Are Gay Men Ready for Marriage?

[psychboi85]

For a college english research paper, I decided to tackle the issue of gay marriage. Instead of writing the usual pro/con paper, I thought I would take it a step further. This is what I came up with.

Taking the lead on the yellow brick road: Are gay men ready for marriage?

Judy Garland became a gay icon in her portrayal as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Despite intense fear, confusion, and a series of trials, Dorothy finally made it "home" by realizing that she possessed all of the heart, strength, and courage needed to find the true happiness that lived within. This, too, is a recurrent theme of gay men who must embark on adventures of self-discovery that leads full circle to self-acceptance of their sexuality. Ironically, the incident that sparked the modern gay rights movement happened five days after their beloved star committed suicide.

The Stonewall Riot - which took place on June 27, 1969 in Greenwich Village, New York, brought the modern gay liberation movement to the public's attention. In breaking down the barriers that existed before Stonewall, a proverbial new wall of stone has been erected in this nation. The fight is far from over. The newest Stonewall for gays to battle is the right to marriage- currently a controversial issue. The biggest problem surrounding this is that it has become a monochromatic controversy – it is black or white; either –or; for or against. Each side of this wall is culpable for making it a wall of oversimplification. This is a complex issue with no easy answers. In order for the homosexual community to prevail in this fight for marriage, it is going to have to look again to Dorothy. Homosexual men need to take to heart the words that Glenda told Dorothy - "You had the power all along". Through research into the gay male culture and studies surrounding their relationships, it can be argued that they are not yet ready for marriage rights, and will only be prepared after drastic changes have been made.

There is reason in focusing research solely on male homosexuals to the exclusion of in-depth research on lesbians. All the studies that have been done show that there are more males that are homosexual than females, thus making gay male couples more predominant than female couples. Any recognition of same-sex marriage will be recognizing mostly male couples. A study done by the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles from 1989-1990 and also in 1999-2000 consistently showed that more men identified as homosexual than women. The true number of homosexuals, whether it is representing men or women, is impossible to determine. The percentages regarding incidence of homosexuality range from as high as 10% to as low as 1.8% depending which side of the wall being represented. No matter what the percentage that pro or anti-gay platforms derive, they will always be based on incomplete data. Even though thirty-six years have passed since the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the minds of the majority have been reluctant to change. As long as there is social stigmatization that encourages – even prefers- the nonexistence of homosexuality, we will never know the exact number of homosexuals there are until the fear of disclosure is completely eradicated – a hope held in the hearts of all gay activists.

In order to make a prediction as to where homosexuals are going in the future, it is necessary to have an understanding of where they have been in the past, where they are currently, and how that affects the relationships of gay men. Gay culture plays a huge role in determining whether or not the yellow brick road of gay rights will take same-sex couples to the Emerald City of marriage. The problem with gay culture is that it is actually hindering homosexuals' potential to marry instead of strengthening their opportunity!Culture can be defined as a system of ideas that members of a community share in regards to the nature of the world and how people should behave in it. In order for a community to have a culture, there must be some element of definition; something that outlines what is and what is not part of that culture. Culture is rooted in unity - a sense of communality that is shared between each member. In regards to gay culture, there is a distinct lack of definition. Sociologist Steve Pugh endorses, "The unifying component in [gay] culture, if there is such and element, is the shared experience of oppression". Essentially, that's where the buck stops in defining gay culture. If you observe any of the numerous gay pride parades that take place throughout the year, you notice that gay culture is defined by diversity. Gay culture is made up of young and old, black and white, sacred and secular. This culture is not monolithic. Each and every man and woman not only identifies as homosexual, but also as a member of other ethnic, religious, racial, and economic groups. Because of the identification with oppression and the community value of acceptance and diversity, gay culture tends to be open to all at the exclusion of none. This is both healing and hurting the gay community.

With good intentions, the gay community has been a refuge for many of society's outcasts, such as the transsexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people. However, this openness and attempt to stay on good terms with everyone has put the gay community in a tough position. It cannot take a stand on moral issues. In order not to offend anyone, the community has more or less legitimized every life-style that is popular no matter how licentious it may be. It has gone so far that certain factions within the gay community have openly embraced the practice of "pederasty", which is pedophilia. Gay pride parades often feature floats that represent abnormal sexual deviance - advertisements for bath houses, sadomasochism, and fetishes, to name a few. Pride parades are intended to make dramatic, over-the-top political statements that homosexuals are unafraid to be who they are. They have a greater tendency to strike fear in outside observers that these parades are, indeed, reflective of who or what they are.

Gay culture, due to its loosely defined structure, not only has created a negative public image, it has also negatively affected gay male couples. Every culture has, in one way or another, some sort of marriage ritual to legitimize a couple. In order to forge an identity as a couple, Gil Tunnell, a psychotherapist, asserts that gay couples "need a supportive community". Heterosexuals, when gathered socially, generally assume that partners of a married couple are usually sexually unavailable to others, Joseph Harry illustrates. No such assumption can be securely made about gay couples! The gay community has failed to provide this "supportive environment". Tunnell confronts,

The gay community itself participates in the marginalization of same-sex couples. Few rituals in the gay subculture acknowledge the developmental milestone of making a long- term commitment to another man. The fluidity of same-sex couples adds to the couple's feeling of ambiguity, as the sanctity of a male couple's relationship is frequently not respected by other gay men.

Before heterosexuals are going to respect the validity of gay male relationships, the gay male community is going to have to take the lead in establishing legitimacy. This will require the gay male community to make a moral stand on this issue.

Gay activists consistently argue to pro-marriage enthusiasts that the "sanctity" of marriage has become a myth. Based on data collected from May of 2005, the rate of heterosexual divorce is around 37-40%, which is a large percentage of marriages that failed to uphold their "sanctity". The gay male population, however, has little room to brag. Sexual fidelity is the number one problem in gay relationships. Sexual exclusivity is the exception, not the norm, among gay male couples. Though gay activists believe that this is nothing more than a homophobic stereotype, there are numerous studies that verify this viewpoint. A study involving 492 gay men demonstrated that 54% had relationships that were sexually non-exclusive. A survey conducted among 1,852 gay men showed that 54% had outside sexual relations in addition to a steady partner.Out of 387 gay men, a study found, 56% were in "open relationships". Joseph Harry says it best, lamenting, "Our data suggests that the most workable marital [gay] relationship development…is that of the open marriage". Regardless of gay criticism of heterosexual marriage, the percentages show that 50-60% of those marriages last. A meager 44-46% of gay couples have bragging rights to a similar achievement.

The statistics of gay infidelity are disturbing in and of themselves. To add insult to injury, many gay males believe that open relationships are acceptable and, in fact, preferable to the heterosexual form of monogamous marriage. Some gays believe that gay culture should not feel obligated to submit to the heterosexual norm of monogamous marriage. Those that do desire monogamy, some radicals presume, are victims of internalized homophobia. Dr. Charles Silverstein, best known for a presentation he gave which lead to the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM-IV, proudly proclaims,

Gay men are often accused of being "promiscuous". The word should be stricken from the sexual vocabulary.[…] a wide variety of sexual experiences should be encouraged, including sex with men of various ages, shapes, sizes, and "types". And why not sex with women as well?[…] Frequent sexual experiences are a form of education, and we should accept that. Thinking of sexual experiences as being "promiscuous" is merely a way to deny the opportunity for learning.

Bombarded with a culture that is comprised of loose norms and openly supportsinfidelity, it is not only a wonder that gay couples survive period, but also that heterosexual culture will ever accept them as equal.

