after all, that’s where your experience lies), but if you’re going to make disparaging assumptions about lesbians’ monogamy, I’d like to see some solid evidence of any widespread infidelity in lesbian relationships.
Additionally, so long as we’re discussing words with apparent dual meanings… I frequently find myself confused on this site when you use the word ‘gay’. Do you mean “a homosexual male”, or “any homosexual”? In example, when defending against ‘gay marriage’, I assume you don’t -just- mean two men marrying; but in the above excerpt, you clarify “gays and lesbians”, which infers that you do recognize a difference between the two. Could you clarify your definitions?
Additionally, in response to -your- response to Fannie’s remark:
“Do you have an idea how I can be clear that most lesbians are monogamous, but they nonetheless don’t understand what marriage is because they see no problem in gay men (or anyone) openly committing adultery when they are supposed to be married?”
Well, exactly why do -you- think that we don’t see a problem? Because we’re not discussing it as though it were our primary focus, when in fact it’s quite literally -someone else’s problem-? Yes, I see a problem with infidelity in gay male relationships; I do -not- imagine I personally hold any sort of responsibility for fixing it. In light of that, we don’t know about marriage as much as literally -anyone- doesn’t.
You seem to have quite a few contacts in gay society; why not use them?
Andrea
Andrea-
I have already told Fannie that this criticism is 100% legitimate. My complaint about lesbians is not that they are non-monogamous, but that they are generally completely unfazed and unoffended by gay men claiming to be “married” while openly pursuing multiple sex partners. I would estimate there are more lesbian vegetarians offended by gay men’s erotic use of leather (and there are quite a few) than there are lesbian monogamists offended by gay men’s promiscuity within marriage. I have not done any research on that previous statement, it’s just my general sense from 20 years watching the gay and lesbian community.
You are correct that I use gay, gay and lesbian, and LGBT interchangeably, as is common on gay Web sites and in gay newspapers. I try not to be ambiguous when it matters, but I see very little difference, for example, between the gay press, the gay and lesbian press, and the LGBT press. But I try not to use LGBT more than twice per paragraph, for example, not counting this paragraph, because I don’t think it looks or reads well. There is neither a master plan nor a deceptive intent behind my word choices in these cases.
I know lesbians don’t see a problem with open marriages because:
• You’re the first lesbian willing to take the monogamy pledge (and I honor you for it);
• I have demonstrated lesbian and LGBT web sites linking to a “marriage resource” that has contempt for traditional monogamy, and no lesbian either got the link or Web site changed or blogged about how it offended her;
• I am very confident Robin Tyler, Kate Kendall, and Mary Bonauto will not all sign the Marriage Pledge. But if you can convince them to, I will admit I’m probably wrong - about lesbians at least.
• As shown by GayPatriot, marriage equality Web sites say very little about monogamy. Why don’t lesbians protest and make sure the organizations representing them show the world that LGBT people understand that marriage is tightly linked with monogamy?
There’s more, but that gives you a sense.
“No, you don’t get what marriage is. If you did, you would see no reason to honor as legitimate someone’s decision to make a farce of their marriage.”
To say you disagree with my statement is more respectful than to say I don’t get what marriage is. You don’t know me, my history, my beliefs or what I openly criticize well enough to make such a statement.
For the record, I am a lesbian who strongly values monogamy. I am also, as Fannie said, “more accepting of gay men (or anyone) who practices non-monogamy.”
Perhaps I should have asked what you mean by “honoring” someone’s marriage.
My assumption is that the discussion is about the question of a civil law permitting same-sex marriage, and the reasons you believe it would cause harm to marriage, particularly concerning monogamy. While I personally agree with you that polyamory makes a farce of marriage, as a citizen I do not refuse to recognize their legal status as married people. That’s my understanding of “honoring their marriage.” They are married people who are foolish and selfish (in my opinion), but they are married.
I disagree with your definition of monogamy because you consider polygamy to be acceptable and still be monogamous. One man can morally have multiple wives - I think it’s safe to call that a “strange view of monogamy” and one “that does not match the way virtually every straight person uses the term.” I’m curious: would polyandry, a woman married to multiple men be adultery in your view?
Because of your position on polygamy (from your Monogamy Pledge post comments), I also disagree with your definition of marriage. My definition of marriage allows for only one exclusive, “forsaking all others” commitment. Making that vow to one person prohibits finding another and marrying again. It takes some mental gymnastics to assert that polygamy is practicing sexual exclusivity. “Honey, it’s okay for you to have sex with other women, as long as you marry them first!”
LAwaters27-
I am very happy to say that the problem is not your idea of what marriage is or my supposed inappropriate treatment of you. It is a simple misunderstanding. You pretty much do understand what marriage is, which despite helping to undermine my argument makes me very, very happy.
I think someone could take the pledge if they commit to doing any one but not necessarily all of the following:
1) refuse to use the word “marriage” for anyone who won’t commit to sexual fidelity
2) refuse to attend the wedding of a couple that is open about their plans to be sexually nonexclusive
3) share with friends in open relationships that she thinks they shouldn’t get married unless they commit to each other sexually
4) publicly state without naming names that she believes a marriage that accommodates adultery is not worthy of respect
5) anything else fully in the spirit of any of the above.
Your assumption that I want the law to regulate people’s behavior within marriages is mistaken. I do not. I recognize the legal status of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon is that they are married, but I believe their “marriage” is a mockery of what marriage is supposed to be. If you have precisely the same attitude toward an open marriage that allows multiple partners - that they are technically legally married but as you say they make a farce of what marriage is, then I withdraw my statement that you don’t know what marriage is. We agree that such a couple is foolish, selfish, and married in the eyes of the law.
Actually, I don’t think a man with several wives is monogamous. I just don’t think he is automatically immoral. I also don’t know of any morally centered person who thinks a man with several wives may have sex with anyone who is not one of his wives. I absolutely think polyandry is by definition adultery and do not support it.
