Will same-sex marriage undermine norms of fidelity? My thoughts, here.
19 Comments for “Gays and Monogamy”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Kudos to Corvino for not invoking the argument that increased availability of SSM would magically reduce non-monogamy among gay men.
Instead, he takes as given that “open relationships” and “fidelity, not monogamy” would continue to be quite normal among gay men even if SSM were universally available, but argues that the visibility of “open marriages” among gay male couples would not significantly affect the expectations/practices of lesbian couples or heterosexual couples.
I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that lesbians will always mainly look to other lesbians for role-models, and heterosexuals will always mainly look to other heterosexuals.
(As to whether SSM would change gay male attitudes towards open relationships, my position is that the availability of SSM in and of itself wouldn’t change attitudes much, unless accompanied by an increased stigmatization of open relationships that comes from within the gay community. In other words, gay men will be less likely to have open relationships when SSM is available and when a critical mass of their gay male peers are vocally disapproving of non-monogamy.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that “open relationships” are inherently bad and that the gay male community OUGHT to stigmatize them. (Though I think that “open relationship” covers a whole lot of definitional ground and that some models of O.R. may be too corrosive to be unstigmatized, while other types of O.R. may be harmless.)
I’m just predicting that the “carrot” of social-sanctioned monogamy in the form of legal gay marriage wouldn’t make open relationships notably less popular, at least not by itself; at minimum there would ALSO have to be some peer disapproval (i.e., coming from other gay men) of non-monogamy that acted as a “stick”.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is the wrong argument.
Marriage doesn’t make people monogamous. It doesn’t for straight people and it won’t for gay people either. Look at any study. Most married people are having sex outside their marriage. If monogamy were the sole goal of marriage then we should consider it a failure and abolish it. But it isn’t and wasn’t ever really. (People who think that things were different in the past are obviously woefully ignorant of 19th century literature).
I am not arguing against monogamy. I just think people should be honest with their partners about what they want. A piece of paper isn’t going to keep your partner from sleeping with someone else. It will mean that you are legally recognized as partners and in those moments of greatest distress the system will not add insult to injury by keeping you out of the ER room where your lesbian partner is dying because you made the mistake of vacationing in Florida.
Nobody ever questions the right of the French to marry…
posted by Amicus on
Well said.
posted by Houndentenor on
Now that I think about it, perhaps Newt Gingrich should not have been allowed to marry for a third time since he had demonstrated that he couldn’t be monogamous with the first two wives.
I’ve said it many times before: if the institution of marriage needs protecting, it’s not from the likes of me. Heterosexuals were doing a pretty good job of or ruining their own marriages well before there was any organized gay rights movement. Please fix your own marriages and stop blaming us for your own failures.
posted by Amicus on
Here’s 2-cents for … whatever.
1. Some people, like GGA, state that marital exclusivity is not a “norm”. For them, on any clear reading of their jeremiad, *any* non coital sex outside marriage is not only immoral it is objectively immoral, i.e. it is the only Truth.
Of course, in their writings on gays, they don’t emphasize that. Untoward animus is not just to be found in the content of moral reasonings, but also in the unequal application of them. Few are more culpable than the gay put down groups in this, despite their protestations.
2. It is a false premise that equality-at-law is conditioned (or should be conditioned) on the harmonization of norms.
Current law does not enforce norms at this level of consideration, traditionally or non-traditional.
Simply put, non-marital sex is grounds for divorce in most jurisdictions.
That would continue to be true for gays and nongays alike, I suppose. The point is that there is no such thing as “third party divorce”.
Therefore, I would say that the complaint lacks a foundation at law. Does anyone disagree? The question is not a legal bar to marriage for gays.
3. The bald, yet widely accepted, assertion that “monogamy is hard” is contestable.
It turns out that for a small but noticeable part of the population monogamy is not hard at all. True fact. Many completely monogamous couples report that they “never had any problems” with the concept.
While perhaps not determinative to the question, I find it interesting and a counterweight to some.
a footnote: it is odd that ardent non-monogamous folks often point to this or that infidelity as proof – proof! – that monogamy is a “lie”. Does that mean that non-monogamous folks who trade that in are proof – proof! – that non-monogamy is a “lie” (and there are plenty who have, right)? This observation should give people a better sense that what the concept they are dealing when talking about these matters is not like a scientific theorem, is it? In other words, for this topic, observing patterns of social behavior is not going to tell you all that you need to know to perform appropriate analytics.
