Why stop at the word marriage? Other words can be redefined as well. Take "monogamy"and "fidelity." They call them "San Francisco relationships," as the SF Chronicle is proudly reporting on the release of a new study of over 500 couples. The study, by Colleen Hoff, shows that the majority of gay couples are not monogamous and that "planned infidelity" was good for their relationships -- including marital ones, according to the Chronicle.
The Chronicle reports on a second study by an Oakland gay couple Lanz Lowen and Blake Spears who interviewed 86 couples with at least eight years together in open relationships:
Three out of 4 people described non-monogamy as a positive thing, and said it gave them a sexual outlet without having to lie. Participants reported it helped relationships survive by providing honest options and minimizing deceit, tension and resentment. Some "played" independently, others as a threesome, and about 80 percent agreed to tell all or some details of their encounters, the rest preferring a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Sexual fidelity, these "San Francisco" relationships assert is not necessary in marriage. "At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state.
"It's a redefinition of marriage," Spears said.
Yes it is.
27 Comments
Absolutely appalling of NOM to post this. As if straight people have no infidelity problems in their relationships. This is all thanks to the gays. You guys are full of it.
Redefining marriage, fidelity, monogamy.... once you open the doors, you never know what will walk in. If it's all just about "love"and your own personal gratification, well you can have "love" with any number of people, and why stop there? Marriage is about much more than just "love".
Perhaps you would like to post some statistics about how often straight married couples cheat.
"It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat)."
At least gay couples are honest about it.
If you are worried about monogamy, then bring back laws against it for gay AND straight marriages. See how many people will vote for that...
"If you are worried about monogamy, then bring back laws against it for gay AND straight marriages. See how many people will vote for that..."
I find it interesting Shaun that you defend infidelity.
TC: "marriage is about much more"
Broad statement, TC. What is "much more"? Commitment?
Then I hope youre supporting the California Ban on Divorce that will hopefully be put on the ballot.
I do not support the "California Ban on Divorce". It's not a serious law for one, it's tongue and cheek and not well thought out, nor was it intended to be more than just a cheap slap at marriage supporters as you well know. I would support a law that curbs no fault divorce and makes divorce less of an easy out for troubled marriages, for the obvious reasons. Free market principles predicted that if society made divorce easier to obtain, that more people would seek divorce rather than work through their problems. Unfortunately children, families and societal stability have borne the brunt of the consequences for easy divorce. I support the six month cool off period that New York has implemented as well as other common sense limits on "no fault" divorce.
"Three out of 4 people described non-monogamy as a positive thing, and said it gave them a sexual outlet without having to lie. Participants reported it helped relationships survive... "
Infidelity may help gay relationships last longer but it is destrctive to the idea of marriage.
I found it funny that many of the commenters at sfgate.com thought the point of this study was common knowlege. Maybe in San Franciso, but just down the road in Silicon Valley, most folks think Partnered/Married gay couples are as sexually exclussive as Married Hetero couples. Support for Same Sex Marriage will evaporate, if its associated wtih Open Marriage (which really isn't a marriage at all).
You know, us gays never thought that we should impose our ideals of marriage on you. No one asked you before you got married if you were going to be monogamous. That's your marriage, your life, and it would be extremely presumptuous to take away your marriage license because you didn't run your life the way we wanted you to.
What then is marriage to you? It's not about children, it's not about family, it's not even about commitment....or love... what makes marriage more than just your shack up flavor of the day?
"No one asked you before you got married if you were going to be monogamous."
What about the priest or the justice of the peace? Do they not ask: "Do you solemnly swear to forsake all others..." among other things? How would you reply?
Obviously, Conservative, those words are merely ceremonial, given the shockingly high rates of adultery among straight people.
"What about the priest or the justice of the peace? Do they not ask: "Do you solemnly swear to forsake all others..." among other things? How would you reply?
Actually, I don't think a vow of forsaking all others is a requirement for a civil marriage. Which is what proponents of same sex marriage are asking for.
If you want to bring up the wedding vows that include "forsaking all others" then you should be prepared to stand firmly against divorce for any reason, It would be hypocritical to do otherwise. I don't see NOM doing this and I wonder why. One would think the National Organization FOR Marriage, would be speaking out AGAINST DIVORCE at every opportunity. Could it be if they did so ...that it might alienate those who contribute to their coffers? I wonder how many who've support NOM have been divorced or have a family member who's divorced? Hypocrites...one an all!
Infidelity, and being non-monogamous are not things that are found exclusively in gay relationships. I think the near 50% divorce rate of straight marriages speaks quite clearly to that point. But...for some reason...NOM chooses to ignore those facts. Curious isn't it?
"Actually, I don't think a vow of forsaking all others is a requirement for a civil marriage. Which is what proponents of same sex marriage are asking for."
Thanks Taylor, for illustrating the point of the post perfectly.
You're welcome TC Matthews. Isn't it great, that we live in a country, where my marriage vows don't have to be the same as yours?
That we can choose between a religious ceremony, a civil ceremony...or have both if we choose.
The definition of adultery:
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.
Nothing about whether the ceremony is religious or civil as they are both lawful.
So, you'd rather have a family like mine, where my mom slept with the man who rented a room from us, had a child with that man that she then put my father's name on her birth certificate, while my father had affairs with women AND men, and everyone thought it was all just fine and dandy, huh?