I think your position that polygamy and divorce are immoral are mistaken, but perfectly worthy of respect. I have friends who are Catholic that have precisely the same attitude and I respect them 100%.
I’m reallly glad you chose to tease out some of your thinking as well as to be specific as how you were interpreting me. I don’t always do a great job of explaining what I mean (although I think longtime readers of the blog will attest that I do a better than average job) and it helps to have my feet held to the fire so everybody knows exactly what everybody else thinks.
Mr. Benkhof, thank you for your thoughtful response, and for your respectful clarifications. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to explore your thinking and your positions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I have been in the position of being a married and traditionally religious person. At that time, I could not come up with an actual harm to my marriage, or my faith-based understanding of marriage that did not invoke my religious beliefs. I have followed your published reasonings to see if you could. I am not convinced that you have.
Now, as a lesbian in a committed relationship, the question for me still comes down to one of civil equality, and civil marriage (no quotes) unrelated to religious marriage, whatever that means to each citizen. To be clear, it is not a question of ego for me, because I do not need the validation of what others may call my relationship. Instead, my view is informed by beliefs about our government and its role.
One small point, I didn’t say I think divorce is immoral, because I don’t. It is an unfortunate and painful reality that goes with being human.
And so we agree to disagree. I am grateful we still have a democracy where we can do that.
LAwaters27-
It’s Benkof. If someone had said we would be respectful toward each other’s position two days ago, nobody would have believed it. I’m glad we’ve been able to get to such a place.
Could you state more specifically:
1. why you don’t consider domestic partnership with all the rights of married people in California to be “civil equality”?
2. whether you could endorse an amendment to same-sex marriage that guarantees traditionally religious people the right to use their own definition of marriage in the way they teach, write, perform their professions, and run their businesses? If not, why not?
I’m not trying to “trap” you but to understand why someone who seems so reasonable wouldn’t agree with me on the two fair compromises above.
When you said “Making that vow to one person prohibits finding another and marrying again” it seemed obvious you were referring in part to divorce. I now see how that was not your intention and I was of course wrong.
First, Mr. Benkof, my apology for mistyping your name. I will be more careful.
Thank you for your questions. I am also enjoying this place of mutual respect of each other’s position with you, and the chance to explain mine more fully.
1. why you don’t consider domestic partnership with all the rights of married people in California to be “civil equality”?
The most direct response I can give is that it represents “separate but equal” which might be supportable in theory. In practice, however, it fully achieves only separate. The CA court decision addressed that and concluded the same. I agree with their reasoning.
We could ask what the problem was with blacks being at the back of the bus? They were allowed to ride, weren’t they? What does it matter if their drinking fountains were separate? At least they could get a drink. Both fountains produced water, and the buses transported everyone. Isn’t that the point?
A system is in place to handle civil marriage rights and responsibilities. The reason to establish and maintain a separate one, and the practical reality of that separateness is the question that goes to civil equality.
To illustrate, let me put it into context of school segregation. Let’s say the court’s decision in the matter established a separate terminology. Instead of calling African Americans attending the school “students” who “graduate”, they would be called “attendees” who “complete”. As a result, school boards and individual schools would then have to create an entirely separate set of policies, regulations, handbooks, parent communication letters, forms, I.D.’s, etc. with the terminology to cover this new distinct school population, though they would be identical in every other way. Teachers would use different terms in class to refer to each group. Ceremonies for seniors would be called “Graduation” for whites and “Completion” for African Americans, with different terminology on the certificate they receive. Job applications would have a checkbox for “graduation” and another for “completion”. Costs would be incurred and productivity would be affected, with everything being done in duplicate.
Though “attendees” would technically have every right and protection of “students” and would receive the same education, a whole system would be created and maintained to use different words for them. Which begs the question: why? The honest answer can only be to accommodate the beliefs of segregationists, many of whom based their views on their religious beliefs that there was a fundamental difference between whites and blacks, with whites being superior. (Those same beliefs applied for them in the question of interracial marriage.)
That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll address your second question in another post soon.
“Do you have an idea how I can be clear that most lesbians are monogamous, but they nonetheless don’t understand what marriage is because they see no problem in gay men (or anyone) openly committing adultery when they are supposed to be married?”
How about just say that, if that’s what you mean.
(Although such general statements are usually troublesome- Thus, you might want to qualify it by saying “some” or “many” lesbians see no problem with non-monogamy. Although, out of curiosity, I’d love to see statistics on people’s opinions on this.)
As a side note, I wonder how many of the non-monogamous gay couples would be the ones seeking marriage. Thus far, I don’t know that it’s accurate to say that lesbians see no problem in gay men being non-monogamously married- because thus far, the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is severely restricted. It’s probably safe to say, in fact, that perhaps none of the couples you quoted in your article were in fact legally married while in their non-monogamous relationships. A pressing question is whether gay men as a group in particular would be more monogamous if they were given the right to marry.
My conclusion to the illustration I used:
The honest answer to the reason for a separate system using different words for same-sex couples is to accommodate the belief of traditionally religious people that there is a difference between the couples, with male-female couples being superior. While I respect the right in democracy of anyone to the religion of their choosing and to embrace its beliefs, the branches of government must never appease religious beliefs in questions of civil equality.
In essence, traditionally religious people want the word “marriage” to be theirs, and it is – within their faith. However, it is also the word the government uses for the civil relationship. Civil equality, thus requires the term to be used for all of those civil relationships.
When the framers of the Constitution used the word Citizen, they surely did not imagine the expansion of the word to include anyone but whites. It likely galled some when they had to amend the Constitution to expand/clarify the definition of citizen as “all persons”. Many may have felt passionately that the meaning of the term Citizen was forever diminished. But it was the only way to establish full equality.
–> “If heterosexual polyamorists can get a license for civil marriage because the are heterosexual.”