4. How can we judge the competing contentions that gays will harm marriage (for nongays) with the contention that marriage will be good for gays.
There are a number of analytical ways to make this comparison.
a) First, marriage is a good in itself for gays as much as it is for nongays. What this means it that the perceived harms can be dealt with in a special way. How? Well, the same way that our opponents deal with their own “shortcummings”. As long as there is one “ideal” gay marriage, the rest is excused, because what we are talking about are marriage ideals. Or, if you prefer their fall back position, “overall” instead of “ideal”.
b) It’s *clear* that gays have more room to harmonize with the dominant ethic than they do to influence the wider population, including that “all gays” are not univocally (or even vocally) behind ascendant non-monogamy (we’re talking about a group within a small group).
This is already clear. It is pretty plain to any observer that the gay ethos that was born and raised during the high days of the sexual revolution is over. Even the gays are writing about it. Today’s gay kids want the white house and picket fence more than their forebears.
Last, and perhaps most importantly, the question is a moral abdication.
Conservative Christians withhold access to the institution and then complain about the results. Once they start demanding responsible sexual ethics, instead of seeing all gay sex as an immoral lack of self-control or “intrinsically disordered”, there is no question that will have some impact.
In what proportion? Well, let’s just say that gays and lesbians are sons and daughters and social aspirants as much as any other group. Those are powerful forces.
posted by Amicus on
oops, there is a “c” to add for the above (and perhaps others):
c) As JC has pointed out before, nongays do not model their moral behavior on gays, specifically gay sexuality. I think that is pretty plain. This may not be the best example, but consider: “gays are having sex in the park? Honey, I’m going to the park to have sex.” Not happening now, with remote possibility that would change.
There is more to say on this, but suffice it for this that Maggie’s fear-script is overblown, analytically.
d) It is possible to weigh harms and benefits and to assess threats.
Again, the principal threat to marriage is non-marriage and, in terms of this argument, the threat, implicit in the reader’s question, to a monogamous norm is from non-monogamous married “couples”.
This means that, in terms of numbers, we’re talking about swingers and “Hugh Hefner”, et. al. The number of ALL gay couples, let alone nonmonogmously principled ones, is probably small in relation to that.
posted by Amicus on
adding on “d)”
Therefore, making a principled objection to gays, without consideration of the far larger number of nongay swingers, is … self-incriminating.
[sorry for the extra posts/posting, but it seemed good to tie-down that implication, rather than leave it to the reader, just because it is obvious to the writer…]
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks Mr. Corvino. It’s refreshing to read a well organized argument.
But I can see the other side of the issue. Since gays are, presumably, less monogamous, if given civil unions, they might have a bad influence on straight people. And the possibility is not so easily dismissed.
But as a tiny minority, our power to effect the majority is limited. And the massive good that the change could do for us totally outweighs the down side. Since we’ve never had civil union rights, there’s no telling how much they might improve our choices. The benefits would be so great, expanded living options, financial benefits, social acceptance, etc…, they might have a revolutionary effect on our community, and for the better.
Right now the community is broken in pieces from the rights we’ve been denied and the oppression we’ve suffered. As each of those wrongs is corrected, we might be able to greatly improve our living conditions. So the benefits could vastly outweigh the risk.
Do you see civil union rights as different in some way from marriage rights? Would the people in civil unions have the same standing under the law as a married spouse? In what ways is a civil union different from a marriage conducted at the Justice of the Peace’s office, or at the Little Chapel of Love in Las Vegas?
Is someone going to get the job of policing the language of the civilly united couples to ensure that they not refer to themselves as “married”, lest someone be offended?
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a problem with civil unions. They only apply inside the state. The federal government does not recognize such arrangements nor would other states. You would have some rights so long as you never leave the borders of your state you’d be okay under some circumstances. The problem is that the very serious situations that make these marital benefits necessary tend to come without warning (fatal injury to your partner, for example).
Or, not being forced to testify against your spouse in court. Do civilly united people get the same constitutional protections?