Gay couples must take a stand in order to make changes towards social acceptance. It is unacceptable to be led like sheep down a yellow brick road to further marginalization. Gay men must resist behaving as cowardly lions. It is time for courage to be embraced; others will be offended. Though heterosexism has long been to blame, the wicked witch that has kept homosexuals from reaching the Emerald City of Marriage has been themselves. A definitive culture that not only encourages monogamous coupling, but also honors such dyads is crucial. They must decide whether or not they will settle for a "separate but equal" status with civil unions or legal binding commitments that are not called marriage but contain all the benefits of the institution. Since all cultures have their own form of marriage rituals that define their coupling, perhaps gay couples should not adopt the heterosexual culture's "marriage", but should instead strive for something definitive of homosexual culture, such as a "union". Marriage is to Union as Chanukah is to Christmas is to Kwanza - all acceptable as cross-cultural norms. If unwilling to settle, however, there is more work in store.

If the majority of gay men decide that "separate but equal" is unacceptable, then there must be a movement for gay culture to mirror heterosexual culture. Considering that heterosexuals not only already have the right to marry, but also have the power to determine whether or not homosexuals will have that same right, it makes sense for the gay population to make them comfortable with gay relationships. Bath houses must be eradicated; sadomasochism denounced; pederasty defamed. The message must be clear: depersonalized sexual expression, whether it be anonymous at a bath house or established within a relationship, is nothing more than an indication of an unhealthy and negative preoccupation with one's own needs. Open relationships must be exposed for what they truly are - an attempt to coat an agreement of mutual hedonism and lust with a verbal veneer of respectability. When the two cultures reflect their connections instead of the distinctions, gays will win the right to marriage.

"Friends of Dorothy" is gay slang that was used to identify other homosexuals during the pre-Stonewall era. Innuendo and subtlety were the only safe ways to identify yourself and others as gay. This near silent form of identification became a thing of the past the day of the Stonewall Riots. From that day forward, homosexuals found themselves in the wonderful land of Oz - open identification! The last right that homosexuals want to gain is the right for legal recognition of their relationships. In order to achieve this right, homosexual men must acknowledge that they had the power all along. Kansas is long gone; changes must be made. Introspection must become the focus of gay men. If they no longer want to be labeled as promiscuous perverts who are psychosexually immature and sexually addicted, then statistics need to change in their favor. By forming a sense of community that is focused on intimacy, trust, and longevity, and by having a stronger sense of connection with this community, gays will be equal with heterosexuals, and "Friends of Dorothy" will soon refer to an awareness of unity between gays and straights.

[novaseeker]

An interesting article, and quite well written.

A couple of points:

Though heterosexism has long been to blame, the wicked witch that has kept homosexuals from reaching the Emerald City of Marriage has been themselves.

In reality there is a “chicken and egg” problem with what you have written here. The gay community has been marginalized by straight society for a long time. Living on the margins has encouraged some members of the gay community to also engage in marginal practices (one of the “benefits”, if you will, of living in a situation which is marginalized from mainstream culture). Without doubt it is this marginalization that has led to some of the issues you refer to in your article. Until very recently the gay community was living largely in the closet and in gay ghettoes, without access to the support systems and institutions that help to encourage different behavioral patterns in the straight world. It’s a bit off the mark, therefore, to attribute the “blame” for this situation on the gay community itself, when the entire situation of the gay community has generally been created because of the prejudices and biases of the straight world, and the fact that the straight world refuses, still, to make certain institutions available to the gay community.

Considering that heterosexuals not only already have the right to marry, but also have the power to determine whether or not homosexuals will have that same right, it makes sense for the gay population to make them comfortable with gay relationships.

I fear that there will always be a double standard, however. It’s a complete myth that the straight married world is monogamous. The number of extramarital sexual activities taking place is high among straight men as well, even among “reported” cases, and of course there is every tendency *not* to report marital sexual infidelities. People pretend that there is more monogamy than is really the case, because the non-monogamy that happens is not open and notorious, is conducted in secret, and is generally kept that way unless exposed. Indeed, when you look at the overall data, the most straightforward conclusion is that men, in general, struggle with monogamy, but that the institution of heterosexual marriage serves to mollify this somewhat (as compared to the situation with gay men, who do not have this institutional support), as well as the fact that their sexual partners are women, who seem, statistically, to have a lower propensity to be non-monogamous than men do, whether straight or lesbian, something which also serves to reduce the non-monogamous opportunities, to some degree, for straight men. To expect gay men to mirror the behaviors of straight men without the institutional structures that support that behavioral pattern among straight men (a pattern which, again, is not really “monogamous” to begin with) seems unrealistic and beside the point, because it’s honestly doubtful that straight male behavior would be what it is without the institution of marriage. It’s very hard to have one without the other.

Bath houses must be eradicated; sadomasochism denounced; pederasty defamed.

Again, it’s double standards, it seems to me. The straight world has Girls Gone Wild, spring break hedonism, swingers clubs, strip joints, internet porngraphy on demand (featuring sadomasochism as well), child pornography and pedophilia, widespread prostitution and the related traficking of women, widepsread venereal diseases and so on and so on. Yes, a lot of straight people denounce these things, but many others celebrate them, and, honestly, given the current state of the internet just as one example, it seems that many straight men indulge themselves in many of these various things. Yet, it’s the gay community that gets singled out for bath houses, S&M and NAMBLA. It’s a double standard.

But it’s also a double standard that’s beside the point, in my view.

You write:

When the two cultures reflect their connections instead of the distinctions, gays will win the right to marriage.

This seems very unlikely to me. The main issue isn’t bathhouses, S&M, NAMBLA, or promiscuity, in my view. The main issues in my view are (1) people believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not wired in and therefore should not be protected like other things that are wired in such as gender and race, and (2) even if they do not believe (1), nevertheless people find the idea of homosexual (particularly gay male) expressed affection and sex repulsive, disgusting and gross, and do not believe that the state should be sanctioning it or celebrating it by providing any kind of “encouragement” or “blessing” as would be the case if same sex marriages or unions became widely permitted.

I think that point number (2) is unlikely to go away soon. It’s the basis for the current “modus vivendi” that the straight world has with homosexuality, which, apart from the die-hard fundamentalists (not to minimize the danger they present at all), runs along the lines of: “I don’t care what you do in private, just keep it private, keep it out of my face, and keep it to yourselves … don’t come into my neighborhood and buy a house and try to raise kids there and show up at the pool party holding hands, because then it is in my face, and I do not want that.” The concern is that by sanctioning same-sex marriages or unions, the expressed behavior will become a part of mainstream culture, and this makes people uncomfortable because people think it is “abnormal” and they do not want to have to be exposed to it. Honestly I think that this is the main issue we face from the attitudinal perspective from people who are not religious fundamentalists but nevertheless are queasy at best about gay marriage. People think we should be satisfied with our current situation because they (largely) let us do what we want in private, and are not comfortable with expanding us into their largely straight world. I don’t think that the main concern is with bathhouses and S&M and so forth, because the straight world for the most part (again, fundamentalists aside) doesn’t really care if gay people do these things as long as they do it in private. The main issue is that people just are still not all that comfortable at all with expressions of male same sex affection, and if gay men are allowed to marry, they would be confonted with this regularly, and they do not want that.

As a result, I don’t think we’re going to move the attitude of many straight people in advance of gaining marriage rights, and I think that gaining marriage rights is probably going to have to come by judicial decision rather than the democratic process in all but a handlful of places. I think, conversely, that marriage rights, once they are conferred, will be transformative of the way gay and straight people perceive each other, as well as the way the GLBT community perceives itself and, to a certain degree, behaves.

[NathanATX]

I'm going to be gentle with you, dear one.

I do believe there are a lot of broken & hurting people out in the world.

Kids are told from their birth what they are worth and what kind of future they can have. Many children get positive messages and have plenty of role models to support those messages. But most gay & lesbian young people(who I talk with) grow up in homes where they knew they would ultimately be rejected by their families & churches because of their sexuality. There were no role models of gay & lesbian couples in permanent, healthy relationships for them to model their lives after. There was no one to teach them about dating with integrity and how to have sexual ethics.