1. There is no test for sexual orientation so you are mistaken when you said “because they are hesterosexual”.
2. Polyamory is not marriage. If they sought a marriage license it would not serve as a license to practice polyamory.
If they sought a license for the purpsoe of redefing non-marriage (i.e. polyamory) as marriage, then, there’d be an analogy with SSM.
–> “I think many lesbians do strongly value monogamy”
Why the difference based on sex categories?
What do you mean by “many”? And by “strongly”? And, of course, what did you mean by “monogamy” when you made the above assertion?
Are you really just making a comparison with gay men rather than with the general population of husband-wife unions?
Anecdotal evidence is okay, but it doesn’t take us very far. Have you more objective evidence that serves to quantify “many” and “strongly” based on what “many lesbians” value about monogamy?
* * *
SSMers usually promise that there is a widespread a desire to conform to higher social standards even while decrying the social expectation that people conform to the essentials of marriage as a social institution.
The low participation rates in same-sex householding, or any form of registered partnership, strongly suggests very low desire to conform even to the SSMer’s idealized form of same-sex arrangement. SSMers ought to at least acknowledge that it is an uphill struggle to promotion conformity among the homoexual population. In fact, most SSMers I’ve come across do not favor comformity, much less promotion of it, when it comes to setting higher standards for the conjugal relationship. For me, that’s a sign that societal preference for marriage takes a back seat to the SSMer’s desire to deconstruct marriage, as a social institution.
SSM argumentation does not place great value on marriage *as a social institution* — a coherent whole — but rather deconstructs it into a menu of optional bits and pieces. We see this in the assertions being made about monogamy.
Among man-woman combinations, sexual monogamy is expected and this is written into the traditions, customs, and our laws by way of, for example, the marriage presumption of paternity. Such a presumption is intrinsic to monogamy as a standard; but neither the presumption nor monogamy is intrinsic to the one-sex-short arrangement (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or, yes, heterosexual).
So what is the thinking behind two women, or two men, valuing monogamy, strongly or otherwise, based on same-sex sexual behavior? Why wouldn’t that thinking also apply to sexual exlusivity within a threesome or a moresome?
–> “my view is informed by beliefs about our government and its role”
What are those beliefs? For example, does the government *own* the social institution of marriage or does it merely recognize that social institution?
Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society, but SSM argumentation begins with government ownership and that’s tantamount to declaring that the government has a People rather than the other way around.
–> “Which begs the question: why? The honest answer can only be to accommodate the beliefs of segregationists, many of whom based their views on their religious beliefs that there was a fundamental difference between whites and blacks, with whites being superior.”
The analogy falls apart because SSM is sex-segregative whereas marriage integrates the sexes.
When you assert that the one-sex-short arrangement is the equivalent of the conjugal relationship type, you make the error of pressing segregation into the social institution which unites man and woman.
Presumably, you believe that there is a relationship type (of which the one-sex-short arrangement is a subset) that is superior to the conjugal relationship type (which is both-sexed).
What makes the broader relationship type (that you have in mind) superior? Is it the inclusion of the sex-segregative option?
Also note that the racist system that made “inter-racial” marriage a felony was unjust because it pressed a nonmarriage purpose into marital status. I think SSMers are doing the same thing — even if they feel that their purpose is far more benign.
The racist system abused marriage by selectively segregating the sexes and undermining responsible procreation.
SSM argumentation would use our societal esteem for marriage, and abuse government recogniton of marriage, to do much the same thing.
Contrary to the four supremes in Califionria, an SSM-merger would be a reintroduction of “seperate but equal” under the marriage laws.
–> “A pressing question is whether gay men as a group in particular would be more monogamous if they were given the right to marry.”
The question you ought to press is whether or not there is a societal interest in gay monogamy. If there is, how does it compare with a societal interest, if any, in lesbian monogamy.
Whatever the societal interest — disease prevention is sometimes the first that is offered — it can hardly rises to the social and cultural significance of responsible procreation and sex integration.
SSMers, instead, would rather that society become convinced to lower its interest in the core of marriage (sexz integration and responsible procreation, combined as a coherent whole) so that it would be far easier to buy into the speculative assertions made in favor of a weakened standard — or effectively no standard.
If sexual monogamy is not an essential, as per the basis for the marriage presumption of paternity, and society must now treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives, then, what is meant by the word, marriage, is not the conjugal relationship type but rather an ambiguous notion of domestic arrangement for which society (socially and culturally) can make no distinctions based on sex.
SSMers cannot here make claim to a merely legalistic argument for the reform in the law. They must make a social and cultural argument that would be reflected in the changed law. The change that is pushed by SSMers is gaycentric and yet is actuall asexual. That is, there is no sexual basis for marriage recogniton, according to SSM argumentation, because the law does not make shared sexual behavior compulsory.
In other words, government recogniotn of a social institution that integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procration has become likened to the anti-miscegenation system which was a government-created impositon on the social institution. Yet as this discussion of monogamy reveals, the SSM-merger would be a government created imposition done in the name of identity politics — not of the racist kind but of the gaycentric kind.
If it is not such an imposition, then, would the SSM-merger exclude some related people (but not all related people) and mutliple marriages (but only those which are concurrent) based on something other than sex integration and responsible procreation?
Surely it would not be based on monogamy as a standalone for the nonsexualized relationships of father and daughter, for example, or of mother and daughter, for another example, would be just as monogamous in the watered-down definition common among gay men.
LAwaters27-
You’re at least the second lesbian (if not the third) to discover via dialogue at this site that I’m not the monster you thought I was and that most of the time I actually do listen to what the other person is saying.
I do not accept your analogy of blacks on the bus. A better analogy would be blacks get to use the bus, but whites get to ride the same bus. Similarly, blacks get to sip at the same water fountain, but whites get to drink at that fountain. I am getting a Ph.D. in an aspect of American history. I am quite confident that if those were the restrictions, given everything else that stifled the freedom of African-Americans in places like Mississippi and Tennessee, the African-Americans would have gladly accepted the use/sip compromise and moved on to try to get representation in state and federal legislatures, good schools, a fair shot at civil service jobs, etc.
