1

Joe,

I'm profoundly underwhelmed. This is a fully content free post--and you know it. You raise no points that are not fully known, and overlook the only important problem: Equality.

Those people (gay and straight) who fight really hard for gay marriage/civil unions do so on the basis that treatment of citizens of the republic ought to be equal.

No one (gay or straight) marries primarily because they want sexual fidelity. Naturally, many people (again both gay and straight) probably hope they will get sexual exclusivity, but everybody knows not all relationships will suceed at this.

To generate the argument that perhaps gays should be given the option to have covenant marriage is indeed a bizzare postulate. First, it doesn't sovle the equality problem--the only problem that everybody at least agrees exists. Second, offering this up as an option just before citing evidence that gays fail at monogamy rises to the level of either (a)poor comedy or (b)bitter sarcasm.

And at the very least, it's the last nail in the coffin over whether or not you truly have no hostile feelings toward gays--consider yourself exposed.

Gay people shoudn't need to prove they "deserve" marriage. Your effort to promote the idea that they aren't "deserving" on the basis that they have more sex than you, falls on dumb ears in all but the dumbest circles.

The issue that gay people have sexual patterns many of us may find problematic is one question.

The question about whether gays should be excluded from legal equality is quite another.

Conflating fundy ideas about morality with fundy ideas about marriage is an oversimplification of the first order. And is quite unlikely to produce a useful result anywhere but fundy-land.

The argument would be no different than claiming that homosexuals (or anybody else, for that matter) shouldn't have equal access to public universities if the ruling majority doesn't like their sexual practices.

I imagine you will conjur some kind of defense, but I can't imagine what it might be.

Synthesis: The whole point in the marriage/civil union debate is that many people find it objectionable that a class of people exists in this country who are systematically excluded from certain protections/rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. We, all of us, are aware that not everybody agrees on what to do about it, but everybody does agree it's a problem. I'm truly not sure where you're trying to go with this post, but you'd have to go back further than 1776 to find a policy regime which would accept that the notions you've raised here should have any relationship at all to each other.

regards,

ct

2

(Quotes were taken from Citizen’s for Parent’s Rights)...

which therefore means that you haven't actually reserached the sources of the quotes themselves.

And haven't provided more information about this group, which appears to be a front group.

However, it's all of course -even if it were true, and the fact that it's one of those astroturf groups cooked up to help people forget about Iraq and hate something is irrelevant as GT pointed out.

Even if 90% of all gays engaged in those bad behaviors- they almost certainly don't; that diatribe reads so much like anti-semitic literature- it would still mean that anyone should still theoretically be entitled to contractually engage whomever they please.

3

Joe:

I see you are going over the burned over ground again, but here provide a summary of results on the patterns of especially male homosexual behaviour. Grim reading in an age where dozens of STDs rage out of control in a culture hell-bent -- sadly, literally -- on sensual pleasures, and on turning its back on the Manufacturer's Instructions.

But, if we don't face the truth together, we will simply slide foewn together into the cesspits of chaos. (I must also note that to warn of avertable disaster ahead is usually not a sign of hate, but of concern.)

That truth we must face is simple, though nowadays often unwelcome. (As the first comment, sadly, illustrates: CT there is a reason for the complementarity of maleness and femaleness, which is what marriage and family life properly and naurally reflect -- cf Jesus' classic remarks in Matt 19:1 - 6 or so.) But, the truths with a moral tinge that we are ever so anxious to avoid are just what we must face, for our own good.

For, there is excellent reason for accepting the traditional view that marriage reflects the creation/natural order of maleness and femaleness, and to recognise and avert the devastating implications of playing games with sex, starting with porn, fornication, adultery and the easy divorce game -- all marks of a culture sliding into chaos and self-destruction.

And so, let us hear the Apostle Paul:

EPH 4:17 . . . I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

EPH 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Remember, the foundation warrant for taking this warning seriously is the testimony of Him who rose from the dead [and of which there were 500+ witnesses] and before whom we shall all give an account. Nor can selectively hypreskeptical games with the evidence avert its force or cogency.

Accordingly, let us heed what the Apostle also said:

AC 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth . . . 25 . . . he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring' . . . .

30 . . . now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

4

Joe:

I see already the invidious comparison to antisemitism, which seems to be a Mumon favourite since at least last December.

This tells us a lot about the attitudes at work, and it is not pretty. As Aristotle warned so long ago now about such well-poisoning and substitution of abuse for addressing reason and facts:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

In short, Mumon, it is high time to turn down the rhetorical temperature.

GEM

PS I made a linking error: my note on Selective Hypreskepticism is here.

5

Ah, I see this is one of those outposts where Christian love has been forgotten in the name of hatred. I'd comment further, but I don't deal with pseudo-Christians.

6

While it’s possible that Kevin could be totally misrepresenting the views of the homosexual community, I think he's basically right. His view appears to confirm what I’ve found in researching the subject: monogamy is a “straight” ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationships.

This is the results of your research? Something may or may not be useful? Hmmmmmmm.... Oddly MIT has refused to accept my Phd thesis "Faster than light travel may or may not be possible"...sorry for the sniping but its Monday morning!

Although a few years late, Slate columnist William Saletan has come to a similar conclusion in his suggestion of “gay covenant marriage.” While many conservatives would oppose any such compromise, the real opposition would come, as Saletan notes, from those on the left:

This is an interesting idea which you should have explained a bit more in your post since many people may not bother to read the links. From what I understand covenant marriage is like a reverse prenup agreement. Both members choose to forgoe today's 'easy divorce' rule and accept more difficult divorce, usually with a waiting period of up to two years. The idea is that this is a way for both partners to show they are taking marriage seriously as a lifelong committment and the state is helping by letting them play by tougher rules.

This is related to your previous post on the topic of 'conservative paternalism' where people can freely opt to live by tougher rules than the rest of us. For example, the compulsive gambler can put himself on a list that would deny him access to casinos for life.

Is monogamy a “straight” ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationships? If so, then this is not what most people, even the supporters of same-sex marriage, have in mind when they discuss this issue. The subject is already contentious enough when it is thought that these “marriages” are going to be exclusive; what will happen when it's discovered that what's being advocated is “same-sex open marriage?”

The only problem with a same-sex open marriage is the same problem with an opposite-sex open marriage. Few people try them and those that do often find they don't work. You don't have to be Donald Trump to realize that even with supposedly easy divorce laws marriage puts you in a legally sensitive spot. Don't take it seriously and you may find your spouse who has lost interest in you will now be collecting alimony and taking a chunck of your assets with him/her.

CT
I'm profoundly underwhelmed. This is a fully content free post--and you know it. You raise no points that are not fully known, and overlook the only important problem: Equality.

Not quite, Joe is raising new issues which at least shows that he is trying. The equality argument is powerful. What difference does it make if only a small portion of gay men avail themselves to marriage? If I told you interracial marriages had a divorce rate that was three times as high as average that would tell you absolutely nothing about the wisdom of overturning laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Now Joe points out that gay men may not really want lifelong committments. Perhaps he is right. I suspect promiscuity among gay men is probably higher than among straights during a lifetime but gay women probably have lower rates. (Its also interesting how the women get shafted in this debate, don't they deserve to be considered equally with men?)