You have positioned the issue as if gay men do all these "immoral" things simply because they are gay. It's an irresponsible and uninformed position.

I don't personally think "promiscuity" is wrong, in and of itself. However, I think using another person to meet a need you have, i.e. lonliness, horniness, etc., with a disregard for the other person's well-being is wrong because it is selfish, manipulative and unkind. I recommend you do some studying of sexual ethics.

Also, you really need to get clear on what the differences are between pederasty, pedophilia and inter-generational relationships. Pederasty is demonstrated by a powerful/older man using his influence/money/power to seduce/manipulate/force a younger man/teenager/boy into a sexual relationship. It usually would involve only sexually mature teenagers, but there wouldn't be genuine consent because of the man's improper use of his influence/money/power. Pedophilia is demonstrated by an adult having a sexual interest in children. Inter-generational relationships are demonstrated by an older man being with a younger man who is legally, mentally & emotionally able to consent to the relationship.

All in all, it seems that you are trying to lay the blame for the lack of GLBT freedom and justice at the feet of the victims instead of the oppressors. Put the blame where it belongs.

Yes, there are things in the lives of gay Americans that you may feel need to change. Instead of joining with the heterosexists and homophobes who say that our problems arise from our "sickness," why don't you take a stand for truth, justice and fairness.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

What could you do to help create a gay culture that values the hearts, bodies, and lives of all our people?

[Zerbie]

I'm with Nathan here, this paper is casting blame on the gay community, and in a way that is overly simplistic. Yes, you're right, there are problems within the gay community and some of them are significant - but it makes no more sense to blame all gay men for those problems than it does to blame all straight persons for the problems faced by straight society.

I also seriously take issue with the passing remarks about bisexual and transgender folk, leading up to the remark that gays can take no stance on "moral issues" and must approve of life styles "no matter how licentious." :mad: Whoa! There you are confusing identity with behavior and rolling it all up into a Judgment Burrito. Be cautious of your implications there and clarify your intent.

There are other problems and inconsistencies with what you've written. I hope this is a rough draft? Or an abstract summary? One inconsistency I noticed was that at one point you place power for deciding if gays are to have marriage equality with the straight population (probably correct) but at two other times, you state that gay men have had the power with them all along to effect marriage equality. Which is it? Which is your position? Back it up with specific reasons.

Also - you make a lot of references to "most" "many" and "some" gay people - without citations. If this is for a university paper, you will need to back up those statements with citations.

Other than that, I find the use of the OZ metaphor to be a creative and fun idea. Just needs to be cleaned up in many ways.

[NathanATX]

Right on, Zerbie. The way he referred to bi & transgender folk also threw me.
...

The magic of the Wizard of Oz is that the journey Dorothy goes on helps her become grateful for her blessings and responsible for her life.

It is a blessing to be gay. By being responsible for our lives, our hopes & dreams, we can create awesome, abundant & meaningful journeys. And it won't be because we subscribe to heterosexist & homophobic determinations of "normalcy."

[novaseeker]

I was also going to include in my other post in this thread about the reference to Bisexual and transgendered folk, but it was already very long. Since others have raised it I suppose I'll address it as well. I believe that the quote was this:

With good intentions, the gay community has been a refuge for many of society's outcasts, such as the transsexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people. However, this openness and attempt to stay on good terms with everyone has put the gay community in a tough position. It cannot take a stand on moral issues.

There are two problems with this, as I see it. First, there's a logical problem. It's not clear at all how including bisexual and transgendered people in the LGBT umbrella undermines the ability of the "gay community" to take a stand on moral issues. Why would that be the case? Is bisexuality inherently immoral, or more immoral than homosexuality? Is that the case for transgendered people as well? Why would that be the case? It just doesn't follow.

Second, there's the categorization of bisexual and transgendered people as "society's outcasts", which of course is language that is, literally, incendiary. The reality is that bisexual and transgendered people are included in the LGBT umbrella because all four groups suffer discrimination for very, very similar reasons. It makes perfect sense for the four groups to collaborate, work together, and stand together for their collective rights, because the underlying basis for discrimination against them is roughly the same.

I've heard the arguments from gay people before that associating with the transgendered community in general undermines the whole enterprise, but I don't think that position is sound. In my view, one of the main reasons why people are biased against LGBT people is precisely because the behaviors of all of these people are seen as gender variant --- that is, it is perceived that men who are attracted to other men, women who are attracted to other women, etc. and act on that attraction are acting in a way that is "inappropriate" for their gender. It's the variance to expected "normal" gender behavior that is one of the key factors that makes people uncomfortable about the Ls, the Gs, the Bs and the Ts, it's just that each of those four groups displays what is perceived as "gender inappropriate" behavior somewhat differently. At its base, the discrimination against each of them boils down to "people of gender X should not be doing Y", where Y is something that is associated with the other gender. So while the Ls, Gs, Bs and Ts are all different and distinct, the underlying bias against all of them is remarkably similar in nature, and that's the reason why it is sensible to stand together ... not because people are "outcasts".

[Daniel]

Late to the discussion, but if you don't mind Pyschobio, I'd like to add my two cents in. After all, I have been 'married' to my husband for a total of 15 years, two of them legally- I have the document from Canada to prove it.

Sorry- I can't promise to be as nice as Nathan! Here goes- I'm putting on my teacher hat. You might want to stand back a bit...

What disturbs me it the title of this thread. I assume it is the title of your paper? You ask... Are Gay Men Ready for Marriage?

Well....are they? You don't answer the question as much as you recycle old stereotypes (where are your sources? Hello! You can't hand a paper in like this! Even if you take a negative view- and that is part of academia- one must back it up with citations galore.)

Even the way the question is phrased presupposes a biased perspective. You will gain a better persective if you turn the question around: are straight men ready for marriage?

You see, the question has imbedded within it the bias that there is something wrong with gay men that must be corrected before they are allowed to marry. As a married man myself, I find this rather presumptive. It perpetuates a negative stereotype, one that has been flogged since the word homosexual was invented, that gay men are sex-fiends. Yes. Fiends. How about looking at the sexuality of men in general? That would be informative. Instead, you give the reader the idea that gay men are incapable of long term relationships or monogamy. Neither of which is true. The reader needs facts, not assertions.

There is a great deal of vagueness in your logic. A sample:

1) What studies show that there are more gay men than lesbians?

2) How does a culture that is 'loosely defined' bring about negative connotations in straight people? Are you suggesting that if we all dressed alike and voted Republican we would be accepted?

3) Who's good intentions?

4) How does gay culture marginalize gay marriage? What you assert here defies logic: how can 'gay culture' give couples that which the the legal structure of society denies? (Unless, or course, you mean that Tupperware I got for recruiting those two Mormon boys next door. :rolleyes:)

5) Parades do not strike fear in the hearts of hetersexuals. They do that themselves- thank you very much. (This kind of thinking is the embodiment of the gay panic defense: "Your gayness made me kill you.") Parades are part party, part civil rights march. What you don't account for (and should- if psychology is going to be your profession) is that 'perception make for projection'.

6) HOW do gay men have the power all along? Specifics please.

7) 'Certain factions' promote pedastry? Whom? Please name names and the percentage of GLBTQ persons that support this. Then give the same figures for straight people who engage in the same kind of behabior. A little contrast puts things in perspective. ;)

OK...I could go on....but you get my drift.

Want to do a good paper? Seek out everything that doesn't have substantion and a clear line of argument supporting it. If is is lacking, do the research or take it out. Vagueness only weakens your case.

And while the whole 'friends of Dorothy' angle is cute, it does little to clarify matters. It is a nice writing device, but should not be a substitute for fact and logic.