Your next analogy, of graduate vs. complete, is excellent. As long as everything was absolutely equal, I do not think it would have been too distressful for the people involved. Remember, the issue isn’t whether it is unconstitutional. The amendment is by definition constitutional in the state constitution, and it’s the gay leadership, not me, that is stopping such laws from being appealed to the Supreme Court.
Remember, this is in the context of a gay community that has real and distressing problems. Even if I wanted same-sex marriage, as a gay person myself, I would not prioritize the word used to describe the exact same benefits, which are full and equal, in California. Instead, I would work to get at least some benefits in important, large states like Texas, Ohio, and Michigan where there are absolutely no benefits for same-sex couples. I would also want to help the lesbians who are disproportionately likely to suffer from alcoholism, the gay men who are disproportionately likely to suffer from syphilis and HIV, and the transgender women who are disproportionately likely to end up in prison, where they are more likely to be beaten, mocked, and raped than any other prison group. I’d also wonder why there’s no national law protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination, and I’d want to pass the bill pending before Congress that allows the government to lift the ban on HIV-positive people immigrating to or entering the United States while we have a president who has promised to sign it, which might not be true after January 2009. And I’d want to get rid of the insulting, homophobic blood ban than does not allow anyone who has had gay sex in the last 20 years to even be tissue typed to see if he is a match for a person dying of leukemia.
I am confident that if the only inequality facing African-Americans in the south was semantic, they would have had plenty of more important issues to work on. My point is that gays and lesbians do have more important issues to work on even if we agree that gay marriage is a good goal. Yet that’s not happening.
Fannie-
In Vermont, we know that more than half the male-male couples in civil unions had open relationships. I don’t see why marriage would make more than a marginal difference in that number.
If you don’t agree, I’d be interested to hear you flesh that out. I haven’t found statistics for Massachusetts, only Vermont, but if you can find some those would be the most important numbers to answer your question.
LAWaters27-
You write, “the branches of government must never appease religious beliefs in questions of civil equality.” Could you say more about that? I don’t understand how you could do that, especially in California, with unconstitutionally depriving religious people of their voting rights.
In other words, let’s say it’s mostly people motivated by religion who vote for the California Marriage Protection Act. That’s causeing the government to appease religious beliefs in a question of civil equality. So what should happen? How should we determine exactly which percentage of voters were motivated by religious beliefs and which ones were primarily voting on secular criteria? Should we then throw out the votes of the religiously motivated voters? Or should we figure out a way to prevent religiously motivated voters from voting at all? How would that work?
The questions are not rhetorical or sarcastic. I think you really meant what you said, so all I’m asking is how you would reasonably put it into practice this November.
There are many different and conflicting streams that flow into the flood of SSM argumentation. One of the most prominent and repetitive — and turbulent — is the gratuitous kick at religion.
The idea behind it is to detatch people from their religious beliefs. That is, unless those religious beliefs are pro-SSM. There is not much more to it than that.
Ours is a plurastic society. The state is not sectarian and is not the sole authority in a free country. Neither the state, nor the secular language that expresses public standards of morality, stand as the font of wisdom on all matters — certainly not on the foundational social institution of civil society.
SSMers can’t put their finger on what marriage actually is, so they concentrate on attempts to deconstruct of the social institution. The kick at religion is meant to disenfranchise based on sectarianism. Sometimes this kick is aimed at the objective facts that marriage *is* a social institution and that the government merely recognizes but does *not* own it.
SSM argumentation does not promote pluralism when it presents secularism as the basis for the marriage law. With one hand, the SSMer would remove the pluralistic basis for marriage and, with the other hand, substitute a psueduo-religous beliefs that contradicts the nature of marriage — the pro-SSM axiomatic assertion that marraige is NOT both-sexed.
Instead of arguing in favor of abolishing the man-woman criterion of marriage, they really ought to make the case for a government-created relationship status that originates in the absence of religious beliefs. Or that is based on their quasi-religous beliefs about the relationship type that they have in mind. Then we can test the boundaries of such a proposal.
For instance, if monogamy is supposedly nonessential, and if it is only a religious belief and practice, then, throw it out and do not make boundaries that rely upon sexualization of the relationship type. The idealized gay relationship, if that is what the SSMers really have in mind, would be silent about monogamy. Not just in the law, of course, but culturally as well.
That’s pretty much where SSM argumentation stands today. It is not supportive of the social institution, as a social instution, and it would rather than monogamy be emptied of its useful and common meaning, as well. There should be no moral objection, then, to drawing boundaries around this relationship type that are inclusive of related people and currently married people, unless there is specific harm on a case-by-case basis.
Chairm asked the following string of questions regarding my claim that lesbians value monogamy more than gay men:
“Why the difference based on sex categories?
What do you mean by ‘many’? And by ’strongly’? And, of course, what did you mean by ‘monogamy’ when you made the above assertion?Are you really just making a comparison with gay men rather than with the general population of husband-wife unions?
Anecdotal evidence is okay, but it doesn’t take us very far. Have you more objective evidence that serves to quantify ‘many’ and ’strongly’ based on what “many lesbians” value about monogamy?”
Chairm, are you particularly surprised that when two women- who are by your own admission different than men- enter into a relationship it would necessarily be different than a relationship involving two men? My point in mentioning that lesbians value monogamy for themselves was because Benkof argued that gay people (including lesbians) do not value monogamy the way straight people do. It has been my experience as one deeply involved in the lesbian community, that pretty much every lesbian I know is in or seeking a monogamous relationship. By monogamous I mean, two people who are in a relationship where sexual behavior is limited to the two people in that relationship.