If we want to have a discussion about civil marriage, that is worth having; but, civil unions don’t cut it.
posted by Wilberforce on
Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments for gay marraige, and they all seem self righteous and self defeating to me.
I want to push for civil unions as a strategic move. The public support them. Hear that? Obviously not, because the fact is never mentioned in the discussion. Instead we hear all of the above weak arguments repeated endlessly.
I just think civil unions are a better strategic move. They’re supported by the public, and have less chance of causing a backlash against our allies. But of course, actually considering anyone besides ourselves is too much to expect of mainstream gay culture.
“An ABC/Washington Post poll says — rather surprisingly — that 53 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Not just civil unions, actual marriage.”
The usual suspects will dismiss this poll, but whatever.
The portion of the US population that approves SSM has steadily risen, and per the trend, will only go higher. Spending energy and resources to create an institution other than marriage seems silly, and counterproductive. When you have state legislatures that dismiss CUs because they are perceived as a first step to marriage, and therefore must be ruled out also, there is little recourse other than working for nationwide marriage equality.
posted by Wilberforce on
The poll is surprising and wonderful. On the other hand, the numbers are probably much greater by now for civil unions. And 53% is peanuts compared to the right wing hatred and activism republican leaders can drum up over the marraige issue.
I still think many easy victories on civil unions, combined with video of suburbam couples and gay soldiers, would give us momentum to go for enda, a far more important issue imho.
posted by Wilberforce on
But it’s stupid for me to keep singing this song. The community made their decision long ago, and it’s too late now. The backlash is being ginned up as we speak. And of course, the community could care less.
posted by Amicus on
Perhaps if you had some argument to go with your solution it might be more persuasive?
Saying that civil unions is easier might just look like a cop out.
posted by trailrunnr on
Creating and administering a new and separate institution, civil unions, is a lot more difficult than simply opening up an already-existing institution, marriage, to a few more people. Argentinian president Christina Kirchner persuasively pointed out this fact (saying in effect “what could be easier?”) shortly before gay marriage went forward in that country. I’ll try to find a link to her speech …
19 Comments for “Gays and Monogamy”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Kudos to Corvino for not invoking the argument that increased availability of SSM would magically reduce non-monogamy among gay men.
Instead, he takes as given that “open relationships” and “fidelity, not monogamy” would continue to be quite normal among gay men even if SSM were universally available, but argues that the visibility of “open marriages” among gay male couples would not significantly affect the expectations/practices of lesbian couples or heterosexual couples.
I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that lesbians will always mainly look to other lesbians for role-models, and heterosexuals will always mainly look to other heterosexuals.
(As to whether SSM would change gay male attitudes towards open relationships, my position is that the availability of SSM in and of itself wouldn’t change attitudes much, unless accompanied by an increased stigmatization of open relationships that comes from within the gay community. In other words, gay men will be less likely to have open relationships when SSM is available and when a critical mass of their gay male peers are vocally disapproving of non-monogamy.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that “open relationships” are inherently bad and that the gay male community OUGHT to stigmatize them. (Though I think that “open relationship” covers a whole lot of definitional ground and that some models of O.R. may be too corrosive to be unstigmatized, while other types of O.R. may be harmless.)
I’m just predicting that the “carrot” of social-sanctioned monogamy in the form of legal gay marriage wouldn’t make open relationships notably less popular, at least not by itself; at minimum there would ALSO have to be some peer disapproval (i.e., coming from other gay men) of non-monogamy that acted as a “stick”.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is the wrong argument.
Marriage doesn’t make people monogamous. It doesn’t for straight people and it won’t for gay people either. Look at any study. Most married people are having sex outside their marriage. If monogamy were the sole goal of marriage then we should consider it a failure and abolish it. But it isn’t and wasn’t ever really. (People who think that things were different in the past are obviously woefully ignorant of 19th century literature).
I am not arguing against monogamy. I just think people should be honest with their partners about what they want. A piece of paper isn’t going to keep your partner from sleeping with someone else. It will mean that you are legally recognized as partners and in those moments of greatest distress the system will not add insult to injury by keeping you out of the ER room where your lesbian partner is dying because you made the mistake of vacationing in Florida.
http://www.blogher.com/florida-federal-court-dismisses-lawsuit-lesbian-denied-information-about-and-visitation-dying-partne
posted by BobN on
Nobody ever questions the right of the French to marry…
posted by Amicus on
Well said.
posted by Houndentenor on
Now that I think about it, perhaps Newt Gingrich should not have been allowed to marry for a third time since he had demonstrated that he couldn’t be monogamous with the first two wives.