To me, the most diisturbing assertion you make (without bringing any evidence to buttress your case: the opinion of a writer in a book is not the same as showing the evidence of said author) is the notion that the gay community exists because of oppression.

O Contraire!

What those in the GLBT community have in common (if one can actually say that there is such a thing as a community) is not oppression per se, but the commonality of sexual identity. The political oppression that is faced by GLBTQ persons is a secondary matter. One should not confuse the two.

Politicians are currently using GLBTQ persons as a stepping stone to power. What, I ask you, does sexual identity have to do with that?

The correct answer is nothing! Gay marriage deprives no one of the right to marry, nor does it prohibit heterosexuals from the engaging in the same behaviors that same-sex'ers are reviled for.

In short, we are talking about the politics of disgust here (the ick factor of male sexual intercourse). THAT is what I read in the title of your paper. Whether this is intentional on your part isn't the issue. As such, the title reflects this 'norm', which, to my way of thinking, isn't normal at all, but an irrational fear of sex and sexuality.

These matters are more than illucidated in Gay Marriage: For Better, or for Worse?: What We've Learned from the Evidence
by William N. Eskridge, Darren R. Spedale, Darren R. Spedale

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780195187519&itm=6

I encourage you to get this book and get the most up-to-date information.

And a late editorial note: homosexuals are not going anywhere. They are ever present. Do you see why this kind of language is overly vague? The issue, properly speaking, is the role of society in relationship to a class of individuals who are being denied their rights based on who they are. Not on what they should be.

[scott snedeker]

"The statistics of gay infidelity are disturbing in and of themselves. To add insult to injury, many gay males believe that open relationships are acceptable and, in fact, preferable to the heterosexual form of monogamous marriage. Some gays believe that gay culture should not feel obligated to submit to the heterosexual norm of monogamous marriage. Those that do desire monogamy, some radicals presume, are victims of internalized homophobia."

This passage seems to express your opinion but it is stated as fact. Disturbing to whom? Using the term infidelity implies to me a whole system of unstated rules imposed by a overseeing group that exists in the mind of.......you the writer?

I am polyandrous, (multiple male lovers) 42 years old, publically Gay, Teach at the local college and am a highly visible Physician in my community. Your second sentence states clearly that I am injuring and insulting .........someone (maybe that overseeing group again whoever they are).

The phrase "some radicals presume" again to me has a strong tone of "My gay morality is better than yours" punctuated with a derisive sniff!

A college professor (like me) might see these passages as painfully sophomoric---It certainly hits me in the face that way! In my experience college profs peevishly abhor unsupported "facts" and see them as red flag indicators for low marks.

Your Paper started out informative with statistics (need footnotes!!!!)
But I think it needs to focus on just a few points. Try pretending you are writing a letter to the editor and must cut out 500 words. This will hone your focus and delete stray thoughts and interjected moralism. This technique also makes you become very efficeint by avoiding paraphrasing and restating.

I always get mad as hell when someone critiques my writing! I'm sure I've done the same to you but not out of malice I assure you. You have got your thoughts down on paper. That's good! Next comes the sculpting process: choping off here, reshaping there, turning it backwards, Adding a bit. Then rewriting 20 times or more until it reads clearly, cohherently, concisely, without bias and with each statement easily defendable.

Good Luck my friend!

Scotty:cowboy:

[Daniel]

"[I][
I always get mad as hell when someone critiques my writing! I'm sure I've done the same to you but not out of malice I assure you. You have got your thoughts down on paper. That's good! Next comes the sculpting process: choping off here, reshaping there, turning it backwards, Adding a bit. Then rewriting 20 times or more until it reads clearly, cohherently, concisely, without bias and with each statement easily defendable.


A resounding yes to this!

There is, after all, what is called the first draft. Always messy and awkward.

Another technique is reading your work out loud (slowly enough to catch every word) and taking out everything that is extraneous.

Ditto re Scotty's remark about malice. As usual- he shows a great deal of class. Mine was a bit blow-torchy. But hey.....passion.....got that....

The art of writing is in the editing. That's what I'm thinkin'.

[psychboi85]

First off, I'm thrilled to death that even 5 people took the time to look at it. I enjoyed reading what you had to say about it - even if you didn't like it. Constructive criticism is nothing to be scared of, and I truly, deeply appreciate what you have to say.

I will be the first to admit that this is no where near what it could be. It is underdeveloped, mainly because there were strict length requirements to be met. Not to mention, this is just for an English 1302 class, not a graduate thesis. With a topic like this, a whole BOOK should really be written about it, and much more study is needed to do justice to the topic. Ther are numerous sources, even direct quotes that are in this paper (which received a 99%, for what that's worth). I edited them out mostly to make it easier to read (I couldn't think of many people who enjoy paranthetical citation in the midst of their reading). Much of what I have said was taken from other gay writers, so it isn't strictly my own opinion, just my own interpretation of it.

To me, this paper really isn't meant for this group that I've presented it to. From what I've been able to tell from the group members here, you all are seeking to do what is right, what would bring honor to God, and "what Jesus would do". I'm believing that the vast majority of this doesn't apply to you.

It is very clear that heterosexuals are not the champions of monogamy. My own father, a baptist minister of 40+ years didn't keep his vows either. It's something that men, in general, seem to have problems with. I still don't think that's an excuse though. Just because it is a strugle, doesn't mean it's an excuse. "Boys will be boys" is insulting to those of us who refuse to be like those horny, dick-driven boys. I do believe, though, that at least heterosexuals haven't tried to make non-monogamy this approved "alternative lifestyle" (I realize there are hetero swinger couples, but is that the overwhelming norm?). Tell me this, if you were to take a random sample of heterosexuals and homosexuals, who would have the greater chance of being in a monogamous relationship?

I encourage everyone to read a book by Dr. Charles Silverstein called "Man to Man:Gay Couples in America". It really is a good book, if you can get over the abhorrent lifestyle that he promotes. This is the man who helped get homosexualty completely removed from the DSM-IV and declassified as a mental illness. Though I am VERY thankful for what he accomplished, I'm not very impressed with the way he presented us in the book he wrote.

I'm shocked that people got the idea that I am anti-bi/trans! I don't recall one time in that paper ever saying that I do not believe we should embrace them. I made no judgement against bisexuals, transgendered, or transexuals. I did, however, mention very specifically the things that the gay community does embrace that are disgraceful. I agree completely that the four groups share much in common - including being societal outcasts.

I think the overall point that was supposed to be made - whether successful or not - was that we have to start taking responsibility for ourselves. No overwhelming amount of straight people are going to suddenly feel sorry for us and how we've been treated. I work in a psychiatric facility (thus the screenname), and I can't tell you how many times we see people who play this victim card their entire lives. "I was abused as a child, so that's why I steal and manipulate people" "I didn't have a loving, supportive family, so that's why I abuse drugs and can't get off them". I am deeply moved by their often tragic storie, and there must be a point in time when people take responsibility for their own lives. I'm a HUGE believer in Dr. William Glasser's "Choice Theory" (another amazing book that is a must read), and he proposes that there is nothing anyone can do to change another person, and that the only power they have over anyone is themselves. The past may have sucked, but there's nothing that can be done about it. The only thing that can be changed is the future. To me, the gay community has acted "victimized" for too long - even if we have been!

Again, thank you all so much for reading that paper. I know it was long, and clearly struck a negative chord at times, and I appreciate the comments you had to make :)

[Zerbie]

What college do you go to?


As for being shocked that you appeared biphobic/transphobic - look at the paragraph again and note the lack of transition between your one and only mention of bi/trans people and your assertion that the gay community legitimizes any life style "no matter how licentious." THAT'S where we got that from.

The topic is a lot more sophisticated than a paper this incredibly short can possibly represent. Maybe come back to it in a few years when you're in grad school and fix it up, do it some justice next time. I'm all for taking responsibility for one's relationships. But it's a fine balance between what one can, and cannot, affect.