Yes, I realize anecdotal evidence isn’t the most convincing, particularly when marriage defenders think or want to believe otherwise about lesbians. Unfortunately, there is not a wealth of evidence around the issue of lesbian monogamy. Much of the research surrounding “gay monogamy” pertains solely to gay men, because of their increased risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS. I have to yet to see large-scale studies of sexual exclusivity among lesbian women, but data thus far shows that the sexual behavior or lesbians more closely resembles the monogamous behavior of heterosexual women than it resembles the behavior of gay men. Lesbians in this study were not significantly more likely than heterosexual women to agree that non-monogamy was acceptable, whereas gay men were more likely to agree compared to heterosexual men.
What should definitely be noted is that too often, “family values” and anti-gay sites make claims like “gay people don’t even want to be monogamous” while citing statistics only of gay male non-monogamy.
What is quite interesting is that Chairm, who is neither a member of the LGBT community and in fact denies that the gay identity exists, has made many claims about what “SSMers” think without backing up his statements with evidence. Mr. Benkof, too, relies greatly on anecdotal evidence stemming from his experience in the LGBT community to support many of his claims.
Anecdotal evidence is okay, but it doesn’t take us very far.
As for Chairm’s other question:
“So what is the thinking behind two women, or two men, valuing monogamy, strongly or otherwise, based on same-sex sexual behavior?”
I believe Mr. Benkof’s argument is that gays/lesbians don’t value monogamy, and therefore, they do not really understand what marriage is. In other words, monogamy is an essential feature of marriage, and if there is not monogamy, there cannot be a marriage.
Fannie gets it half right (and in baseball batting .500 is unprecedentedly good) when she says “I believe Mr. Benkof’s argument is that gays/lesbians don’t value monogamy, and therefore, they do not really understand what marriage is” she’s got it spot-on. But when she says “In other words, monogamy is an essential feature of marriage, and if there is not monogamy, there cannot be a marriage” she’s a little off. Yes, monogamy is an essential feature of marriage, but “if there is not monogamy there can be no marriage” isn’t quite true. There can be a marriage, but it is not a marriage worthy of praise or respect.
For example, sex is an essential feature of marriage. If the wife refuses to consummate the marriage for a week, the husband can go to a judge and complain and the judge can (and usually does) annul the marriage - which means it literally never happened. But during that week, I wouldn’t deny that it is a marriage.
I’d prefer a softball metaphor, David. I am a lesbian after all.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that a non-monogamous is not marriage. Thanks for clarifying.
Fannie, you misirepresented my views.
Fannie said, in error: Chairm, who is neither a member of the LGBT community and in fact denies that the gay identity exists, has made many claims about what “SSMers” think without backing up his statements with evidence.
1. Gay identity politics is a force in society. It would not be a force if gay identity did not exist. If you read my words differenty, perhaps you can explain howso.
2. Is there an official membership roster for the LGBT community? I’ll note that when I’ve referred to the gay community, Fannie, you have deried me for even suggesting there is a community. It exists when you sayso but not when I sayso, I guess.
3. When I have referred to what SSMers think, I point to their argumentation, in their own words. This argumentation is found in court records, opinion columns, blogsites, transcripts of public debates or panel discussions, and in books and pamphlets.
There is a body of argumentation that promotes the SSM-merger and I think it fair to systematically evaluate its merits and demerits. That’s because it is important to focus on the actual disagreement, rather than on the misrepresentations that abound — on all sides — whether due to negligence, misunderstanding, or deliberate diversion. Unfortunately, the pro-SSM side tends to elude the actual disagreement and instead repeat, as you have Fannie, misrepresentations that have been corrected already.
Now there are mainy streams that flow into SSM argumentation, as noted above, and when discussing issues with a particular SSMer I usually seek clarifications, just as I did with you, Fannie, in our exchange here.
When I asked: “So what is the thinking behind two women, or two men, valuing monogamy, strongly or otherwise, based on same-sex sexual behavior?”
I was referring not the David’s argument but to the pro-SSM thinking (of, say, yourself Fannie) on why the all-female or the all-male combo would value monogamy or not, differently — based on same-sex sexual behavior.
It was a follow-up for the basic question raised by the content of your own comment about differentiating based on sex. Your response to me, above, also suggests (and please clarify) that you think that sexual orientation contributes to the difference.
Charim, your comments to me were:
“1. There is no test for sexual orientation so you are mistaken when you said “because they are hesterosexual”.
2. Polyamory is not marriage. If they sought a marriage license it would not serve as a license to practice polyamory.”
My point in those comments was that there is no test when obtaining a civil marriage license for sexual orientation, nor for the couple’s beliefs or sexual practices regarding monogamy or anything else. What they do consensually in sex is between them and is not on the application. Except in Calif & Mass, their being male-female and thus, presumed heterosexual, gets them the license.
Unless one party seeks annulment or divorce after, the government does not get involved in their marital conduct. Mr. Benkof, prior to such a request for dissolution, says he would not say they were not married. I agree, as most people would. And that is my point.
Of course their license is not specifically to practice polyamory. But legally, they can. They remain in a legal civil marriage regardless of their consensual sexual activity, or cheating, for that matter. That is fact. Whether their marriage is then worthy of praise or respect is another question. I don’t think so. But the law doesn’t care what I think. They are legally married.
“Presumably, you believe that there is a relationship type (of which the one-sex-short arrangement is a subset) that is superior to the conjugal relationship type (which is both-sexed).”
We have basic disagreement about civil marriage versus religious marriage, including the question of whether such a distinction exists or should exist. I do want to clarify that my analogy about segregation was to point out issues with “separate but equal”, not about segregation.
I do not believe in or promote the superiority or inferiority of relationship types. I am discussing civil equality.
“There are many different and conflicting streams that flow into the flood of SSM argumentation. One of the most prominent and repetitive — and turbulent — is the gratuitous kick at religion.
The idea behind it is to detatch people from their religious beliefs. That is, unless those religious beliefs are pro-SSM. There is not much more to it than that.