One of the wisest people I know made a statement once that has stuck with me. "I can't be everything to him and that shouldn't be my goal. My goal is to be there for him, to love him, no matter what. I'm the one he turns to all the tim. I'd rather have a happy him forever than a him that cheats on me and eventually destroys us."
You're taking it out of context, Taylor. The vows don't say "'till death do us part, no matter what." When a man and a woman get married, the vows spoken are:
"...to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, to forsake all others, till death us do part."
If any of these vows are broken, then that's grounds for divorce.
So many comments pointing out all of the horrible ways men and women can behave... all of the cheating, dishonesty and betrayal that can occur in a marriage. All are, as TC stated, making the point.
We see these behaviors as wrong for a reason. They are in conflict with our understanding of marriage..
Anna,
Who is 'we"? And who are you to determine what behaviors are acceptable in a consensual relationship? How are you victimized by a couple who engages in a consensual intimate relationship with a third person or have chosen to be in an open relationship?
Marriage is a highly personal venture. No two marriages are identical. The "Harriet and Ozzie nuclear family" does not and never has existed, nor should it. A marriage is defined by the individuals entering into it.
The "Conservative" movement seeks to decrease government intrusion in private lives, yet you seek to control the private lives of others who don't agree with your particular brand of mores. By definition, that is hypocrisy.
NYConservative....Not everyone speaks those vows. They are part of a religious rite and have nothing to do with legal civil marriage. In and of themselves, the ritual vows are NOT grounds for civil (legal) divorce. Irreconcilable differences, however, are.
Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage are COMPLETELY separate entities. The government ONLY recognizes Civil Marriage and does not (and cannot) require the religious ritual. Let's not forget that, under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, 'Freedom OF Religion' also means 'Freedom FROM Religion'.
There is a societal interest, and thus preference, for the marriage idea of sexual monogamy within the union of husband and wife. Hence the provisions for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and the legal presumption of paternity -- all of which are opposite-sexed criteria for the essentials the type of relationship that merits special status.
There is no such societal interest, or preference, for whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually. Hence, there is no same-sexed criteria that serve as the basis for sexual consummation etc within the SSM idea much less within the laws where SSM has been imposed.
So it is not surprising that the SSM idea, as culturally understood among the openly homosexual population in the survey, transforms the notion of sexual monogamy into the notion of non-non-monogamy as the superior form of a homosexualized relationship.
The imposed SSM-merger would take the sex out of the marriage idea both in the law, social policy, and the culture. And, as per the survey results, I do mean that it takes the sex out of the arrangement -- that's the meaning of sexual nonmonogamy.
Whether a one-sexed arrangement is monogamous is of very little societal significance, as per the comments here by SSMers and as per the survey results -- not even of societal significance within the homosexual population. Quite the contrary, apparently.
But for the opposite-sexed scenario -- within or outside of marriage -- the societal costs are very significant and have been for milennia. That is due to the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community. That is why societal shows preference for the marriage idea.
Ambivalence is perhaps the best that can be hoped for when it comes to the SSM idea. But SSMers demand approval not mere ambivalence -- unless they switch and decide to demand that the SSM idea apply to all of society -- including all unions of husband and wife, as per the comments of SSMers.
It is not so much that the SSM campaign want society to treat the all-male or the all-female scenarios exactly the same as the husband-wife scenarios -- or even nonmarital opposite-sexed sexualized scenarios. Nope. Quite the other way around. The SSM campaign promotes the anti-social message that ALL husband-wife unions be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives; and that all sexualized scenarios be treated as if they were as societally insignificant as the one-sexed sexualized scenarios.
That is to say, to treat them as nonsexual or asexual, but with a hypocritical nudge-wink-wink that the sex is the all that defines the SSM idea. Such contradictions are warmly embraced, again as per the survey results and the pro-SSM comments here.
""It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage"
It's pretty clear from the article that:
- SSM lead to social atomization (very very few relationships can survive systematic infidelity ==> kids will be grown with no security, no certainties,
no trust in nothing);
- SSM eventyally lead to risky sexual behaviors.
Real marriage is definitely different.
AggieCowboy, I find it odd how you can make a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage and yet make no distinction between freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.
Freedom of religion means that people are entitled to their religious beliefs. Freedom FROM religion means that religion is ostrasized and oppressed, even outlawed in society by the government, much in the same way it was in communist nations like the Soviet Union and China.
And whether the marriage is concidered civil or not, two people who are married are expected to be committed and faithful to one another. But homosexuals rarely are. That's why there are so few gay marriages in the places where it is allowed.
I remember the days when marriage was defined as the sacred union between a man and a woman. You know, a couple that promised themsevles to each other and only each other. Now apparently people seem to think that infidelty is completely okay, and that monogamy is taboo.
Disgusting.
Cowboy,
We. A group of people. A society and /or culture.
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no societal consensus where adultery is seen as a violation of the marriage contract?
You seem to be arguing for the privatization of marriage. Each couple makes up their own rules. There are proponents for this, but at least they acknowledge it would involve changes in both our laws and customs.
Loyalty is the foundation of marriage.
Of course, one must wonder how far gay "marriage" will go if the supposed beneficiaries are not willing to put up with the restrictions.
It is not so that sf is the gay Paris everyone thinks it is. In fact this is the city in our state that went against gay marriage. Even if it took the rest of the state to make the majority of yes on 8, I can tell you it really opened our eyes(yes on
so that now, no matter how its presented, will incur a no-on-same-sex marriage majority vote for the rest of voter presented ballots.