[Daniel]

There are numerous sources, even direct quotes that are in this paper (which received a 99%, for what that's worth). I edited them out mostly to make it easier to read (I couldn't think of many people who enjoy paranthetical citation in the midst of their reading). Much of what I have said was taken from other gay writers, so it isn't strictly my own opinion, just my own interpretation of it.

Hmmm. Got that about the interpretation aspect. But we do love our facts around here. :D The veracity of a matter rises or falls upon them.

To me, this paper really isn't meant for this group that I've presented it to. From what I've been able to tell from the group members here, you all are seeking to do what is right, what would bring honor to God, and "what Jesus would do". I'm believing that the vast majority of this doesn't apply to you.

I don't know about the 'honor to God part', but it would be accurate to say that we are seeking to do what is right: the Golden Rule. But that said, your arguments, as such, do apply to everyone here. That's my point: we aren't any more intrinsically holy or worthy than anyone else. SoulForce isn't made up (as far as I can see) of the 'good gays'.

It is very clear that heterosexuals are not the champions of monogamy. My own father, a baptist minister of 40+ years didn't keep his vows either. It's something that men, in general, seem to have problems with. I still don't think that's an excuse though. Just because it is a strugle, doesn't mean it's an excuse. "Boys will be boys" is insulting to those of us who refuse to be like those horny, dick-driven boys. I do believe, though, that at least heterosexuals haven't tried to make non-monogamy this approved "alternative lifestyle" (I realize there are hetero swinger couples, but is that the overwhelming norm?). Tell me this, if you were to take a random sample of heterosexuals and homosexuals, who would have the greater chance of being in a monogamous relationship?

Why, I have to ask, do you tar gays with the stereotype of promoting non-monogramy? Whom does this serve? Does this condemnation make your life better? Does it help you love your boyfriend? (if you have one) Standing taller by pushing others beneath the sole of your foot does you no credit.

I don't find any payoff or pleasure in judging another person's expression of sexuality- and I don't say that out or mere political correctness. It's just a waste of time. What other people do, or don't do, is their business. Who are we to say what is correct, or in the terminology of modern cc'ers, what is 'pleasing to God'? One must remember, if one is to be bibilcally accurate, that polygamy was the standard of the day- and the rights of women nonexistent. Should we adopt those ancient mores?

If you read the book I noted in my post, you will see that research shows that, when gay people are allowed to marry, they have the tendency to become monogamous. That blows your comparison of gay and straight couples out of the water. This tells us that, when gay people can take care of one another- legally, that is- they do so for reasons which are not hard to imagine. That is all that need be said about the matter.

I encourage everyone to read a book by Dr. Charles Silverstein called "Man to Man:Gay Couples in America". It really is a good book, if you can get over the abhorrent lifestyle that he promotes. This is the man who helped get homosexualty completely removed from the DSM-IV and declassified as a mental illness. Though I am VERY thankful for what he accomplished, I'm not very impressed with the way he presented us in the book he wrote.

Abhorrent? There you go again with the moralizing. Why? My friend? Why? If you are going to make a statement like this, I suggest you tell us why. As Oscar Wilde said: Manners before Morals.

I think the overall point that was supposed to be made - whether successful or not - was that we have to start taking responsibility for ourselves.

Very Larry Kramer of you. :D Have you read Faggots?

No overwhelming amount of straight people are going to suddenly feel sorry for us and how we've been treated. To me, the gay community has acted "victimized" for too long - even if we have been!

Now you're on to something! I agree with you: we can only change ourselves. That is the point of this forum: to be the change we seek.

That said, part of the work done here is to stop the hand of those who, in word and deed foster religious oppression, speaking truth to those who appoint themselves as spokesmen for God.

You probably know more than anyone how difficult it is to help those who cannot see how- or have tools- to help themselves.

I guess what I am sensing, if I can venture an intuition here, is a Calvinistic tone in your comments. Might that be a product of your own religious upbringing?

Something comes to mind here:

My husband is studying for his MSW and recently came home and related how (it makes a great deal of sense actually) any given situation is more than the particular story line of the individual. Often, a person's problem actually is another person's problem, passed along and left like a time bomb to go off when least expected. We really do affect one another for good or ill.

All the more reason to love and be loved consciously.

[Jaroslaw99]

I assume you are 22 based on your screenname.

We are all products of our time, and the best of us transcend that as much as possible, but again, we are still influenced by the culture and mores around us.

What I am getting at here, is that sometimes one can do a lot of reading and think they know a particular period of time or a particular writer's thoughts but really not know.

We can read about intolerance, but to feel truly afraid walking down the hall at your high school, hoping no one finds out your secret - I don't know if mere words can adequately express the feelings one has and how it influences the rest of one's life choices.

I don't agree with "licentiousness" in general, but having said that, I'm going to be perfectly clear since that is what is required on these posts - :) - all value systems are not equal. Christianity/the Bible says much about adultery, fornication, chastity etc. so even in a Gay relationship, it is hard for me to see how anything but monogamy would be compatible with Judeo/Christian belief. I am open to correction on this. Having said that, it is not my job to judge others, exclude them from anything or work to enact laws to push my purely religious beliefs on them.

So - back to the past - bathhouses and promiscuity- sexuality was about the only thing Gay men could completely control for themselves. You could be fired from work, ostracized from your family, kicked out of your apartment/house - there was absolutely no recourse for anything. You couldn't be Gay in the military but if you admitted being Gay to avoid the draft, you would go home with a dishonorable discharge and possibly go to jail for violating sodomy laws.

To state it very plainly, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and even if you don't intend to paint with a broad brush, you have repeatedly done so. My above discourse was to try to get you to go beyond facts and really try to put yourself in someone elses' shoes before offering an opinon.

[Daniel]

My above discourse was to try to get you to go beyond facts and really try to put yourself in someone elses' shoes before offering an opinon.

Wellspoke! Wellspoke! Wish I'd thought of it!

[Vanessa White]

First of all, I am so excited that you are a fan of William Glasser. I myself am certified in Reality Therapy, have a totally dog-eared version of "Choice Theory" on my bookshelf, and am certified to instruct about the theory. You are right, Dr. Glasser does believe we only can change our own behavior, cannot control others, and that we should not be controlled by the past. However, I have to say, as a lesbian who is publicly out, and has been an advocate for years for the gay and lesbian community, I do not believe that we as a community, actively live in the victim role solely based on our past history of being oppressed. WE ARE STILL BEING ACTIVELY OPPRESSED!!!!! And I am not talking just gay marriage here. We are oppressed in every sense of the word, still. Sure, things have improved, and there are many of us on these forums who will applaud how far we have come, but still acknowledge, from today on, HOW FAR WE STILL HAVE TO GO. In addition, I don't feel I have to owe a debt of gratitude to society, for finally starting to realize that I am a worthwhile human being in spite of being gay. Part of my frustration with the part of society that marginalizes us, is that they try to lead us to believe that they are doing us a big favor by "tolerating" us, and I definitely need a lot more than tolerance. This society would be nothing without us all being an active, visible part of it.

Your essay has some good things to say, but I agree that it really paints a picture of gay men not being ready for marriage because there is no way they can be monogamous, or avoid those illicit behaviors. Tough view to have and an awful sentiment to be put out there for someone else to read. I hope that you see yourself in a more favorable light than that. Peace to you, and thanks for sharing. vanessa :love: :love:

[tpdncr4christ]

I agree with Nathan, there is no one to teach us what to do. Up until this moment I have never known or seen or even heard of a successful gay couple (congratulations Daniel). When I think of myself getting married it's with a girl, though I have no attraction to females. That means the prospect of marriage is all screwed up in my head and I don't know what to think.