7

Ah, I see this is one of those outposts where Christian love has been forgotten in the name of hatred. I'd comment further, but I don't deal with pseudo-Christians.

Huh, I must have missed the part where Joe said he hated all those homosexuals. When I read it, I saw a lot of survey and study results pointing out that male homosexuals are rarely monogamous and don't really want to be. Joe makes the point that homosexuals should step up and refute this perception by pursuing covenant marriages. I guess that Your understanding is that expecting relational monogamy in marriage = hating a group of people. I'd comment further, but I don't deal with psuedo-homosexual marriage supporters.

8

I see you are going over the burned over ground again, but here provide a summary of results on the patterns of especially male homosexual behaviour. Grim reading in an age where dozens of STDs rage out of control in a culture hell-bent -- sadly, literally -- on sensual pleasures, and on turning its back on the Manufacturer's Instructions.

Of course we cannot directly compare homosexual behavior with hetrosexual behavior because both exist in different social contexts. Until recently it was nearly impossible for male homosexuals to have long term exclusive partnerships. How many hetrosexual husbands would be faithful if they couldn't live with their wives, saw their wives maybe once a week for only a few hours at most, kept their financial and legal lives seperate from them and so on?

The reality is the status quo is probably the most promiscious friendly policy one could imagine. The good news, therefore, is that just about any conceivable change would probably result in less promiscuity for the simple reason that you can't push it much higher unless you start holding guns to people's heads forcing them to sleep around.

9

I will listen to any proposals to monitor my morality as long as they apply to EVERYBODY. As a physician who works with patients with STD's I'd hate to tell you all that I don't necessarily have a gay=promiscuous/straight=monogamous clinical experience. Most of my patients are straight, straying, and all too human.

10

I agree, if Joe's point was that covenant marriage should be established for gays in order for them to 'prove' to us that they are more marriage worthy than hetrosexuals I don't think that is right.

I have no problem with covenant marriage being an option for people but I don't think it should have any bearing on the gay marriage debate. If a state adopts gay marriage and covenant marriage then that's fine.

11

I’ll readily admit that my suggestion was made simply to call the bluff of gay marriage advocates, for I have no illusions that male homosexuals would desire such a marriage bond. Gay men—like men in general—tend to be more promiscuous than women. But unlike married heterosexual men, gay men don’t assume that taking wedding vows means accepting sexual exclusivity.

Perhaps but what does Joe have to say about men who take wedding voews without accepting exclusivity? (Or accepting it but not enough to keep them from actually honoring it?) If people marry without intending exclusivity they are putting themselves in a vulnerable position to their spouses for whom they are financially and legally responsible for. Is it within human nature to tolerate that much trust in another person without demanding sexual exclusivity in return?

It seems the primary people that are going to get burned experimenting with 'open marriage' ideas are the people participating in them themselves. Why shouldn't gays who want to try such a thing be treated any more harshly than hetrosexuals who want to try such a thing? They should be told that they are essentially on their own and don't complain if things go badly because you were warned ahead of time.

12

Hmmm. Let me see. I'm a lesbian in a 7-year relationship. I have a lot of gay male friends and I don't know *any* single gay men. Everyone I know is coupled up, many of them have been together for 10 years or more.

Why is it I know so many coupled, monogamous gay men? Is it some kind of abberation? No, it's because all of the gay men I know are in their 30s or older.

This is actually a discussion I've had with a lot of my friends. The fact is that gay dating habits pretty much mirror their straight counterparts-- plenty of straight people date A LOT when they're younger, they have a lot different partners, they spend a lot of years being single, but most eventually get tired of it and settle down or are actively looking to settle down. (Often more than once.) Frankly, gay people really aren't much different than straight people in this regard. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, but it's just not the case.

The truth is also that the gay subculture has gone through a pretty radical change in the past 20 years or so. It's just taking a while for the rest of the world to notice. (Most of the "gay men are all promicuous" studies you cited were 20+ years or OLDER.) This change is even more pronouced among young gays and lesbians in their teens who are now growing up with the idea that they can marry and have a family.

The most radical thing about the gay community right now is that so many of us want to marry, to have children. Looking at 20+ year old studies to question that desire proves nothing about gays and lesbians who are living today.

It's pretty obvious that much of the promiscuity among gay men that you're referring to is a byproduct of being a marginalized population that had no expectations placed on it to grow up, settle down. But that has seriously changed in the past 10+ years, we are no longer developmentally arrested, which has a lot to do with increased tolerance and accceptance of us in general.

Not only are gays and lesbians growing up with the idea that marriage and family are on the menu, our own families are treating us the same as our straight brothers and sisters. We are no longer excluded from questions about settling down and having children during Thanksgiving dinner. Our expectations of ourselves and the expectations of us by others is changing-- and it's a beautiful thing.

13

A good post zoe, I think you're right when you say that most people end up wanting to 'settle down' when they get older and settling down looks quite a bit like modern day marriage. (I say modern day because there's been quite a few different types of marriage throughout history from arranged marriages where the husband and wife are decided upon when they are children to 'purchasing a wife' that are no longer part of modern culture).

Another point is that sex is not the sole purpose of marriage. More than a few marriages become sexless as people age yet the marriage itself is quite strong. People may have sexual inclinations towards promiscuity but that alone does not exclude marriage as a desirable option. I like to eat sweets but at the same time I know for my own good I can't eat them all the time.

I do think Joe has a point when he says gay men are more likely to sleep around. I think that is part of human nature and there's no check on men in a male-male relationship as there is in a male-female one. On the flip side I'd suspect that female-female relationships are probably less likely to have cheating than either gay male relationships or hetrosexual ones.

Some of that is due to the culture making casual sex an easier option for a gay person (especially a gay person who does not want people to know they are gay) but I don't think all of it is. I do agree that the sexuality of the pre-AIDS days was the extreme and is likely to never become the dominate cultural ideal for gays ever again.

14

The fact is that gays and lesbians can't win with you-- we're all promicuous and don't want to marry OR we want to marry but don't deserve it because the idea offends you. But you can't have it both ways.

If there were current studies that showed that most of us, like straight people, eventually couple up and are monogamous would that make a difference to you? No. The fact is that you don't approve of any of us no matter what we do, so there is no need to get into such lengthy discussions to defend your views.

15

Zoe,

It seems to me that Joe believes that monogomy is a part of marraige. From the evidence he's presented, Joe believes that a statistically significant amount of homosexuals are promiscuous (as compared to heterosexuals).

I don't think Joe's point is that they're all promiscuous, rather that a statistically significant number are (Although Joe cited a number of studies from a generation ago - of which I share some of your scepticism - there were a number that were quite recent). Therefore, homosexuals want to be able to marry (which Joe believes entails monogomy), Joe is asking them to live up to the ideals of marraige.

At least, this is what I take Joe's argument to be. I think, then, that although you yourself are a counter-example to Joe's citations, that not enough homosexuals are doing so. If you can show otherwise, I think you can overturn Joe's argument. However, I think that, because of the evidence Joe has presented, you'll need more than anecdoctal evidence to do so.