I’ve said it many times before: if the institution of marriage needs protecting, it’s not from the likes of me. Heterosexuals were doing a pretty good job of or ruining their own marriages well before there was any organized gay rights movement. Please fix your own marriages and stop blaming us for your own failures.
posted by Amicus on
Here’s 2-cents for … whatever.
1. Some people, like GGA, state that marital exclusivity is not a “norm”. For them, on any clear reading of their jeremiad, *any* non coital sex outside marriage is not only immoral it is objectively immoral, i.e. it is the only Truth.
Of course, in their writings on gays, they don’t emphasize that. Untoward animus is not just to be found in the content of moral reasonings, but also in the unequal application of them. Few are more culpable than the gay put down groups in this, despite their protestations.
2. It is a false premise that equality-at-law is conditioned (or should be conditioned) on the harmonization of norms.
Current law does not enforce norms at this level of consideration, traditionally or non-traditional.
Simply put, non-marital sex is grounds for divorce in most jurisdictions.
That would continue to be true for gays and nongays alike, I suppose. The point is that there is no such thing as “third party divorce”.
Therefore, I would say that the complaint lacks a foundation at law. Does anyone disagree? The question is not a legal bar to marriage for gays.
3. The bald, yet widely accepted, assertion that “monogamy is hard” is contestable.
It turns out that for a small but noticeable part of the population monogamy is not hard at all. True fact. Many completely monogamous couples report that they “never had any problems” with the concept.
While perhaps not determinative to the question, I find it interesting and a counterweight to some.
a footnote: it is odd that ardent non-monogamous folks often point to this or that infidelity as proof – proof! – that monogamy is a “lie”. Does that mean that non-monogamous folks who trade that in are proof – proof! – that non-monogamy is a “lie” (and there are plenty who have, right)? This observation should give people a better sense that what the concept they are dealing when talking about these matters is not like a scientific theorem, is it? In other words, for this topic, observing patterns of social behavior is not going to tell you all that you need to know to perform appropriate analytics.
4. How can we judge the competing contentions that gays will harm marriage (for nongays) with the contention that marriage will be good for gays.
There are a number of analytical ways to make this comparison.
a) First, marriage is a good in itself for gays as much as it is for nongays. What this means it that the perceived harms can be dealt with in a special way. How? Well, the same way that our opponents deal with their own “shortcummings”. As long as there is one “ideal” gay marriage, the rest is excused, because what we are talking about are marriage ideals. Or, if you prefer their fall back position, “overall” instead of “ideal”.
b) It’s *clear* that gays have more room to harmonize with the dominant ethic than they do to influence the wider population, including that “all gays” are not univocally (or even vocally) behind ascendant non-monogamy (we’re talking about a group within a small group).
This is already clear. It is pretty plain to any observer that the gay ethos that was born and raised during the high days of the sexual revolution is over. Even the gays are writing about it. Today’s gay kids want the white house and picket fence more than their forebears.
Last, and perhaps most importantly, the question is a moral abdication.
Conservative Christians withhold access to the institution and then complain about the results. Once they start demanding responsible sexual ethics, instead of seeing all gay sex as an immoral lack of self-control or “intrinsically disordered”, there is no question that will have some impact.
In what proportion? Well, let’s just say that gays and lesbians are sons and daughters and social aspirants as much as any other group. Those are powerful forces.
posted by Amicus on
oops, there is a “c” to add for the above (and perhaps others):
c) As JC has pointed out before, nongays do not model their moral behavior on gays, specifically gay sexuality. I think that is pretty plain. This may not be the best example, but consider: “gays are having sex in the park? Honey, I’m going to the park to have sex.” Not happening now, with remote possibility that would change.
There is more to say on this, but suffice it for this that Maggie’s fear-script is overblown, analytically.
d) It is possible to weigh harms and benefits and to assess threats.
Again, the principal threat to marriage is non-marriage and, in terms of this argument, the threat, implicit in the reader’s question, to a monogamous norm is from non-monogamous married “couples”.