I'm a high school senior and a boy. That means I date people, get confused by hormones, and make mistakes. Big mistakes. The only difference I can see between me and a straight boy is who we kiss, not how.

My aunt is a lesbian. She is a sweet heart, but she is also an idiot. Of pcourse, her stupidity has nothing to do with the fact she likes girls, she just makes mistakes. The thing is, people associate (ie my parents) her stupidity with homosexuality. It seems to me that your entire paper has a similar affect. You take someone's stupidity or sexual fedishes and associate it with their homosexuality. Like I said, the only difference between me and a straight boy is who we kiss, not how.

I also think you capture people with the "I'm going to hell anyways..." mentality. If homosexual marriage, and being homosexual, is condemed then why bother living a sin-free life? I know several friends who, when I confront them with thier behaviors, they say, "well I'm going to hell anyways." If maybe there was a way to express love, a way to commit with another man, if we weren't condemed from the start, maybe just maybe, we would behave better. You can't expect a kid who's never been tought manners to behave respectfully.

I hope what I said makes sense... if it doesn't tell me.

psychboi85, I like the paper. But I wouldn't give it to a teacher who disagrees with it. That's not a good idea.

[NathanATX]

If helping gay men live with integrity and being responsible for their lives was your intent, I think you missed the mark.

But that's ok. :)

I presume you are a Christian, so I'll speak from a Christian perspective.

Look to Jesus.

The Bible says He constantly spent time with outcasts and "sinners." How did He affect change in their lives?

No judgement. No condemnation.

He helped them see themselves the way God sees them.

To the woman caught in the act of adultery, He showed her accusers how hypocritical they were and then He assured the woman that He didn't condemn her.

A young man at my church was talking to me about his life and how he wasn't happy with the way things were going. He'd meet a guy, think they had a good connection, have sex, and then he (or the other guy) would not really care to continue dating the guy. He couldn't break out of that cycle.

I spent a few hours with him talking about his dreams. What kind of man did he want to be? What did he want to do with his life? Did he want a husband, kids, etc.? Did he feel called to any kind of ministry? What kind of impact did he want to make in the world?

With every positive and exciting thing he said, I responded with "That's amazing!," "Yes, I believe you can do that!," "Man, that kind of life is going to be incredible!"

All he needed was a little help believing in his goodness and his greatness. He now knows that he has to protect his dreams if they are going to become a reality. He weighs his choices against whether or not they work with the kind of life he is creating. He is also very conscious of his power and he is committed to being loving and not causing harm.

Six months or so after we talked, he & I were talking about something random... and he got a little quiet. Then he said, "You know, my life is completely different right now. I can't remember the last time I hooked up. I'm peaceful. I'm excited about my future. I'm being responsible. Man..."

Consider Paul's words in Romans 8...
"1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."

We are not called to beat people to death with an awareness of their own shortcomings and mistakes. We are called to help them see themselves the way God does... blameless, worthy of love, worthy of being filled with the very presence of a great & wonderful God. When you really get that "there. is. no. condemnation." all the fear, guilt & shame will be gone and you will truly have the freedom to choose who you will be, what you will do, etc. Otherwise, you will live with a shadow of fear, guilt & shame that will blind you to the truth of your goodness and your greatness. You will believe the lie of the enemy and your life will reflect the despair of feeling that you are somehow unloveable, unworthy, un-good-enough for God to truly want to bless you and to be in relationship with you.

[Daniel]

To have a Prince, you have to be a Prince.

[nmwolfboy]

This hasn't been an easy thread for me to read, mainly because the research paper itself strikes me as misandristic. Thankfully, there are more gentle people than i to respond. I tend to agree with the points presented by Nathan, Zerbie, Scott & Daniel.

What were the parameters of the assignment for which this essay was written? Perhaps if i understood the assignment expectations, i could give some constructive feedback. The best i can offer is that the essay seems to be supporting misleading stereotypes about gay men, rather than exploring anything pertinent to the debate surrounding gay marriage.

Maybe i'm just missing something, or being overly sensitive, but honestly i felt somewhat slandered & insulted by this paper.

[Dash]

Good words Nathan...some of your best, in my opinion. :)

(I should say, "among" your best...you've written lots of good words here)

[NathanATX]

Thanks, Dash... that means a lot to me. :)

[Daniel]

We are not called to beat people to death with an awareness of their own shortcomings and mistakes. We are called to help them see themselves the way God does... blameless, worthy of love, worthy of being filled with the very presence of a great & wonderful God.

I'm going to plaster this on my desk where I won't miss it- needed to hear this today....thanks Nathan.

[NathanATX]

Thanks Daniel... I'm re-reading what I wrote with a little disbelief. It's pretty powerful/challenging/confronting.

peace, Nate

[scott snedeker]

Thanks Dan for your comments!

To psychoboi,

I find that good writing starts with passion which you seem to have. I and the other readers do receive a sense of bias through the writing, terminology and "factual" statements. I get a sense of my own bias when reading your response due to our contrasting points of view on Gay Morality.

I am a polyandrous lover and consider this to be my first best way to honor my God-given nature. You do make a good point because on reflection I do feel that mono(andry) was internal acquiescence to the pressure from external homophobia for me in my younger days. My bias is that no part of my nature is immoral. I see no immorality to being a "horndog" or living the life of one (WOOF!):lol: The more men I love the more full all of our lives are (Ok sorry about the bragging!) BUT I don't misrepresent myself by promising monogamy with any of my lovers.

I offer this contrast to you cordially. Besides I'm too damn old to care about other peoples' judgement any more. Maybe this contrast will allow you to explore your own bias. Perhaps some of your bias may be projection from , I'm guessing, your father's broken vows and the pain that may have caused. I can certainly Identify with similar experiences of my own.


Anyway I've learned a different point of view from you which has helped me understand my self a little better and see more clearly what's best for me. If I could ask one favor it would be that if you cite my example in your paper that you don't label me as a radical or immoral and leave that to the reader.

love and affirmation,
Scotty:cowboy:

[Zerbie]

I also think you capture people with the "I'm going to hell anyways..." mentality. If homosexual marriage, and being homosexual, is condemed then why bother living a sin-free life? I know several friends who, when I confront them with thier behaviors, they say, "well I'm going to hell anyways."

a.

That makes me so sad!!!!! :(

I'm so sorry to hear about anyone feeling that way, and it disturbs me deeply that young people are still growing up to feel like that. Friends my age, sometimes we sit around and talk about what we thought when we were in high school about these kinds of issues, and I hear stuff like this all the time. (I'm just over 30, to give you perspective.)

The fact that people still grow up thinking something like that speaks to a strong need for an organization like Soulforce so that there will be a loving, caring message out there to counter such condemnation.

[zorrosdad]

First let me thank you psychoboi for giving me the opportunity to express a long held belief.

A few words for background. I have been with my partner for 26 years. I do not consider it a marriage.

I want nothing to do with the heterosexual communities disasterous institution of marriage which it holds so sacred. Let them have it. In my humble oppinion it is nothing but a farce. There are times in which I must admit it might be nice to have the same civil rights as married couples and for those I am willing to fight. But as for this whole marriage thing to hell with it!

Gay men are ready for commitment. Many have taken that step. But does it have to look like heterosexual marriage? Are we not much more creative than that? Why do we continue to try to fit into a mold that we obviously don't fit? I'll tell you why. It's because we want people to accept us. But we don't need people to accept us. We only need to accept ourselves. We are allowing the minority to push us into something which we are not. Stop the maddness. We are unique! There is nothing wrong with that. Stop wearing your rings of commitment on the traditional ring finger. You are only fitting the mold. Do you really want to do that? Stop pushing for the right to marry and start pushing for equal civil rights to have a life partner, to share a life long commitment, to share a home, to share a bank account, taxes, life, death, property but not marriage. Marriage is for the conservative christian not for the Gay community. Find something else to call it. Find a different way to celebrate it. Find a new way to mark the occasion. You don't fit the mold so break the mold! Set a trend! you're Gay so be Gay. Don't be straight! Don't fit in. It's time the world saw us for who we truly are Gay me and Lesbian women, not men and women with a different "lifestyle"!!

thanks,

Trent

[Zerbie]

First let me thank you psychoboi for giving me the opportunity to express a long held belief.