At least I, for one, would be happy to concede this argument if evidence were present.

Cheers.

16

J,

It's fair for Joe to ask that homosexuals live up to the standards of marriage as much as he would ask hetrosexuals.

As for the statistical significance, you have the evidence but what does it mean? If 75% of gays don't want marriage or don't want marriage as it is today why should that say anything about the 25% who might want it?

17

The only "recent" study he cites is of patients from a health clinic-- not exactly a cross-section of average homosexuals, is it? The rest of the studies were, as acknowledged above, pre-AIDS crisis. The other study of couples is from 1991, a study that I've never heard of but I'm not surpised that anti-gay groups would use it to "prove" that gay men aren't monogamous. The fact is that a bunch of 20+ year old studies are being used to judge the norms and practices of a community that has changed A LOT in 20 years.

As a member of the gay and lesbian community I am a lot more qualified to talk about the current norms and practices than a bunch of straight people. So my evidence may be anecdotal but considering the size of the community it's not insignificant. The fact is that most heterosexuals, unless they have a lot of gay friends, know very little about us and base their views on far less anecdotal evidence than I have.

The things is I'm not going to to "prove" to you that we are deserving of marriage based on some statistical analysis of monogamy in the gay community-- not unless you want bring in heterosexual infidelity rates or the divorce rate among heterosexuals. Perhaps we should discuss whether enough heterosexuals are living up to the marriage ideal? Whether or not the behavior of some heterosexuals should invalidate the marriages of other heterosexuals? Does that seem fair to you?

I think a side-by-side comparison would show that the two camps are pretty much equal, with perhaps a higher rate of promiscuity among gay men during their "party years." (Not that all gay men go though this, but when they do their access to anonymous sex is far greater than among heterosexual men.) But overall you'd find that the differences between us are hardly the gulf so many heterosexuals assume, not to mention that the gay community is transitioning into a much more marriage-focused, child-centered perspective than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

The fact is that many people who start off with the position that they oppose same-sex marriage go around looking for "evidence" to support their view that we are undeserving of equal treatment, that our families have not earned the right to be respected. They do not place an equal burden on heterosexuals to prove their worthiness.

18

CT I'm profoundly underwhelmed. This is a fully content free post--and you know it. You raise no points that are not fully known, and overlook the only important problem: Equality.

First, I have to say that not everyone does know this information. The first time I made an offhand reference to gay males being more promiscuous than heterosexual males, several readers took me to task for expressing such a small-minded view. They weren’t aware that this is a completely uncontroversial fact within the gay community.

Second, it is not about equality. As has been said so often that it has become trite, gays and lesbians have the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have. What they are asking for is a redefinition of what is considered by the state to be a “marriage.” If equality is the primary concern then we should allow polygamists to have the same “equal right” to marry whoever (and how many whoevers) that they choose.

No one (gay or straight) marries primarily because they want sexual fidelity.

The fact that you can say such a thing in public and expect that most people agree shows how off-base you are on this issue. Most people marry because they want a life-long commitment which is presumed to include sexual fidelity. To claim otherwise is simply bizarre.

Conflating fundy ideas about morality with fundy ideas about marriage is an oversimplification of the first order. And is quite unlikely to produce a useful result anywhere but fundy-land.

A fundy idea about marriage? Can you show me anywhere in history where gay marriage has been accepted? Or has history been dominated by “fundy ideas?”

Mumon which therefore means that you haven't actually reserached the sources of the quotes themselves.

No, not all of them. And your point is….?

However, it's all of course -even if it were true, and the fact that it's one of those astroturf groups cooked up to help people forget about Iraq and hate something is irrelevant as GT pointed out.

Let me get this straight: you’re saying that this group “cooked up” these stats to help people forget about Iraq? Did you bother to look at the top of the page I linked and notice that it says it was updated March 28, 2002? When did the Iraq war begin? (Do you ever think before you write? Seriously, do you?)

Boonton This is related to your previous post on the topic of 'conservative paternalism' where people can freely opt to live by tougher rules than the rest of us.

That’s a good point. Since I mentioned covenant marriage in that previous post, I wish I had thought to connect it to this one.

Of course we cannot directly compare homosexual behavior with hetrosexual behavior because both exist in different social contexts.

On this I would completely agree. The problem is that we are asking both groups to conform to a single social context: marriage. If gay marriage advocates want a “separate, but equal” model in which monogamy is for straights and polyamoury is for gays, then they should say so.

Jeff I will listen to any proposals to monitor my morality as long as they apply to EVERYBODY.

I don’t think its monitoring morality to ask people who are voluntarily entering a contractual relationship to accept a high standard. But I personally would also prefer if everyone renounced no-fault divorces and embraced a covenant marriage-style model.

Zoe Everyone I know is coupled up, many of them have been together for 10 years or more.

While I certainly respect anecdotal evidence, I think you might be presuming too much in assuming that all the gay male couples you know are monogamous.

Frankly, gay people really aren't much different than straight people in this regard. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, but it's just not the case.

It’s not that I’d “like to believe otherwise” but rather than I believe what the statistics show.

Most of the "gay men are all promicuous" studies you cited were 20+ years or OLDER.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. I listed 31 quotes: 9 are within the past 10 years, and another 10 more are within the past 15 years. Only 7 were more than 20+ years and only two are from the 70’s (1978 and ’79).

If you have more up-to-date statistics, though, I’d be more than happy to include them.

If there were current studies that showed that most of us, like straight people, eventually couple up and are monogamous would that make a difference to you? No.

Absolutely. If you will provide me some of these studies I’ll write a new post admitting that I was in error.

I’ll even do the work if you can show me where to find these studies. I assume that you are aware of them already since you seem to be quite certain that things have radically changed.

The fact is that you don't approve of any of us no matter what we do, so there is no need to get into such lengthy discussions to defend your views.

Since you appear to be a new commenter I’ll assume that you are basing this solely on this post. If so, then you are completely wrong. Long time readers know that my ex-wife, the mother of my child, left me for another woman. She and her partner have been together now longer than we were married (7+ years) and have a stable relationship. While I don’t approve of homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage, I do respect the love they have for each other. I adore both of them and we’ve had a close relationship for years. I respect them and they respect me even though we disagree on this issue.

I would, however, support desexualized civil unions and think that my ex and her partner should have legal protections for their relationship.

As a member of the gay and lesbian community I am a lot more qualified to talk about the current norms and practices than a bunch of straight people.

Obviously, you are not. While you may have some knowledge of the lesbian community, you’re views on gay promiscuity are sadly panglossian.

Perhaps we should discuss whether enough heterosexuals are living up to the marriage ideal?

It would be a very short discussion: No, many of them are not.

Whether or not the behavior of some heterosexuals should invalidate the marriages of other heterosexuals?

The behavior of other heterosexuals doesn’t invalidate my marriage any more than parents who abuse their children invalidates my role as a father. But such behavior does have an effect on society and on the institution of marriage.

19

Joe Carter:

After the absurdity of the 2004 election with all those "marriage" ballot initiatives, which was nothing but an effort to change the subject from the terrible job that the Republicans have done, it's easy to confuse dates on these things.

