Not partnerships as we know it

Growing up as I have in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve known for more than thirty years that even the most committed gay relationships are seldom monogamous relationships.  My “common knowledge” has now been confirmed by a study.

The fact that gay partnerships do not involve even a bow to “forsaking all others” may be one of the reasons why conservatives are suspicious of legalizing gay marriage — it’s simply not marriage that confirms to heterosexual expectations.  (And yes, I’m well aware that adultery is common in heterosexual marriages but, regardless of the facts on the ground, the theory is supposed to be monogamy.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    It makes sense. If they had wanted to raise children, they would have done it. Those that wish to do so are a scant minority in the gay community, much as the gay community is a scant minority in the hetero community.
     
    All minorities don’t have the same interests. It only looks that way because they look so small it’s easy to paste over a One Big Government solution check over it all.

  • Charles Martel

    Reading the Chronicle‘s coverage of the study was a “ho-hum” moment for me. I don’t know anybody who honestly thinks the majority of self-professed gay men even care to contemplate monogamy, let alone practice it. Their sexuality thrives on two highly attractive incentives: 1.) There’s absolutely no possibility of fertilizing a lower intestine and 2.) there’s none of the emotional complexities or limits on male libido that attraction to/sexual interaction with women create.

    Thus the sexual free-for-all that the rest of us continue paying for in the form of HIV, AIDS, virulent STDs, perpetual drama-queenery, and an obnoxious media presence that has moved from slightly amusing novelty act to tired, annoying old farce.

    That’s why I’ve always guffawed when earnest liberal friends tell me how much being able to marry one’s own image means to gays.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    1.) There’s absolutely no possibility of fertilizing a lower intestine
     
    Don’t try it out with Gore, though. You never know what lurks in the darkness of the Left, Martel.
     
    And you don’t want to find out.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Whether one be gay, straight, bi, or something else entirely, I will recommend the same.
     
    Stay away from Gore. You don’t want any of that.

  • Gringo

    For those who advocate gay marriage and the like, my reply is that as gays want government out of the bedroom, they should be consistent. Put another way: given previous government interference in the bedroom, why should they think any good would come out of government approved gay marriages? All it would do would make divorce lawyers rich.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    All it would do would make divorce lawyers rich.
     
    Which is why the Left is for it. They got multiple victim groups they got to pay off. That’s how their machine politics works. No money, means no lubrication. No lubrication, means unhappy Leftists.
     
     

  • Mike Devx

    For a period of a few years, about 1992-1994, I spent a lot of time within “the gay sub-culture”.  I’d finally decided, yes, I was gay, and there was no getting around it, so I might as well find out what it was about.  I won’t say I immersed myself in it; I just hung around and observed everything I could and, yes, participated at times.
     
    I haven’t seen very much since that period.  Steadily less involvement as I slowly became conservative.  In the last decade or so, I haven’t even paid attention to anything going on within “the subculture” except what I read.
     
    It’s a ridiculously far-left subculture.  For them, the battles over marriage and the military are about notches in the civil rights belt.  It is NOT about anything else.  Yes, there are gay men who want to adopt and raise children… but not very many such gay men, for all their honest wishes to do.  And yes, there are gay men who want to honorably serve in the military, as patriotic as anyone else… but not very many.  Not compared to the numbers engaged in those two battles, SOLELY over civil rights concerns.
     
    They are utterly narcissistic and self-absorbed.  They have zero respect for monogamy and the traditional concept of marriage as a loving, committed partnership.  They have zero respect for the military and the concept of patriotism and love of country.
     
    Don’t be fooled.  It is, for the vast majority of them, solely concerned with marking two notches on their belts,and then simply moving on to the next series of battles.  They are professional activists who know nothing else, and they will NEVER stop, no matter what you give them.  Give them today marriage and open service in the military, and tomorrow they will be howling just as loudly over some other two agenda items.  That’s why I’m opposed to homosexual marriage, because it’s not about being able to join an institution that they revere; they do NOT revere it.
     
    It’s about their overall agenda.  It’s not about marriage.  It’s not about the military.  I’m sure of that, based on what I’ve observed and read.  I know most of you think it’s “a homosexual thing”, but it’s really a far-left subculture homosexual thing.  The rest of us are just living our lives and have no connection to all their sturm und drang, all their posturing, all their drama.  I don’t speak for them and they don’t speak for me.
     