A few words for background. I have been with my partner for 26 years. I do not consider it a marriage.

I want nothing to do with the heterosexual communities disasterous institution of marriage which it holds so sacred. Let them have it. In my humble oppinion it is nothing but a farce. There are times in which I must admit it might be nice to have the same civil rights as married couples and for those I am willing to fight. But as for this whole marriage thing to hell with it!

Gay men are ready for commitment. Many have taken that step. But does it have to look like heterosexual marriage? Are we not much more creative than that? Why do we continue to try to fit into a mold that we obviously don't fit? I'll tell you why. It's because we want people to accept us. But we don't need people to accept us. We only need to accept ourselves. We are allowing the minority to push us into something which we are not. Stop the maddness. We are unique! There is nothing wrong with that. Stop wearing your rings of commitment on the traditional ring finger. You are only fitting the mold. Do you really want to do that? Stop pushing for the right to marry and start pushing for equal civil rights to have a life partner, to share a life long commitment, to share a home, to share a bank account, taxes, life, death, property but not marriage. Marriage is for the conservative christian not for the Gay community. Find something else to call it. Find a different way to celebrate it. Find a new way to mark the occasion. You don't fit the mold so break the mold! Set a trend! you're Gay so be Gay. Don't be straight! Don't fit in. It's time the world saw us for who we truly are Gay me and Lesbian women, not men and women with a different "lifestyle"!!

thanks,

Trent

There are a couple of problems with that Trent:
1. some gay couples DO want marriage and want to feel part of that kind of social tradition - we must all be free to choose whether or not to embrace it, and at the moment, those who wish to, cannot.

2. the legal rights you wish you had are in many ways attendant upon marriage. If you do some deep digging, you can find instances where gay couples have had the appropriate legal arrangements drawn up, "civil unions" or whatever, but still had the rights to the relationship challenged and denied on the basis of not being a "legal marriage." The word is important because its absence can be used as an excuse to deny important rights like child custody (I think, tho I'm not sure, I found that out through Evan Wolfson and his writings.)

So what needs to happen is that equal marriage rights must be acheived. That in no way forces you and your partner to enter an institution that doesn't appeal to you, but it does restore the power of choice to the couples who want it. The important matter is that gay couples actually have the right to make the decision for themselves.

[Daniel]

On one level we are each making it up as we go along. Daniel and his husband could to a limited degree borrow from their heterosexual parents' script but I imagine that they have pretty much had to create their relationship from scratch. And if you had been growing up down the street from them over the last 15 years and gotten to know them... you could take lots of pages out of their notebook, but you and your (future) boyfriend/husband would still have to do a lot of editing and creating to make your relationship work and make it your own.

David- you elucidate the issues surrounding gay relationships & the swirling influence of models, both societal and parental very clearly. When one doesn't have the affirmation of one's parents or society at large, one does indeed resort to making it up as one goes along. Both gay and straight couples deal with this to some degree, the only difference is that straight couples can avail themselves of the legal aspect, which makes the 'making it up' a bit easier. ;) Both parties in the relationship gain protections and benefits as well as responsibilites.

I graduated from HS in '77. You are right, no one was talking about gay marriage back then: everyone was still hiding in the shadows & there were no gay people in the media to speak of. Zip. Nada. That's why movies like "Making Love" '('81?) were such groundbreaking events. People practically snuck-I was in Missouri at the time- into the theatre. Guys at my AG school ('81) were expelled for being seen in the parking lot of a gay bar. That kinda thing still happens btw!

For us The very first door had a sign on it that said: Sex? NO!!!!! The problem with that is that once you kick open that door any way ... there are no more guides to what is right or wrong -- acceptable or not acceptable. To use your analogy, there ARE no manners to learn. Over the last 50 years, gay people have been busy inventing their own "manners" --- defining for ourselves what "behaving better" means. That process is still going on at full tilt.

Amen (or should I say Ah....Men? :lol: ) to that!

What I hear you referring to is the whole notion of gender conformity as well as one's own ethical system.

One has only to have a hot encounter and then have the guy leave right away to learn that, if one wants 'more' in a relationship, one has to seek other things besides getting laid. Which is not to demean the interaction. I'm of the sort that posits that 'God' is present everywhere, so why not there? Anyone who has a bent for matters Tantric begins to see how everything can be sacred. It's when we're engaging on one level, when in fact we'd like to be on another level (and by levels I'm not implying one is better that another- just different) that problems arise. Our actions aren't meshing with our longings.

While marriage itself doesn't bestow better manners on anyone, it certainly provides a 'container' along with certain rights and responsibilites. Living up to those same rights and responisbilites speaks volumes about one's ethical system. And speaking from experience, ceremony does indeed make a difference (when one is fully present for it!), and legal ceremony it's own gravity. It's not just psychological. That Canadian piece of paper that my husband and I have actually means something.

And this my be why I am troubled by Trent's post (with all due respect my friend- you are further along in your relationship than I).

I don't consider myself to be aping heterosexual marriage. I didn't go all the way to Canada to be 'accepted'. I went there to obtain a legal document which would impel my place of work to recognize my husband as my spouse (we already had a Buddhist ceremony 7 years earlier). So that he could obtain health benefits as well as my pension upon my death if needed (my union recognizes legal gay marriage). These things matter. Does that mean that every gay man should 'sign up' as we have? Certainly not. To each this own. But it pains me to be to told- ad hominum- I shouldn't wear a gold band on my finger. Its weight reminds me of my commitment to my beloved. I hope you would respect the choices I have made I as do yours.

Whatever we think gay life should be is one thing, having a life is something else entirely.

[Daniel]

Addendum to my last post:


http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/121606unions.htm
Despite Court Ruling NJ Civil Unions Won't Provide All the Benefits Of Marriage
by The Associated Press

Posted: December 17, 2006 12:01 am ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) With New Jersey on the verge of civil unions for same-sex couples, Rick Connolly called his insurance company to see if he could add his partner of 23 years to his homeowner's policy.

His partner could be added, Connolly was told, but not the same way as a spouse. The difference: If Connolly died, his partner would not be able to keep the policy.

The response is example of the confusion and frustration that might be in store for any gay couples who expect civil unions in New Jersey will give them the same rights as married couples.


'But not in the same way as a spouse". That's the operative phrase here.

In brief: civil union isn't the same as marriage. And this snippet of news reveals why. One might suggest that Mr. Connolly go to court or his legislature to 'fix' the law. Well.....isn't that fine and dandy: I fail to see why he should have to do that. And the fact that NJ civil union will have to be tweaked even before the laws is enacted says volumes. It sayeth loud and clear: if you have a civil union you are traveling in second class.

Separate is not equal.

[novaseeker]

First let me thank you psychoboi for giving me the opportunity to express a long held belief.

A few words for background. I have been with my partner for 26 years. I do not consider it a marriage.

I want nothing to do with the heterosexual communities disasterous institution of marriage which it holds so sacred. Let them have it. In my humble oppinion it is nothing but a farce. There are times in which I must admit it might be nice to have the same civil rights as married couples and for those I am willing to fight. But as for this whole marriage thing to hell with it!