Your comments contain “prominent and repetitive gratuitous kicks at” same-sex relationships. “One-sex-short arrangements” being just one example. That is unfortunate. I have not disparaged opposite sex relationships or anyone’s religion. I don’t believe it is productive or helpful.
I am also not advocating, nor do I believe, that people should be detached from their religious beliefs. I completely support everyone’s right to vote regardless of their basis for deciding how to vote. That is their civil right.
Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the discourse, and to have their views heard, preferably with respect. Sadly, that rarely happens. But free speech is another civil right.
Chairm
Oh brother. Sorry for mispresenting your views.
That being said, it’s odd that you focus more on my alleged misrepresentation of your views and off-topic questions than on my substantive argument as to what you were asking.
For instance, you ask:
“2. Is there an official membership roster for the LGBT community?”
No. What is your point in asking? Oh wait, it’s not relevant so don’t bother answering.
Further, you say:
“I’ll note that when I’ve referred to the gay community, Fannie, you have deried me for even suggesting there is a community. It exists when you sayso but not when I sayso, I guess.”
I have? That’s certainly news to me. The “LGBT community” exists, of course, but I usually deride you for making huge, sweeping, false generalizations about this community.
Then you claim:
“3. When I have referred to what SSMers think, I point to their argumentation, in their own words. This argumentation is found in court records, opinion columns, blogsites, transcripts of public debates or panel discussions, and in books and pamphlets. ”
Neat-o. My point was that you did none of those things in your previous comments to me, yet that didn’t stop you from telling us all what “SSMers” (as you call them) think.
Now, can we please discuss substance?
You ask:
“Your response to me, above, also suggests (and please clarify) that you think that sexual orientation contributes to the difference.”
Is that really the best you can offer from my above pretty long comment? “Please clarify”? My point was that I think it’s more plausible that sex/gender, rather than sexual orientation, contributes to the difference in monogamy between gay male relationships versus lesbians/heterosexual relationships. Here, re-read:
“My point in mentioning that lesbians value monogamy for themselves was because Benkof argued that gay people (including lesbians) do not value monogamy the way straight people do. It has been my experience as one deeply involved in the lesbian community, that pretty much every lesbian I know is in or seeking a monogamous relationship. By monogamous I mean, two people who are in a relationship where sexual behavior is limited to the two people in that relationship.
Yes, I realize anecdotal evidence isn’t the most convincing, particularly when marriage defenders think or want to believe otherwise about lesbians. Unfortunately, there is not a wealth of evidence around the issue of lesbian monogamy. Much of the research surrounding “gay monogamy” pertains solely to gay men, because of their increased risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS. I have to yet to see large-scale studies of sexual exclusivity among lesbian women, but data thus far shows that the sexual behavior or lesbians more closely resembles the monogamous behavior of heterosexual women than it resembles the behavior of gay men. Lesbians in this study were not significantly more likely than heterosexual women to agree that non-monogamy was acceptable, whereas gay men were more likely to agree compared to heterosexual men.”
Thus, lesbians have views about monogamy that align more to the views of heterosexual women than to the views of gay men.
Cool. Do you have an opinion on this? Or do you seek to further elude and “explain” to all of us what the “pro-SSM side tends” to do?
Mr. Benkof, if I understand you correctly, your comment on my bus analogy is (to paraphrase) that with everything else the gay community faces, they ought to drop the marriage thing and focus on more pressing issues. Here, we must agree to disagree. I thought about drawing an analogy to the many real and distressing problems the early colonists faced, so what did they care about tax on tea? But we could go on dissecting the finer shades of each other’s analogies and responses for a long time! Intellectually challenging, but we are both busy people.
Thank you for your response regarding “graduation” versus “completion”. Again, we fundamentally disagree on whether “separate but equal” works, because you have said you do not feel it would be too distressful as long as everything else was absolutely equal. Distressful is not my measurement, but I cannot support nearly absolutely equal.
“In other words, let’s say it’s mostly people motivated by religion who vote for the California Marriage Protection Act. That’s causeing the government to appease religious beliefs in a question of civil equality. So what should happen? How should we determine exactly which percentage of voters were motivated by religious beliefs and which ones were primarily voting on secular criteria? Should we then throw out the votes of the religiously motivated voters? Or should we figure out a way to prevent religiously motivated voters from voting at all? How would that work?”
Voting is obviously an absolute civil right regardless of the reasoning behind the vote. I don’t believe civil rights should be a matter of majority vote, but the vote on CMPA will happen. We could debate whether that is government appeasement of religious beliefs, but I see it primarily as a function of majority rule. Which brings us to why civil rights should not be a matter of majority rule. Pure, absolute majority rule can lead to tyranny. That is why there are checks and balances. Civil rights exist in part to protect the minority from any form of oppression by any majority.
Voters elect the legislators and the President. Religious voters, non-religious voters… everyone has their voice in their vote, as it should be. Laws are written, amendments passed. The judicial branch is where constitutionality is tested. If the CMPA passes, let’s say it goes to the Supreme Court for review. It is there, at that point, that I am saying the government must not appease religious beliefs in questions of civil rights. To be clearer, I am saying religious beliefs cannot be an acceptable basis for infringing on the civil rights of others. Everyone’s basic constitutional freedoms are to be protected. No one’s religious traditions, beliefs or practices can be used as a justification for infringing on the civil rights of others.
I do not want the government to promote or inhibit anyone’s religious beliefs or practices in any branch. Separation of church and state in democracy is wise and necessary for freedom for both.
You asked me a question earlier I have not answered yet. It goes to how my last two statements would work in practice. I will do my best to answer that in a later post.
Fannie, I responded, on-topic, to *your* announcement (about membership in the LGBT community) which emphasized identity politics. Now you reply that what was interesting before is now irrelevant. That may be progress — of a sort.
Fannie said: making huge, sweeping, false generalizations about this community
Which community is that now, Fannie, the gay community, the LGBT community, the lesbian community, the pro-SSM community, some other community? Perhaps you can here provide an example from this very discussion.