Besides, that group is evidently active in Maryland on exactly such nonsense.

Look, those organizations have no credibility, for the simple reason they've been caught out too many times.

BTW, that's kind of odd that an organization founded to protect child abusers would be so active against gay marriage.

20

You skipped all the parts of my response noting that nothing about gay-centered discussions of alternate relationship types is not perfectly common in the straight community as well. Every model of relationships contemplated for gays already exists among straights, the only difference being that at least some of them are already legal for straights, and all of them are illegal for gays. That makes any form of legal relationship "transgressive", or revolutionary, for gays - and thus puts all of them in some way on an equal footing as candidates. But there is nothing distinctly gay about any of them.

[W]hat will happen when it's discovered that what's being advocated is “same-sex open marriage?” Perhaps to avoid this perception gay marriage advocates should press for “gay covenant marriage.” As Saletan says, “If anyone can show just cause why these two movements may not be joined together, let him speak now or forever hold his peace.”

Why should gays accept the most-restrictive form of straight marriage simply to appease the same anti-gay prejudice that keeps other forms from them now? It's not their job to "avoid perceptions" that happen to trigger right-wing sex panic - it's right-wingers' job to be less bigoted and less reactionary. (And tell the truth: are you really saying you'd support gay marriage if they agreed to put it on a 19th-century model? Or is this just one more hoop for them to jump through, one more way of delaying their progress and limiting their options, against the day that they finally get even some rights in the face of the same, continuing opposition as always?)

As for Saletan's question, the answer should be obvious, even to the increasingly Kool-Aid-intoxicated Saletan: the reason the movement for gay marriage shouldn't be joined to the movement for covenantal marriage is that gays are seeking increased legal standing for relationships that already exist, not increased restrictions on those existing relationships when they achieve legal standing. Covenantal marriage simply isn't what gays are seeking (and it's an idiotic solution to the "divorce problem", even if you agree divorce is a problem) - so they shouldn't seek it. Simple, no?

21

And now for some input from the gay male side:

With the explosion of the Internet, anonymous/casual sex has gotten easier and, for the most part, safer (less chance of getting arrested, mainly). All you have to do is compare the "Men seeking men" with the "women seeking women" ads in your local Craig's List community to see the difference. A significant portion of gay men are really into anonymous or casual sex -- and a significant portion of those are cheating on partners (many are married and in the closet).

I think it may be because women are naturally better at forming relationships based on conversation and mutual interests. Look at the number of women who have maintained friendships from high school and college for a generation or more. Men, and particularly gay men, are afraid to open up - and we go about it backwards. We find someone interested in us sexually, and prove it. Then, if we're interested, we try to make it a regular occurrence, and then a relationship. I don't think that works.

I believe the most important reason gay men are promiscious is because most don't have an adequate spiritual support system. They aren't disciples of Jesus Christ, because the church where they were raised has rejected them (openly or by implication). With nobody to pray with them and for them, they fall apart when trouble comes. Their fear and spiritual turmoil drives them to frequent anonymous encounters because they can't stand to be alone.

And the people that claim to be followers of the Son of God, who loved them enough to give His life, apparently hate them enough to organize against any opportunity they may have for some form of legal protection from discrimination.

I understand who I am, and how God made me. I know life without a partner is not good, and life with an unbelieving partner is not much better. So, I asked God to provide me with companionship according to His will, and committed myself to obedience to His leading in my life. Of course, since I have an affirming/supporting congregation supporting me, I don't have the loneliness and fear that used to drive me to the park or the internet for the quick, anonymous hookup.

If there were more Christians reaching out to the gay community, rather than politically working to alientate them, perhaps there would be less of the undesirable behavior on their part.

22

I just wish Joe and other evangelicals would be honest about why they oppose gay marriage.

It's not because gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men (otherwise, it might make sense to also oppose marriage for African-Americans).

It's not to "protect the institution of marriage."

It's not for the good of the children.

It's not for any logical reason.

It's because they understand the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Now why can't you admit that? Everything else is just a smokescreen for your real reason.

23

I do admit that the Bible teaches homosexual behavior (not thoughts or inclinations) is sinful just as I believe the Bible teaches hetrosexual behavior is often sinful. I ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!
Are you happy now ex-preacher?

Now, is the only reason I hold any particular view? NO! There are many issues (including this one) where there are not only Biblical reason to support or oppose something - but also logical, moral, and intellectual reasons.

Anytime someone comes on a forum with such an assinine statement as the ex-preacher did, you can be sure that they are completely unwilling to listen to anything which opposes their viewpoint. It all get's lumped into a fundy-land scare house.

24

Joe -

Congratulations on finding research and quotes that support a position you already hold. Perhaps for your next post on this subject you could talk to some gay and lesbian couples who *want* marriage instead of the ones who are making the argument that no one should want it.

I know dozens of gay, monogamous, long-term couples who would like to participate in the American dream of actually being able to support eachother for worse, in sickness, until death do us part. It's pretty easy to be in whatever kind of relationship you want as long as you're healthy, wealthy, and young. That's true for straight folks as well as gay ones. It's when the chips are down that you need a marriage in the eyes of the law.

25

"50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57."

Umm, that's retarded. Seriously retarded. Like seriously, seriously, retarded. Either the writers of this book are morons, or this was taken completly out of context. One is left with no choice but to assume either the blogger is an intellectual dolt, or a satirical comedian.

26

Second, it is not about equality. As has been said so often that it has become trite, gays and lesbians have the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have. What they are asking for is a redefinition of what is considered by the state to be a “marriage.” If equality is the primary concern then we should allow polygamists to have the same “equal right” to marry whoever (and how many whoevers) that they choose.

Getting into equality is tricky. By definition all gov't policies discriminate unequally. A convicted murder, for example, is treated different by the law than someone who is not convicted. IMO the best guide to equality can be sketeched out in how the SC reads the Equal Protection Clause.

They have a sliding scale. At the lowest end is in order for a law not to raise equality objections (at least in the Constitutional sense) is that it somehow be realted to a legitimate gov't purpose. It doesn't have to be a very good law, can even be a stupid and bad law but as long as its related to a gov't purpose that's legitimate its presumed OK.

At the other end is strict scrutiny. Here the state not only has to show it is a for a legitimate purpose but that it is the only reasonable way to accomplish that purpose. A classic example is a race riot at a prison. The warden has the right to segregate prisoners by race in order to stop the riot. Why? Because that's the only reasonable way to address a legitimate gov't concern (keeping order and safety in a prison) when time is of the essence. But later on when things are clamed down racial segregation wouldn't survive scrutiny because there are other ways to address the danger of race riots over the long term.

Generally any law that discriminates based on race is presumed to be subject to strict scrutiny given the history of the Civil War and the nature of the 14th Amendment. Gender discrimination is not automatically given strict scrutiny but usually has a pretty high level.

I doubt anyone has even built an equality based case around 'number discrimination'...as in "Joe has a wife so why can't I get another wife?". Even if they did it would be much tougher to show why such 'discrimination' merits the scrutiny that gender discrimination is subjected too.

