Gay Promiscuity by the Numbers
November 9, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
We’ve had our debates about same-sex marriage at ThePolitic (and I’ve started my share). Well, nothing’s been settled, and the debate rages. Scott H. Payne at The League highlights a comment from Joe Carter, posted on a thread at The American Scene:
It’s a radical change even from your own definition, which includes “and commit to do so monogamously.” As has been understood for decades, the homosexual (at least gay male) definition of monogamy does not entail sexual exclusivity. That this fact is dismissed or swept under the rug is not surprising since it would make the cause of SSM even more difficult to achieve. But it’s been well established and used to be the justifying reason why gays weren’t interested in marriage.
If this is an important component of your definition then you need to ask what happens when the majority of gay men refuse to include this in their own definition of “marriage.”
Rather than reject Joe’s contention out of hand, Scott does the responsible thing, and looks for some numbers on monogamy and sexual orientation. After digging up some stats, I’d describe Scott’s response to Joe as, ‘yes, but…’:
On the face of it, that finding generally supports Joe’s point: gay males are a great deal more likely to engage in sexually non-exclusive relationships. That points remains true both historically, in terms of the 1975 numbers, and more recently, in terms of the 2000 numbers. However, what the numbers also show is that there is a substantial downward trend in attitudes towards extra-marital/extra-partnership encounters and while the rates for such encounters remain higher amongst gay males as compared to other groups, the rates for gay males have declined in a comparable fashion to the declines noted for the other groups, at least as far as this study reveals.
…
What those numbers tell me is that there has been a shift in the recorded attitudes of gay males on the specific topic of extra-marital/extra-partnership sexual encounters that has occurred at a rate that surpasses what these psychologists recorded for all other groups, which, I think, may well indicate a normative change on this particular topic in the specific culture of gay males.
There’s a lot of back and forth in the comments, and Joe Carter responds, in part:
Now people like Conor have the best of intentions. By bringing gay men into the heteronormative circle they believe we can condition them to reject all that “queer stuff.” He thinks that culture would and should shape their attitudes toward monogamy, further bringing them into the mainstrem. Obviously, when this is the attitude that is considered “gay-friendly”, what choice do gay men have but to surrender ot the forces of heteronormative conformity?
But back to the question of how all of this fits into my larger argument. I would say that if the (heterosexual) public were aware of the predominant view of monogamy within the subculture of gay men, they would be less likely to accept same-sex marriage—and for good reason. It is only be being blissfully unaware gay attitudes about monogamy or by being willing to de-queer gay men that the advocates of SSM are advancing the cause.
It’s a very interesting and thoughtful debate. However, to me, the scope is a little too narrow to be conclusive. Consequently I ask, am I the only one that believes marriage to be transformative?
Gay rights supporters argue that homosexual orientation is nature, not nurture. But arguing that the institution of marriage would make gays more exclusive because of the normative pressure sort of means that nurture shapes homosexual behavior. If some social institution can make gays exclusive, can some other social institution make gays straight?
I think suggesting that society can affect the way one expresses/lives out/experiences their sexual oientation is far different that suggesting that society can change the actual sexual orientation.
It’s an interesting debate, sociologically – would a few decades of boring marriages tame them kerrazzee gays?? – but I think it misses a serious point: why do gays have to renounce their sluttishness before we straights can “let” them get married? There are many hetero couples in “open” relationships, the concept of “swinging” is not exactly a new one, and the percentage of guys who fuck around on their wives is a healthy one.
I also know some gay men in very happy long-term relationships (and marriages) who see the occasional bout of extramarital fucking as being a healthy thing overall. (I’ve met many straights who feel this way, too.)
So why is it up to the straights to decide when the gays “deserve” marriage? Since when are rights subject to moral tests?
To say they’ll just mess it up is pretty laughable given our own stewardship of the institution, yes?
Agreed, Nathan.
And even if 99% of gay men were too permiscuous for marriage (apologies for the poorly constructed phrase), what does that have to do with the 1% of gay men who aren’t?
Opposition to gay marriage is a lot like support for the Iraq Invasion – the arguments, once exposed to daylight, crumble pretty quickly, but the people making them just switch to a new one without acknowledging having done so.
Gay marriage will be a pan-North American and pan-European reality within a decade, and a global reality within a decade or two of that. What we are seeing from its opponents is the impotent snarling of a wounded, fearful animal. Fear is nothing to base a belief on.
What a stupid debate.
Gay or straight is irrelevent. The only responsible way to discuss marriage is to get government out of the business of registering any type of marriage altogether.
Pull the string, and the doll says “Govt should get off our backs!”
So who would register marriages, Charles? Walmart? Pepsi?
Can’t be a law firm, because laws are part of the infrastructure of the state, means govt govt govt.
Churches only? That’s a real step forward. Why not let them run the education system, too?
Honestly: is there any other answer possible than “get rid of government”?
Form your own church. Call it whatever you want. Do whatever you want there. Register the marriages you want. Duh. What could possibly make more sense????
The most popular church will get the most customers and will register the marriages that people want. It is not like they have to teach any hocus pocus stuff when they congregate.
Until you find a better answer, there is no better answer than getting rid of government.
Okay Charles, now you’re just fucking with me.