Gay men are ready for commitment. Many have taken that step. But does it have to look like heterosexual marriage? Are we not much more creative than that? Why do we continue to try to fit into a mold that we obviously don't fit? I'll tell you why. It's because we want people to accept us. But we don't need people to accept us. We only need to accept ourselves. We are allowing the minority to push us into something which we are not. Stop the maddness. We are unique! There is nothing wrong with that. Stop wearing your rings of commitment on the traditional ring finger. You are only fitting the mold. Do you really want to do that? Stop pushing for the right to marry and start pushing for equal civil rights to have a life partner, to share a life long commitment, to share a home, to share a bank account, taxes, life, death, property but not marriage. Marriage is for the conservative christian not for the Gay community. Find something else to call it. Find a different way to celebrate it. Find a new way to mark the occasion. You don't fit the mold so break the mold! Set a trend! you're Gay so be Gay. Don't be straight! Don't fit in. It's time the world saw us for who we truly are Gay me and Lesbian women, not men and women with a different "lifestyle"!!

thanks,

Trent


Well, I think that different people should be able to follow their own conscience and do what they think is appropriate as to how they wish to express their commitment to each other. I don't think that by permitting same-sex marriage, it would be forced on same-sex couples any more than the institution is forced on straight couples, many of whom have decided for various reasons to not get married despite their commitment to each other. I think it remains important to allow same-sex couples the option to get married, even if not all same-sex couples are interested in using that option.

I have to admit that personally I am a big proponent of marriage in general, having been married in the past. I think it's a unique way -- certainly not the only way, but a unique way -- to express an intended permanent commitment to another person, and I personally like a lot of the "baggage" or "container" that goes along with marriage. I think it should be available to same-sex couples as well, but certainly wouldn't advocate forcing it in same-sex couples who do not wish to use that form of commitment.

[Daniel]

Time for a bump!

In keeping with the title of this tread, I though this current news worth noting.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/gay-argentinian.html


Cesar Cigliutti and Marcelo Suntheim, two of Argentina's leading gay activists, are making international headlines for marrying in Spain today because their home country won't let them. They plan to campaign for legal recognition of their marriage when they return to Argentina.

This is the bizarre photo of the couple published by Spain's newspaper El País. Isn't it romantic? I can't think anything I'd rather do after my gay wedding than troll the streets of Madrid looking at billboards of scantily clad women.

The AP reports: "Cigliutti and Marcelo Suntheim were able to wed because Suntheim has dual citizenship in Argentina and Germany – allowing him to marry within the European Union. Spain began allowing same-sex marriages in 2005, granting gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones to marry, adopt children and inherit each other's property. Although Argentina does not recognize gay marriage, the Buenos Aires legislature approved a law in 2002 permitting same-sex civil unions, granting gay couples in the Argentine capital economic and family rights similar to those of heterosexual couples. Mexico City and some Mexican and Brazilian states also recognized these unions. Uruguay alone in Latin America legalized them nationwide."

Yea!

Go Boys Go!

It just amazes me that Latin America and Spain is further ahead as far as gay marriage is concerned than our own USA.

[Daniel]

Shows that....


http://www.365gay.com/lifestylechannel/family/12208family.htm

Gay Couples as Committed, Happier Than Straight Couples.


Same-sex couples are just as committed in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples and may be happier, say researchers who have studied the quality of adult relationships and healthy development. Their finding disputes the stereotype that couples in same-sex relationships are not as committed as their heterosexual counterparts and are therefore not as psychologically healthy.

These results are from two studies featured in the January issue of Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. This issue includes a special section that examines sexual orientation across the lifespan.

Both studies compared same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples on a number of developmental and relationship factors. The first study examined whether committed same-sex couples differ from engaged and married opposite-sex couples in how well they interacted and how satisfied they were with their partners. Evidence has shown that positive interactions improve the quality of relationships in ways that foster healthy adult development.

Researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples with 50 engaged heterosexual couples and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as with dating heterosexual couples. All the partners responded to a questionnaire that documented how positively they interacted with one another on a day to day basis. The couples were also observed during a laboratory task and were monitored for distress by skin conductance and heart rate.

Results showed that same-sex relationships were similar to those of opposite-sex couples in many ways. All had positive views of their relationships but those in the more committed relationships (gay and straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples. And lesbian couples worked together especially harmoniously during the laboratory tasks.

The notion that committed same-sex relationships are "atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings," said lead author Glenn I. Roisman, PhD. "Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships."

Furthermore, said Roisman, "Gay males and lesbians in this study were generally not different from their committed heterosexual counterparts on how well they interacted with one another, although some evidence emerged the lesbian couples were especially effective at resolving conflict."

In the second study, researchers from the University of Washington, San Diego State University and the University of Vermont wanted to examine how sexual orientation and legal status affected relationship quality. To do so, they followed 65 male and 138 female same-sex couples with civil unions, 23 male and 61 female same-sex couples not in civil unions and 55 heterosexual married couples over a three-year period. One member of each heterosexual couple was a sibling to a member of a civil union couple.

Both partners in all of the couples answered questions regarding their demographics, status of their relationship, number of children, sexual behavior, frequency of contact with their parents with and without their partners and perceived social support. Partners in same-sex relationships also answered questions regarding disclosure of their sexual orientation to their family, peers and work associates.

The researchers found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples on most relationships variables, and that the legalized status of a relationship did not seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.

Despite the legal status of their relationships, the civil union couples showed no differences on any of the relationship measures from the same-sex couples who were in committed relationships but not in civil unions. "This may be because those couples in Vermont who sought out the legal protection of a civil union might have legalized their relationship more for symbolic value than for commitment reasons, which did not affect their day-to-day interactions," said lead author Kimberly F. Balsam, PhD.

However, the same sex-couples who were not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships compared to those couples in same-sex civil unions or heterosexual marriages. This suggests that the protections afforded by a legalized relationship may impact same-sex relationships, something the study's authors plan to follow up on in future research, said Balsam.

So- Rights matter after all!


The findings also showed that same-sex couples, regardless of civil union status, were more satisfied with their relationships compared to married heterosexual couples.

Isn't that something?


Same-sex couples reported more positive feelings toward their partners and less conflict than heterosexual married couples, said the authors. They theorized that there may be societal pressures and norms, as well as the presence of legal status as a couple, which may contribute to heterosexual couples staying together even when they are not happy. Alternatively, most long-term same-sex couples have to stay together by their own will and hard work since they don't have society's forces on their side, Balsam added.

Translation: we have to work harder at it so we are better at it.

This was the first study to follow same-sex couples in legalized unions over a period of time. This type of design allows the researchers to monitor changes in the relationships and compare them with changes experienced by both same-sex couples not in civil unions and heterosexual couples. All the couples were comparable with respect to race/ethnicity and age at the time of the study.

[Vanessa White]

Although, the cynic in me believes that not many people will pay attention to it, nor give it any credibility. Yet, it is very encouraging for me to see it in print, because I know that we, as couples, gay, straight or otherwise, face many of the same life circumstances and challenges- money, career, parenting, home, relationship connection, infidelity, extended families- the list goes on and on. So, giving us the right to marry could only further solidify that which is becoming its OWN institution of validity???

Thanks Daniel. :love:

[tdogg]

http://www.365gay.com/lifestylechannel/family/12208family.htm

It's so true. We don't have the same rights, protections and privileges that hetero couples do, so we definitely have to work harder to make our relationships work. As time goes on, stereotypes are consistently being proven to be just that, stereotypes and not a true example of reality. Just labels that others slap on various groups in an effort to put those groups into neat little predictable boxes.

My reality is that me and my partner work hard to honor our commitments, respect each other, resolve conflicts and help to make life easier for the both of us. While most of the time it isn't necessarily hard work, our relationship is quite easy, but even the best of couples have to work hard now and then. I also think as GLBT people, we tend to be more compassionate, loving and accepting (wow, there I go with a stereotype!), at least in my experience. So that lends to a much more mutually respectful and loving relationship, both with each other and outside the relationship with other people.