  • Pingback: Bookworm: adultery rate is a valid reason to deny gays equality but straight adultery is fine because they vowed to ‘forsake all others’ — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I know most of you think it’s “a homosexual thing”, but it’s really a far-left subculture homosexual thing.

    I think by now, most conservatives here at least already understand the difference between a member of a minority and the ruling masters of a minority. Not the same thing in the end.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar said,
    > I think by now, most conservatives here at least already understand the difference between a member of a minority and the ruling masters of a minority. Not the same thing in the end.

    I  think you’re right, Ymar, but I’d like to ask an off-the-main-topic question concerning “the ruling masters of a minority”.  Do you think Col. Allen West views Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm Shabazz, Jesse Jackson, or Ben Jealous as his ruling masters?  They and their ilk get to set the tone of the national conversation, but they hardly even represent him let alone get to be his ruling master, and I’m sure he would disagree with anyone who claims they do just because of the color of his skin.

    I don’t consider myself to be in any group that the gay subculture leadership gets to lead just as Col. West would not consider himself a part of any group led by those guys.  To do so is to play the same identity politics game that the Democrats love to play.   I’m white, older-middle-aged, balding, gay, conservative, and love to read books.  The first four don’t define me and I consider all of them basically irrelevant to how I live my life; the last two do define me concerning what’s important to me in my life.

    By the way… take a look at #8, Cynthia Yockey’s article.  She considers herself a “new conservative”, but the post she wrote in response to Book shows exactly what I was describing above in #7.   That’s hardly a conservative post!  She spends a huge amount of time addressing the “civil rights concerns” of the marriage argument, and she spends not one moment extolling the virtues of marriage and monogamy, and how important the expectation of fidelity is.  The closest she gets is this amorphous concept of “The Dream” that young straight people have growing up concerning marriage.   Especially when she says, “there is NO SUCH THING as a good reason to deny lesbians and gays equality” in marriage… well, she’s wrong, and she’s far, far off of any conservative in attempting to make such a flat-out declaration.  But I’m sure she can’t see any of the reasons why she’s wrong:
    1. Government recognition of a marriage can be considered a privilege, not a right
    2. Marriage is a foundational cornerstone of any society and it’s reasonable to suggest that any discussion of it focus on its importance to a civilization, not its standing as some “right”.  (In fact, Cynthia can get married in any religion she wishes that allows her to be married religiously… and the government will do nothing to her.  In focusing on the legal recognition of marriage as a right, she’s playing Obama’s “positive rights” game – another way in which her article is hardly conservative in nature.)
    3. And so on.  By rejecting the idea that any conservative may have solid acceptable reasons for opposing her viewpoint, she’s playing a usual liberal game.  The marriage question can certainly be debated, but to claim as a starting point that a conservative can have “no such thing as a good reason to deny…” is the usual leftist way to declare any debate over before even getting started.

    Since Ms. Yockey describes herself as a *newly* conservative lesbian on her blog, perhaps it’s best to just say she has a ways to go.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    <B>Do you think Col. Allen West views Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm Shabazz, Jesse Jackson, or Ben Jealous as his ruling masters?</b>
     
    I think it is the case of vice a versa. West doesn’t think so, but his opponents do.
     
    I read Yockley’s article and I have much to say in disagreement to it.
     
    My view is that gays should have equal treatment under the law, for due process and other such things. If people’s problems are solved, then the Left’s grasp on people will weaken and disappear.
     
    So even though the Left controls gay counter culture, it’s not a good thing to leave them in control. In order to do that, we have to distinguish between ordinary people, such as gays, who want things that mutually benefit of all us and the ruling elite who only want things that benefit themselves. We separate the two, kill off the later and promote the former. Normal counter-insurgency doctrine, well done in places such as Iraq by Petraeus.

  • expat

    Mike,
    The things you have said match up with the intuitive take I’ve had on gay rights activists. I never see any indication that they  consider what it’s like to have sex result in another human being for which you are responsible. Instead they pull out the line about older couples. OK, I’m older, married, and childless, but for much of my life my choices about many things were affected by the possibility of being a parent. I have thought about how my actions affect children and tried to avoid behavior that would make it more difficult for parents to raise them. I have known gays who were OK with keeping their sexual practices private, but they sure aren’t the ones we see in the media. Like you, I’ve come to the conclusion that the activists are shallow and narcissistic.

  • jj

    Good for you, Charles:  a bullet squarely to the center of the target.  NO political correctness, no namby-pamby… Good for you.