No, sorry Joe, from the equality argument polygamists have a really long way to go.

*****************************************

On this I would completely agree. The problem is that we are asking both groups to conform to a single social context: marriage. If gay marriage advocates want a “separate, but equal” model in which monogamy is for straights and polyamoury is for gays, then they should say so.

Indeed they should. And guess what, they shouldn't be presumed to be arguing for 'separate but equal' unless they actually are. Yes you can find individual activists arguing for different types of 'open marriage' (which I assume they would also make available for hetrosexuals) just as you can find hetrosexual activists advocating open marriages for themselves. You can even find people who advocate polyamoury or polygamy for hetrosexuals but not for homosexuals (such as Mormon fundamentalists). When they actually bring their arguments to the table, though, they should be addressed.

I don’t think its monitoring morality to ask people who are voluntarily entering a contractual relationship to accept a high standard. But I personally would also prefer if everyone renounced no-fault divorces and embraced a covenant marriage-style model.

You're forgetting the proper place of gov't here Joe. The duty of 'monitoring' compliance inside a contract belongs to the parties of that contract. If you agree to pay me rent for a year then fail to do so it's my job to go before the gov't and demand that you be evicted from my apartment for breach of contract. Has any gay marriage advocate argued for divorce law to be applied differently for homosexual couples than it is for hetrosexual?

********************************************

I’m afraid you are mistaken. I listed 31 quotes: 9 are within the past 10 years, and another 10 more are within the past 15 years. Only 7 were more than 20+ years and only two are from the 70’s (1978 and ’79).

I did a quick informal count. I came up with 9 studies that were pre-1985. 15 that could be said to be between 86-99 and one that was post 2000.

I identified 4 questionable 85-99 quotes. I say questionable either because they talk about studies without referencing when they were done or because they were possibly duplicates (such as an article from the Advocate and then an article from the Washington Post or other newspaper talking about an Advocate article...was it the same article or related to it????). I also had one that I couldn't tie down to a year at all.

On balance Joe probably has an acceptable cross section of research but again what does it mean?

*************************************************

Obviously, you are not. While you may have some knowledge of the lesbian community, you’re views on gay promiscuity are sadly panglossian.

Ok, so lesbians are not gay now? When was this decided and why did I miss the memo?

27

The behavior of other heterosexuals doesn’t invalidate my marriage any more than parents who abuse their children invalidates my role as a father. But such behavior does have an effect on society and on the institution of marriage.

Indeed let's say that 10% of parents abuse their kids on average. But suppose one particular demographic group...say left-handed Sweeds born under the sign of Gemni, for whatever inexplicable reason, abuses their kids at a whopping rate of 80%. Does that invalidate the role of parents for the 20% that do not?

All this energy to figure out what a groups average rate of promiscuity is misses the point. It often is not right to set policy based on the average person.

28

Boonton,

Sorry for the late response. I agree with you actually, that homosexual marraige should be legal. (I am an "evangelical Christian" and disagree with the morality of homosexual behavior, but I do not think anything in the constitution prohibits it.) However, I believe (with Joe) that stricter divorce laws are needed.

Basically, my point previously was that if you accept one of Joe's premises (that marraige is a monogomous thing, 'til death do them part), then it follows that homosexuals ought to conform to that behavior, otherwise it seems strange that they would want the right to be married if they do not seem to want the things it entails.

Certainly, there are many homosexuals who want marraige (and are monogomous). I think the problem Joe sees is either:

1. Grant marraige to all - whereby marraige becomes reduced to "love until I don't feel like it anymore", which is unacceptable to Joe (I think).

2. Grant marraige to none - thereby leaving out people who deserve it.

I ask, out of curiousity, why would one object to a civil union, granting the same benefits a married couple would get? If one wants to say that marraige is a 'til death do us part thing, then it seems that stricter divorce laws make sense (perhaps, one must be married for X years before divorce?). If one denies that, they why not create a separate category (viz. civil unions) which would recognize the differing ideologies behind the label?

These thoughts are probably disjointed. Apologies for that.

Cheers.

29

Umm, that's retarded. Seriously retarded. Like seriously, seriously, retarded. Either the writers of this book are morons, or this was taken completly out of context. One is left with no choice but to assume either the blogger is an intellectual dolt, or a satirical comedian.

The author said that 50% of gay men over 30 never had a relationship that lasted more than a year. 75% of men over 40 reported the same thing.

1. If gay men are getting more monogamous the old crew will the the left over swingers while the younger ones are more conservative. The 'dinosaurs' are like left over Hugh Hefners, never settling down so only 25% of them report even 1 long term relationship while 50% of the younger crew reports it. This is a spin I'm sure Joe wouldn't like.

2. If settling down is somehow more deadly then being a player. The more conservative men who play it safe in their 30's get killed leaving the bed hoppers in their 40's to tell their tales to sociologists. While I'm sure lots of people would love to see "Studies show sluts live forever!" as a headline in their morning paper I doubt this is the explanation.

So not too good for Joe's thesis. #1 implies a growth rate of 100% for monogamy among gay men.

30

"There are many issues (including this one) where there are not only Biblical reason to support or oppose something - but also logical, moral, and intellectual reasons.

Anytime someone comes on a forum with such an assinine statement as the ex-preacher did, you can be sure that they are completely unwilling to listen to anything which opposes their viewpoint."

Well, John, if you wish others to share your characterization of ex-preacher's comment, you should share some of your "logical, moral, and intellectual reasons". Don't be shy!

31

J

Basically, my point previously was that if you accept one of Joe's premises (that marraige is a monogomous thing, 'til death do them part), then it follows that homosexuals ought to conform to that behavior, otherwise it seems strange that they would want the right to be married if they do not seem to want the things it entails.

I don't disagree. A homosexual couple getting legal marriage should be no less obligated than a hetrosexual couple. But I also feel they should be no more obligated to be monogamous.

I ask, out of curiousity, why would one object to a civil union, granting the same benefits a married couple would get? If one wants to say that marraige is a 'til death do us part thing, then it seems that stricter divorce laws make sense (perhaps, one must be married for X years before divorce?). If one denies that, they why not create a separate category (viz. civil unions) which would recognize the differing ideologies behind the label?

If you created civil unions as some sort of 'Marriage-lite' then you would have to open it to hetrosexual couples as well. That's all well and good but why exactly do you want to make a 'Marriage-lite', 'Marriage-Classic', and 'Marriage-extra strong'? I'm not saying that its a bad idea but I don't know how its related to the gay marriage debate. Whether or not you accept gay marriage it seems like whether there should be different marriage 'flavors' is a different issue.

32

Rob, here are a few of my reasons. I'll try not to be so "shy" in the future. By the way, do you also have a belief system based upon a higher power that gives you reasons why you should approve homosexual marriage? I also notice that for all the fuss made about Joe's studies, no one has come up with opposing studies.