If you don’t think that would be on-topic, okay, we can move on to the actual disagreement.
* * *
Fannie said: My point was that I think it’s more plausible that sex/gender, rather than sexual orientation, contributes to the difference in monogamy between gay male relationships versus lesbians/heterosexual relationships.
In another discussion I cited the Solomon study, which you have linked above, and its survey of husbands (the study presumed they were straight and not gay or bisexual) and men in committed rgay elationships suggested that there is a huge difference both in attitude and behavior. The husbands are men. The gay partners are men. Sexual orientation is the distinguishing feature that was measured in that study.
Now in that same study the differences between wives and women in lesbian relationships was much smaller and, given the size of the sample, probably, as you said earlier, not significant.
There are probably other significant factors that influence attitude and behavior, such as the presence of children (much more common in both marriages and female civil unions than in gay relationships) and a history of having been in a previous relationship with the opposite sex (which might point to past or present ambiguity regarding sexual orientation). These two features tend to appear together in terms of same-sex householding (a census measure of households in which there are “partners” of the same sex) and that is probably a large subset of “committed relationships”.
Observations from the Solomon study ought to be read with the caution that, as the researchers noted, there may be selection bias and sample bias since the samples of married men and women were derived from the families of gay and lesbian respondents. The samples were not representative of the general LGBT population nor of the straight population so the results are not a measure of monogamous and non-monogamous attitude/behavior based on sexual orientation in general. The study provided a measure of such in terms of “committed relationships” which does not necessarily mean co-residency or commitment ceremonies and the like. Presumably the vast majority married sample’s committed relationship type included both co-residency and public ceremonies and the like, but that, too, was not measured directly.
The point here is that when we talk of monogamy we need to also talk of the higher standard that is socially expected — that is part of the culture of marriage — and that standard certainly can produce an overflow effect from marriage to nonmarital arrangements. Certainly that is so for even dating — at some point in a sexualized relationship — for most people who court and eventually marry. The social institution has an influence both on attitude and behavior — it is not just something that people are born with. It is taught, imbued even, in a strong marriage culture.
Monogamy is not just about emotions. In marriage, it is about the marriage presumption of paternity. Some married people may not abide by the higher standard, and that’s why the standard is important because its lack would diminish the relatively non-coercive influence of the social institution.
Apart from the irrelevancy of the presumption of paternity (based on both-sexed sexual behavior), is it not part of the beliefs of SSMers here that a high standard of monogamy ought to apply to gay and lesbian relationships, generally?
In other words, is it the belief that all gay and lesbian women ought to be influenced by SSM to become monogamous both in attitude and behavior? Since this is not relevant to responsible procreation, what is its relevancy to beliefs of SSMers?
If not, why not? Surely such a higher standard would be pushing against the grain of, at least, the current attitude/behavior of gay men in committed relationships (as per the Solomon study’s limited evidence)?
LAwaters27-
I know you have reason to be skeptical, but if we can come up with a better name for you it would make me more able to get to know you as a person. How about “Polly”? Or any name you choose.
You correctly summarized my views in the first two paragraphs.
Your opinion about civil rights not being subject to a majority vote is a reasonable one. There are many things the constitution holds that cannot be changed by a majority vote, either by the people, or by the Congress. But there is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be changed. We can take the right to vote away from women by repealing the amendment that implemented suffrage. We could bring back slaver by repealing the Thirteenth Amendment. We could take the vote away from 18, 19, and 20 year olds by repealing the 26th Amendment. Those are civil rights, but with enough voters they can be taken away. And everyone knows the ground rules up front, and if the rules change they apply to everything. Many of the people complaining about “voting on my civil rights” have voted in favor of environmental and educational constitutional amendments in California without claiming that the system is unfair. So it’s not right for them to now say “we need a 2/3 vote to change the constitution.”
If you don’t agree, who should decide what amendments can and cannot pass muster?
You say that when the Supreme Court rules on the CMPA, “that I am saying the government must not appease religious beliefs in questions of civil rights.” I’m not sure I disagree. I don’t want Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer to say, “Well the Talmud says in Masechet Chullin that same-sex marriage is wrong, so as Jews we’re voting to uphold the law.” However, I don’t want John Paul Stevens to say “Clearly most of the people who voted for this think were motivated by religion so we’re striking it down.”
What I want the Supreme Court to do is look at the text of the Constitution and the relevant decisions, especially Loving v. Virginia and ask “Is there a federal right to same-sex marriage found in these documents?” I’m confident there is one. If they say there is, I can live with it. I have options: I can try to pass a constitutional amendment, I can try to elect presidents and senators that will appoint justices more likely to vote my way in the future, and I can move to Israel.
“No one’s religious traditions, beliefs or practices can be used as a justification for infringing on the civil rights of others.” So the government could move the weekend to Tuesday and Wednesday at will? The only reason to keep the weekend on Saturday and Sunday is that that is when most Americans have their Sabbaths.
Mock nuance all you want Chairm, but I think it’s pretty apparent we are having two completely separate conversations. I have no problem with disagreement, but when there is rarely a meeting of the minds, “dialogue” is futile.
As my point here was to respond to Mr. Benkof’s over-generalization, which I did, my time in this thread is done.
Peace.
My name-typing/batting average today is awful. Chairm, my apologies to you as well for mistyping your moniker.
Mr. Benkof asked me:
2. whether you could endorse an amendment to same-sex marriage that guarantees traditionally religious people the right to use their own definition of marriage in the way they teach, write, perform their professions, and run their businesses? If not, why not?
Hopefully I’ve been clear about my views on separation of church and state: I do not want the government to promote or inhibit anyone’s religious beliefs or practices in any branch. Separation of church and state in democracy is wise and necessary for freedom for both.
I can agree with guarantees regarding religious freedom. In considering how far freedom of religion goes (and should go) I thought about Santeria’s battles over animal sacrifice. The practice is well outside my own expression of faith, even extremely distasteful to me. But I read the USSC’s decision highlights on the page, and I am still glad religious freedom is kept as absolute as it is.