This means that, in terms of numbers, we’re talking about swingers and “Hugh Hefner”, et. al. The number of ALL gay couples, let alone nonmonogmously principled ones, is probably small in relation to that.
posted by Amicus on
adding on “d)”
Therefore, making a principled objection to gays, without consideration of the far larger number of nongay swingers, is … self-incriminating.
[sorry for the extra posts/posting, but it seemed good to tie-down that implication, rather than leave it to the reader, just because it is obvious to the writer…]
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks Mr. Corvino. It’s refreshing to read a well organized argument.
But I can see the other side of the issue. Since gays are, presumably, less monogamous, if given civil unions, they might have a bad influence on straight people. And the possibility is not so easily dismissed.
But as a tiny minority, our power to effect the majority is limited. And the massive good that the change could do for us totally outweighs the down side. Since we’ve never had civil union rights, there’s no telling how much they might improve our choices. The benefits would be so great, expanded living options, financial benefits, social acceptance, etc…, they might have a revolutionary effect on our community, and for the better.
Right now the community is broken in pieces from the rights we’ve been denied and the oppression we’ve suffered. As each of those wrongs is corrected, we might be able to greatly improve our living conditions. So the benefits could vastly outweigh the risk.
posted by Jimmy on
“Since we’ve never had civil union rights…”
Do you see civil union rights as different in some way from marriage rights? Would the people in civil unions have the same standing under the law as a married spouse? In what ways is a civil union different from a marriage conducted at the Justice of the Peace’s office, or at the Little Chapel of Love in Las Vegas?
Is someone going to get the job of policing the language of the civilly united couples to ensure that they not refer to themselves as “married”, lest someone be offended?
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a problem with civil unions. They only apply inside the state. The federal government does not recognize such arrangements nor would other states. You would have some rights so long as you never leave the borders of your state you’d be okay under some circumstances. The problem is that the very serious situations that make these marital benefits necessary tend to come without warning (fatal injury to your partner, for example).
posted by Jimmy on
Or, not being forced to testify against your spouse in court. Do civilly united people get the same constitutional protections?
If we want to have a discussion about civil marriage, that is worth having; but, civil unions don’t cut it.
posted by Wilberforce on
Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments for gay marraige, and they all seem self righteous and self defeating to me.
I want to push for civil unions as a strategic move. The public support them. Hear that? Obviously not, because the fact is never mentioned in the discussion. Instead we hear all of the above weak arguments repeated endlessly.
I just think civil unions are a better strategic move. They’re supported by the public, and have less chance of causing a backlash against our allies. But of course, actually considering anyone besides ourselves is too much to expect of mainstream gay culture.
posted by Jimmy on
“An ABC/Washington Post poll says — rather surprisingly — that 53 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Not just civil unions, actual marriage.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/4378029-417/most-in-u.s.-back-gay-marriage-but-gop-wont-budge
The usual suspects will dismiss this poll, but whatever.
The portion of the US population that approves SSM has steadily risen, and per the trend, will only go higher. Spending energy and resources to create an institution other than marriage seems silly, and counterproductive. When you have state legislatures that dismiss CUs because they are perceived as a first step to marriage, and therefore must be ruled out also, there is little recourse other than working for nationwide marriage equality.
posted by Wilberforce on
The poll is surprising and wonderful. On the other hand, the numbers are probably much greater by now for civil unions. And 53% is peanuts compared to the right wing hatred and activism republican leaders can drum up over the marraige issue.
I still think many easy victories on civil unions, combined with video of suburbam couples and gay soldiers, would give us momentum to go for enda, a far more important issue imho.
posted by Wilberforce on
But it’s stupid for me to keep singing this song. The community made their decision long ago, and it’s too late now. The backlash is being ginned up as we speak. And of course, the community could care less.
posted by Amicus on
Perhaps if you had some argument to go with your solution it might be more persuasive?
Saying that civil unions is easier might just look like a cop out.
posted by trailrunnr on
Creating and administering a new and separate institution, civil unions, is a lot more difficult than simply opening up an already-existing institution, marriage, to a few more people. Argentinian president Christina Kirchner persuasively pointed out this fact (saying in effect “what could be easier?”) shortly before gay marriage went forward in that country. I’ll try to find a link to her speech …