Reasons for opposing gay marriage
•It would further bankrupt the social security system. We have a system right now that is falling apart. With spousal benefits it would fail faster.
•It provides the grounds for being unable to teach your child your moral values. In a school in MA a kindergarten (I think) teacher was using material which contained homosexual parents. When a parent objected to not being notified, the teacher responded with “since it’s legal in this state, I don’t have to tell you when we’re discussing it.”
•I do believe in the slippery slope on the issue of religious freedom. As a society moves this direction, we see state-sanctioned punishments given to those who hold contrary moral views. In Sweeden, a pastor faced trial for hate speech because he read Biblical passages (in his church) condemning homosexual behavior. In Canada, persons have been fined because they would not reproduce lesbian videos.
•Yes, I do believe it is better for children to grow up in a family with both a father and a mother.
•Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems – not just sexually transmitted diseases but other health issues as well. I do not think it is logical to provide additional government sanctions for behavior that further strains our health care system.

I've tried to stay out of the moral reasons - not because I feel that their invalid, but because they seem to make some folks on this list slightly deranged.

It will be interesting to see if you counter any of these argruments or if you just attack. Looking forward to the exchange anyway.
Enjoy

33

John

It would further bankrupt the social security system.

The issue is one of religious freedom- for people who don't subscribe to your religion. The Social Security system is easily fixed. Just not by people bent on destroying it.

It provides the grounds for being unable to teach your child your moral values.

You know what? You can teach your child your "moral values," but your child is not a robot, and won't necessarily subscribe to your "moral values" if there's no good reason to do so. "Miscegenation" used to be opposed because it "threatened moral values." All I see here are codewords for "I want to teach my kids something people find repugnant with impunity." And that's quite frankly repugnant in and of itself; one should teach one's child to make their own decisions, not to parrot somebody else's decisions.

I do believe in the slippery slope on the issue of religious freedom. As a society moves this direction, we see state-sanctioned punishments given to those who hold contrary moral views.

Which is exactly what the religious right wants to do re: abortion, end of life decisions, welfare for religious organizations, and discrimination against non-Christians. And that's why people of good will- whatever the religion or lack thereof- oppose the religious right's agenda.

Yes, I do believe it is better for children to grow up in a family with both a father and a mother.

Then don't get divorced. But if you do, it's better for the kids to have 2 mommys than one.

Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems – not just sexually transmitted diseases but other health issues as well.

Ah, yes, the the "Eternal Jew" argument again.

34

In reply to John's "reasons" against gay marriage:

Reason #1: "It would further bankrupt the social security system."

You get points for creativity here -- I've never heard "Social Security bankruptcy" being cited as a reason to prevent gay marriage.

Do you really think that gay marriage would be a major contributing factor in the Social Security financial crisis? If yes, I got a bridge to sell you -- you financial whiz kid you.

Why not complain that gay people getting married will drive up the already high price of diamond engagement rings? It'll obstruct straight young couples' ability to get married because the diamond rings will be increasingly unaffordable.

Reason #2: "It provides the grounds for being unable to teach your child your moral values."

The world is full of things that violate various people's moral values. We gonna outlaw all of it?

How does it make sense to go around telling people they can't get married, because it might confuse somebody else's children?

If this was a legitimate issue, we'd still have laws in the US against interracial marriage -- popular societal opinion was definitely against interracial marriage at the time it became legally permitted.

Basic civil liberties and equality under the law are a "minority rights" issue, not a "majority vote" issue. It's not about whether the majority opinion is in favor of it. If it's a basic right guaranteed to all the other citizens -- you have to justify *why* society should deny it to a specific category of people.

In this day and age, no one should be able to tell adult human beings that they cannot get married under the laws of their country because they are the wrong race/sex/health condition/financial status/etc.

(Churches of course should be permitted to set whatever requirements they like on religious marriage. But civil marriage is a state issue -- tax breaks, legal standing, etc.)

Reason #3: "I do believe in the slippery slope on the issue of religious freedom. As a society moves this direction, we see state-sanctioned punishments given to those who hold contrary moral views."

So we're going to continue to restrict one group of people's equal civil rights (gay people getting married), because maybe at some point in the future, somebody *else's* civil rights *might* be threatened.

How about we focus on fixing civil rights violations as they occur in reality. Rather than continuing to penalize one group of people now, because of what might happen to somebody in the future.

Reason #4: "Yes, I do believe it is better for children to grow up in a family with both a father and a mother."

So do a lot of people. But that doesn't mean that it should be the law of the land.

We all believe a lot of different things. You need a better justification for enshrining something in national law other than just saying "I believe it."

For example, there are still people in the US who think that black people are intellectually and morally inferior -- but that belief is not expressed in (current) law (ie a law forbidding blacks from voting, etc.).

Reason #5: "Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems – not just sexually transmitted diseases but other health issues as well. I do not think it is logical to provide additional government sanctions for behavior that further strains our health care system."

First off, that statement is incorrect.

One might more accurately say that "highly promiscuous sexual activity (by anyone) may result in numerous health problems." But that's a different statement than the one you made.

And even if your statement WERE true: Then let's forbid smokers from marrying. Or people with diabetes or other chronic health conditions.

If you're gonna start targeting groups for the financial expense they cause to society -- there are a lot of groups higher-up on that list than gay people are.

For the record: I'm not gay. I'm straight and married.

Gay marriage was never a top priority of mine. But now that the issue's on the table at the national level, I think it's a bad idea for the government to single out a category of people and make different rules for them, without giving damn good reasons for it. And I haven't heard any good reasons yet for refusing to let gay people get married to each other.

Reasons behind laws should have more substance than saying "I personally don't like those kinds of people" or "My religion says those kinds of people are bad."

35

Let me invite you to do a little supposing, John. Suppose I could demonstrate to you that gay marriage would not:

1. further bankrupt Social Security,
2. take away parents' right to teach their children whatever they want,
3. result in anti-gay marriage preachers going to jail,
4. be any worse for children than growing up with two opposite sex parents, or
5. cause an increase in health problems,

would you then support gay marriage?

I'm not asking you to affirm any of these points. I'm just asking you to suppose that I were able to remove these objections. Would then be an avid supporter of gay marriage?

36

JOE:

Still content free. The equality argument goes flatly unrefuted--again--and it's the only imporant point to be made. Let's try one more time, please pay attention.

I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE SEX, GAY OR LESBIAN OR STRAIGHT MEN OR STRAIGHT WOMEN HAVE, WHEN I AM CONCERNED THAT THE RESTRICTIONS (OR LACK THEREOF) MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL THESE GROUPS.

You try to generate the argument that gays need to be "held to a standard". What the hell are you talking about?? Is there some standard morality heterosexuals are held to in order to be "deserving" of marriage???? Uh, the answer to that question, in case you're struggling, is no!

The point, suppose I'm gay (I am, by the way) and I do not need to be "married" (I do not, by the way). It's all fine. But, the fact is, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL ME I CANNOT! And You CERTAINLY should not tell me I need to jump through some absurd set of hoops, WHICH STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO NOT, in order to be treated as a civilly united couple if I so choose.

The assertion that I have the right to marry a woman if i so choose is so preposterous that I will not comment. In your words: it demonstrates how off base you are on this point.