In a 70’s talk show discussing flag burning, one guest’s comment has stuck with me all these years, even though I was just an adolescent. He said we should beware of making holes in liberty to get our opponents, because they will, in turn, get you through the same hole.
I don’t know how I can say more clearly that I believe in protecting our basic civil rights, and equality as citizens. I apply that to everyone, even those with whom I strongly disagree.
I will address the “if not, why not?” situations instead. In the public arena, we all have to make certain compromises in the interest of the liberty of all of us. I do not support discrimination of any kind in businesses. So if you are asking me whether a Christian owner of a restaurant should be allowed to refuse to seat a lesbian, legally married couple in CA, my answer is no, not legally.
I will give you a true example to explain. In the early 90’s I was friends with a gifted, highly-skilled oral surgeon who was also a zealous fundamental, evangelical Christian. Every time he performed procedures or surgeries (he did the massive reconstructions a lot), he risked HIV transmission by both needle sticks, and scalpel nicks or cuts.
[Current information: Needle sticks among health care professionals. Present studies indicate that the risk of HIV transmission by a needle stick is about one in 250. This rate can be decreased if the injured worker is given AZT, an anti-retroviral medication, in combination with other medication.]
Every time he stuck, nicked or cut himself, and it happens a lot, he felt the terror of contracting AIDS, and of death, leaving behind his wife and two beautiful little girls. As a Christian, he was angry that his own life was at risk because of the sexuality of others and their risky behaviors that he felt were very, very serious sins. Yet, he was legally compelled to treat them. (His statements, not mine, and not necessarily accurate.)
While I loved my friend a lot, and was highly sympathetic to his beliefs and predicament, I could not then, or now, agree that he should be allowed to refuse service to people who were HIV-positive, or who had AIDS. It would violate their civil rights.
Did he have a choice? Yes, he could find other employment. It’s a lot to give up, I know. But civil rights are that important, in my opinion.
So do I think that traditionally religious people may be faced with non-life-threatening compromises regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, they will. Can they discriminate? No, they cannot – as long as their religious freedom is not hindered materially (using the standard the USSC applies to such questions).
Same-sex couples likewise will face compromises. Even though that cathedral in town is gorgeous, they can’t get married there.
LAwaters27: Your comments contain “prominent and repetitive gratuitous kicks at” same-sex relationships. “One-sex-short arrangements” being just one example.
While I was speaking of marriage, which is an arrangement that unites man and woman, I suppose you were talking about the relationship types, or arrangements, which, for those involved, the absence of the other sex is not a lack but rather a definitive feature.
The same-sex category is very broad.
If you intended to pinpoint the subset of that category which is characterized by same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior, then, please find a more precise term or phrase. Perhaps, the lesbian relationship or the gay relationship or somesuch would communicate your intention more clearly.
If instead we’d use same-sex is a eupehmism for a single category encompassing the gay or lesbian relationships, and excluding the rest, then we will trip over the very probem that Fannie and David have discussed regarding differences between gay and lesbian relationship types and monogamy. In addition, there are the non-gay and non-lesbian arrangements within the same-sex category and these may or may not entail expectations of monogamy.
Still, whether it be gay, lesbian, or same-sex, the relationship type would indeed lack one or the other sex in terms of the core of marriage.
Marriage integrates the sexes, provides contingency for responsible procreation, and does so as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution). This is deeply embedded in our customs, traditions, and our legal system. It pre-exists governmental authority, in the past and today. That core is what makes entry to marriage a identifiable liberty around which boundaries have been drawn. The liberty is that through which a woman becomes the wife of the man who becomes her husband. It is the liberty by which fatherhood and motherood are integrated.
It is not the liberty of Party A to join with Party B, although that, too, may be a liberty exericised and which is not denied by the man-woman criterion of marital status.
At law, the man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes; the marriage presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation; and the preferential status of marital status is acknowledgement from society, through government, the great signficance of the most pro-child social institution we have.
This core of marriage benefits society and society benefits the social institution. Deconstructing marriage into bits and pieces, as per SSM argumentation, dismantles social esteem for the coherent whole — the basis for the preferential status — and, via gay identity politics, promotes the more superficial and fickle aspects of romance and sexual attraction.
So it is really odd that for you the man-woman criterion is deemed a purely religious criterion.
* * *
Monogamy is directly connected to the marriage presumption of paternity — culturally and legally. Marriage, the social institution, exerts an influence on behavior and attitudes throughout society. Some jurisdictions have produced statutory provisons for the presumption of unwed paternity but that typically requires significant intrusions by the government. Yet even in such statutes we see the influence of marital monogamy with its strong connection to responsible procreation.
However, the marriage presumption does not apply to the all-male or the all-female arrangement — whether that is called SSM or something else. Not because of anti-homosexual animus, but because the nature of human procreation is both-sexed.
Monogamy’s connection to the marriage presumption is not transferable to the arrangement that is all-male or all-female. As with other nonmarital arrangements, there may be an overflow effect due to the remarkable influence of the social institution of marriage, even today.
But such an effect, evident somewhat with lesbian relationships in the Solomon study, does not mean that the lack of the other sex is itself the basis for an expectation of monogamy in an all-male or an all-female sexualized relationship.
There must be some other basis for the impulse to promote monogamy where one or the other sex is excluded. As it stands, it would seem that lesbians, especially those who have been previously wives to husbands, do not need to be convinced further that sexual monogamy is a valuable feature of a sexualized relationship. Perhaps the purpose of SSM is to use relatively non-coercive means by which to promote conformity among the population of gay men — and the lesbian example, such as it is, would be the standard-bearer.
I think that monogamy in the all-male or the all-female arrangement is irrelevant to the significance of monogmy in the conjugal relationship type. But no doubt some will disagree and might attempt to provide a convinsing set of reasons to think otherwise.