And as for my argument that people don't marry merely for fidelity, you call me incredibly "off-base" and then essentially restate my point exactly as I made it myself. I said, people do not marry only for fidelity. I also stated people (gay and straight) probably do hope for fidelity, but marry for many many reasons--another point all posters concur on.

So, we return to the beginning. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING EVERYBODY AGREES ON: INEQUALITY IS A PROBLEM. You're muddling the debate disastrously by burrying the point of mutual agreement. I repeat (and you haven't refuted), we don't all agree about what to do about it, but everybody, from left to right and everywhere in between is quite uncomfortable in this country when classes or people are treated in a systematically different way by the implements of government.

Grow up Joe,

CT

37

Sometimes hatred reveals itself in strange ways. Many studies show that over half of all straight married men commit adultery.

Using Joe's rationale, straight men should be denied access to marriage because of their compulsive behavior. Since he doesn't argue that, he's left with believing that gays should be treated differently because they're gay.

38

"I'll try not to be so "shy" in the future. By the way, do you also have a belief system based upon a higher power that gives you reasons why you should approve homosexual marriage?"

Thank you for sharing your reasons, John. I do not have a belief system like that you describe, and I do not "approve" homosexuality or homosexual marraige. With regard to homosexuality, I acknowledge its existence; it appears in a fairly stable percentage of the population, and I assume that it is natural and has a genetic basis. The sex lives of homosexuals are irrelevant to me. As for gay marriage, I can't see any reason to deny gay couples the benefits of marriage. Let's just call them civil unions if language is the impediment.

I will respond to your reasons after school, as I must get to work at the moment. I promise to be nice. ;-)

39

Joe -

A remarkable argument. It reminds me of the sort of thing fundamentalists used to write in the 1950s about blacks. Back then the reasoning was, why should we enforce laws allowing blacks to vote? They're not capable of using the franchise correctly, they'd only vote for the wrong people.

The same arguments came up again in the 1980's -- this time in support of the apartheid government in South Africa. The black majority, fundamentalists said repeatedly, were not capable of governing themselves.

Now the same arguments are being made about gay marriage -- that gays can't be trusted to use the institution of marriage for anything but the most debased purposes.

But gays are demanding marriage as their right, not requesting it as your gift.

40

I love the argument that's being presented here. If homosexuals want to get marriend, then let's hold them to a higher standard than we hold heterosexual marriages.

I think that the better argument would be that, if heterosexuals really feel that marriage is a sacred institution, then they should be the ones entering into covenant marriages. The fact that so few people are taking that option where it's available shows just how seriously marriage is regarded in this country.

Also, there are plenty of married heterosexuals out there who have open marriages. The only difference is that their spouses usually aren't aware of it.

41

It would further bankrupt the social security system. We have a system right now that is falling apart. With spousal benefits it would fail faster.

Social Security benefits only kick in after you have been married ten years or more. Also marriage only really increases Social Security payouts in the case where a person who makes little or no income is married to a high-income earner. In other words your old-fashioned breadwinner and homemaker model. Most gay couples, though, are just like regular couples in that they are both earners. Both will collect Social Security whether or not they are married so having them not marry will do nothing to save Social Security any material amount of money.

It provides the grounds for being unable to teach your child your moral values. In a school in MA a kindergarten (I think) teacher was using material, which contained homosexual parents. When a parent objected to not being notified, the teacher responded with “since it’s legal in this state, I don’t have to tell you when we’re discussing it.”’

Hmmmm, so you know Catholics do not believe in divorce. Even though the law says someone like Donald Trump is divorced and remarried to another woman Catholic doctrine says he really isn’t. Yet Catholics are able to teach these beliefs despite the fact that they are not the law.

I do believe in the slippery slope on the issue of religious freedom. As a society moves this direction, we see state-sanctioned punishments given to those who hold contrary moral views. In Sweeden, a pastor faced trial for hate speech because he read Biblical passages (in his church) condemning homosexual behavior. In Canada, persons have been fined because they would not reproduce lesbian videos.

This is not a gay marriage issue but one of free speech. If you have speech codes you are going to have people getting in trouble for speaking. If you respect free speech you won’t. For the record you may want to reconsider using this tired example. The Swedish pastor was acquitted of breaking the law because the Human Rights Court recognized he was simply using his freedom of speech and religion.

Yes, I do believe it is better for children to grow up in a family with both a father and a mother.’

OK, so what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems – not just sexually transmitted diseases but other health issues as well. I do not think it is logical to provide additional government sanctions for behavior that further strains our health care system.

If anything gay marriage would either keep things the way they are or would decrease dangerous behavior. Gay bashers can’t have it both ways. If their argument is that gays are now as promiscuous and dangerous as any human being could be then they will have a difficult time arguing that any policy change could do anything but decrease it. Why would supporting the current promiscuity friendly status quo be better than supporting a less promiscuous friendly institution?

42

Anyway what exactly is Joe proposing here? That gay marriage be 'covenant marriages' while hetrosexual marriages could be either? Or is he proposing that as a trade conservatives would tolerate gay marriage but liberals would replace marriage today (with easy divorce) with covenant marriage for everyone?

43

Joe, thank you for providing the best yawn 'n stretch of boredom I've enjoyed in some time. My question is, why do heterosexual evangelicals spend so much time fixated on what GLBT people do in private? It's none of your business. It's only their business.

44

indeed, a very very interesting post would be one exploring why homosexuality is such a major issue with evangelicals. Why are homosexuals the topic of so much evangelical philosophy, writing, thinking and so on when they are a rather small portion of the population and even a small portion of the population of sinners.

Notice how the stat tht 50% of married men cheat at least once is dropped here with hardly a hum? Considering that a cheating married man needs someone to cheat with to cheat means a huge portion of women are implicated too. Yet this issue seems to be considered a normal everyday issue while homosexuality is treated with an air of hysteria.

I think it may be too much to hope for that an evangelical would be able to confront that question honestly. Instead they would probably reply that homosexuals are forcing the issue on them but this isn't really true. An honest look at the issue would have to confront the fact that evangelicals often seek it out at least as often as it seeks them out.

45

Statistics cited from studies in the 1970's and 1980's are irrelevant to the issues today. Very few gay men have as much unprotected sex with strangers as occurred then.

Many men are having sex with near strangers that they meet over the internet, as documented by some of the later studies.

Visit religious institutions now long established in the Gay community like CBST, the gay synagogue in Manhattan, and MCC -- Metropolitan Community Church -- Dignity, and Integrity and you'll find long committed gay couples that have not cheated on each other.

46

John: As promised, my responses to your objections. The delay was necessitated by the fact that I can only post at work now, and I try to restrict my comments to before and after school and between classes so as to give the taxpayers their money's worth. My home computer, sadly, is not enjoying good health. I think it went hunting with Dick Cheney or driving with Ted Kennedy.

"It would further bankrupt the social security system. We have a system right now that is falling apart. With spousal benefits it would fail faster."

I don't think the fragility of our social security system justifies discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If discrimination MUST be on the table, let's discriminate in a way that makes sense. Social security provides an economic benefit, so let's exclude those who don't NEED it. (I can hear the cries of "class warfare" already. Remember, discrimnating on ANY basis is not my idea.)

"It provides the grounds for being unable to teach your child your moral values."

Not really. It merely fails to discriminate based on your morality. You are still free to teach your morality to your children, as am I. Sometimes the government doesn't echo my moral teachings, either.

"I do believe in the slippery slope on the issue of religious freedom."

So do I, John, but I think it's slipperier on the other side. ;-) Hopefully we are both wrong about the sides of that slope, because the top seems kind of pointy.

"Yes, I do believe it is better for children to grow up in a family with both a father and a mother."

So do I. But I don't presume to make the decision for others. I am appalled by the number of single-parent households, but I would not try to abrogate the rights of those parents.

"Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems – not just sexually transmitted diseases but other health issues as well."

I'm aware of the STD problems, but I'm drawing a blank on the others. At any rate, I don't think any recognition of gay unions will increase homosexual activity or further aggravate the health problems associated with it.

"I've tried to stay out of the moral reasons - not because I feel that their invalid, but because they seem to make some folks on this list slightly deranged."

I don't blame you there, John; morality can be quite a nettlesome concept. I see your comments have drawn much attention as it is. I hope you don't hold it against me that I invited you to poke the hornet's nest, as it were.

47

I don't think the fragility of our social security system justifies discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If discrimination MUST be on the table, let's discriminate in a way that makes sense. Social security provides an economic benefit, so let's exclude those who don't NEED it. (I can hear the cries of "class warfare" already. Remember, discrimnating on ANY basis is not my idea.)

Also if the benefit an individual is entitled to for paying Social Security taxes is to cover a spouse then that should be the benefit for everyone. If that's too expensive then the benefit should be scaled back.

This objection also exists to people who cry about the costs for employer provided health insurance. If I work 40 hours and my pay is the ability to cover myself and another person with insurance then that's my pay. Objecting that letting me cover a same-sex spouse leaves less money for you forgets the fact that the money you are planning to spend isn't yours but mine! If the employer isn't getting enough out of employees to cover spouses then the employer has to cut back on benefits or employees or whatnot. How would you feel if you were 19 years old, just got married and had a bunch of people telling you that you shouldn't have done that because the company purchased its health insurance using the assumption that most people don't marry until their late 20's nowadays?

48

the studies regarding gay male relationships are obviously flawed as evidence of how gay men would structure relationships in a society that was prepared to legally, economically, psychologically, and spiritually sanction them. it is akin to, say, looking at the mating habits of some ancient culture where marriage was not an established institution and using that to prove that modern (christian) marriage will never work. and besides, you claim to be a christian, no? well, then, don't you suppose there is a reason why christians choose to have their marital vows made in the church, with families and friends looking on, with petitions made for god's grace to strengthen the couple's relationship, with mention made of how christian marriage reflects the relationship of christ and his bride the church?

you suppose any of this has any real effect on marriage? or are you really (as i suspect) just a closeted materialist who doesn't really think prayer has power, or that marriage has an sacramental value, or that God really is a God for whom nothing shall be impossible (even if it is for men alone).

just curious....

49

Joe wrote "I would, however, support desexualized civil unions and think that my ex and her partner should have legal protections for their relationship."

Really? I had no idea! And I read your blog regularly.

In fact, I would argue that it is rare to hear anyone on the Christian right voice this (or any) sort of support for gay rights. And I think you should be more vocal about this if you really want to "save marriage".

First a few admissions: I live in Massachusetts, and hence know many gay people. I tend to agree with your statistics. And I even suspect that few gays actually want to get married, or ever will, because of their tendency to "shop" different relationships so regularly.

However, I observe that one reason why the gays fight for marriage so darned hard here, is that most of them seriously and honestly feel that the Christian right wants to criminalize homosexuality.

One reason for this fear, is that you almost never hear the Christian right offer any serious support for legal protections or recognition for homosexuals or their relationships. In our state legislature, the Christian right only offered civil unions *after* gay marriage was already legalized. Prior to that they successfully fought and defeated not just civil unions, but various forms of domestic partership benefits, and other legal protections against discrimination.

So if Christians want to "save marriage", they could start by re-assuring gays that they are welcome in the workplace, the housing markets, schools, churches. And that they can have secure relationships with various rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, power of attorney).

Because right now, I know a lot of homosexuals who truly believe that the Right just wants to round them up into concentration camps. Hence they feel they are fighting for their lives.

Just an observation from the most liberal state in the union....Lord only knows how the gays feel in the more conservative states.

50

JPrime Really? I had no idea! And I read your blog regularly.

Hmm, well, I’ve written about it twice, the last time about a month and a half ago: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001830.html.

In fact, I would argue that it is rare to hear anyone on the Christian right voice this (or any) sort of support for gay rights. And I think you should be more vocal about this if you really want to "save marriage".

My position is no different than James Dobson’s. He has been quite vocal about it too. But I suspect that this hasn’t received as much attention because it doesn’t fit into the media’s perception of how the “Christian Right” thinks.

One reason for this fear, is that you almost never hear the Christian right offer any serious support for legal protections or recognition for homosexuals or their relationships.

True, but that is because we don’t see homosexuality as a protected category but as a behavior that certain people engage in.

So if Christians want to "save marriage", they could start by re-assuring gays that they are welcome in the workplace, the housing markets, schools, churches.

Whoa, hold on there. Most Christians still believe homosexuality is a sin. While all sinners should be welcome in church, that doesn’t mean that the behavior is condoned. I would be shocked to find that churches turn away people who are attempting to stop engaging in homosexual behaviors.

Because right now, I know a lot of homosexuals who truly believe that the Right just wants to round them up into concentration camps. Hence they feel they are fighting for their lives. Just an observation from the most liberal state in the union....Lord only knows how the gays feel in the more conservative states.

I think there is a reason you hear it more often in a “liberal state.” If there are fewer Christians around then it becomes much easier to vilify them since no one knows “people like that.” The same is true for conservative areas where open homosexuality is frowned upon. Since people don’t claim to know “people like that” they can make ridiculous and scurrilous charges against them.

The problem is that no one on either end of the spectrum wants to admit that there is a middle way between the two extremes. Conservative Christians do not want to round up gays and send them to concentration camps but they also don’t want to be forced to condone behavior that they believe is harmful and immoral.

51

Joe wrote: "Conservative Christians do not want to round up gays and send them to concentration camps but they also don’t want to be forced to condone behavior that they believe is harmful and immoral."

Perhaps the problem here is that so many conservative Christians think that if the government recognizes gay marriage that somehow means that Christians condone homosexuality. Yet, you seem to be okay with letting people get divorced for "unscriptural reasons." We all can accept that the Catholic church doesn't recognize divorce but the state does.

The state allows and recognizes all sorts of behavior that Christians consider sinful. Why must homosexuality be the one "sin" that you just can't let the state allow? Can't you have a little more of the libertarian spirit here?

52

Joe while I don't believe you want to round up gays or anything like that it certainly isn't some type of liberal myth that many right wing Christians come pretty close to that sentiment...I'm not talking about Saturday Night Lives sketches of Christians but people who would be considered part of the 'mainstream' evangelical political community.

See http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html which Mumon