Friday, May 30, 2014

Monogamy and gay couples

From liberal rag Slate:
The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.
Oh, and is this viewed as a negative thing? Maybe yet more evidence that, whatever one may want to call same-sex sexual unions, 'marriage' probably isn't it? Well, again, let's see what Slate has to say:
In some far-off, ideal world, this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples may actually start to tackle the age-old problem of boring monogamous sex. 
Alright. So, open marriages are seen as a good thing. Let's hope that this 'infects' heterosexual couples. That would be ideal!

What stands out about all this is how the most recent "progressive" defenders of gay marriage I've come into contact with have gone through pains to paint same-sex married couples as typically being idyllic, monogamous, committed relationships, and something pretty well the entirety of LGBT activist culture hopes for.

I don't write any of this thinking it will so much as give any "progressive" pause. They're far more likely to say "You know, maybe LGBT activists are on to something with this!" than consider for a moment that perhaps said culture is endorsing and committing a culture-wide wrong. Such is life.

18 comments:

rationalityofaith said...

I should have thought this should be obvious from the fact that gay marriages have no definition of adultery. How can you possibly legally enforce monogamy as the ideal of marriage when you have no functional concept of what constitutes the violation of monogamy?

The following is taken from an article about the legislation of gay marriages in Britain:

Such lobbyists naturally believed that all you had to do to allow gay marriage was to extend to same-sex couples exactly the same law as applied to existing, heterosexual marriages.

Too late, they discovered, this cannot be done. Civil servants, confronted with the embarrassing task of working out what defined the consummation of a homosexual relationship, faltered. Since homosexual acts have no existential purpose and no procreative result, consummation is a meaningless concept. From this it followed that the Government could come up with no definition of adultery in a homosexual marriage. A law designed to be equal, is not. Under the Bill, non-consummation will not be grounds for divorce in same-sex marriage. Nor will adultery.

By accident, then, the Government is introducing, for the first time, a definition of marriage which has no sexual element. Yet it refuses to face the logical consequence of this surprising innovation. If sexual intercourse is not part of the definition of same-sex marriage, why should blamelessly cohabiting sisters not marry one another in order to avoid inheritance tax? Why should father not marry son? Why shouldn’t heterosexual bachelor chum marry heterosexual bachelor chum? What, come to think about it, is so great about the idea of monogamy, once sex and children are removed from the equation? Does the word “marriage” any longer contain much meaning?

And if Equality is the highest of all moral aims, how can the Government possibly justify not extending the gay right to a civil partnership to heterosexual couples who, at present, have no such privilege? If this Bill becomes law, all these matters will be litigated over, right up to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Against such outcomes, as he painfully well knows, Mr Cameron can make no provision.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10049451/David-Cameron-would-like-to-forget-gay-marriage-but-it-will-haunt-him.html?fb

Naturally, it is not as if this matters in the United States anymore. With the advent of no-fault divorces, people can divorce at will anyway, so the need for strict public objective tests for faults against a marriage (such as adultery) as the sole grounds for divorce is sort of useless anyway.

Crude said...

Thanks for a very excellent comment. I figured this would eventually happen - interesting to see it's happened so soon.

I suppose eventually the litany will change from 'gay marriage won't change anything about marriage!' to 'well marriage was a bad idea anyway!'

Water into Whine said...

"I should have thought this should be obvious from the fact that gay marriages have no definition of adultery. How can you possibly legally enforce monogamy as the ideal of marriage when you have no functional concept of what constitutes the violation of monogamy?"

Yes, they do. All you need to do is define your presuppositions, the rest doesn't require accessibility.

"about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing."

Isn't this the point of sex. Perhaps Slate authors are missing the point. Agape, on the other hand, is to treat people as spirit, and hence to hate Slavoj Zizek.

Crude said...

Yes, they do. All you need to do is define your presuppositions, the rest doesn't require accessibility.

Except they haven't defined those either, or their definitions are such that sex seems utterly inessential to a valid marriage now, hence the situation we see.

Water into Whine said...

They aren't Christians.

Crude said...

They aren't Christians.

Supposedly not, no. What's that have to do with anything? We're talking about legal definitions here in large part.

Water into Whine said...

Marriage is a social institution.

Crude said...

Marriage is a social institution.

I disagree with that in a total sense, but it's also besides the point. Again, we're talking about the legal definitions here in large part.

Water into Whine said...

Alright.

Goldenrush Apple said...

>>Alright. So, open marriages are seen as a good thing.

Open relationships. So we meet again.

If I ever meet a woman, fall in love with her and see her as a potential spouse one of the "weeding" questions would be how she felt about such a relationship (an open one). If she says she's okay with it, she's out. If she says she's okay with me pursuing other women, she's out. If she remotely hints on being "adventurous" about it, I would propose to the "just friends" type of relationship.

In my experience, those that approve or have no qualms with an open relationship tend to throw out everything I hold dear and learning to hold dear.

Let's just say I have some "baggage" with this. It's one of the reasons why I am the way I am - in terms of politics and faith. It is a dark and empty land.

Crude said...

Golden,

I understand completely. Of course, this is apparently just barely a dirty secret of LGBT relationships (probably more gay male than lesbian) - the ones who acknowledge it frame it as 'Guess what, we found a way to make the sex in a relationship less boring!'

You know - indeed! Hey, you know what's also boring? Spending years of your life raising kids with someone. Ugh. Wouldn't it be great if you can just up and leave at any time?

The big problem with marriage is all these damn expectations of marriage! Remove all of those and THEN it will finally be what it needs to be!

Acatus Bensley said...

I don't know if you're aware of this Crude, but quite a few gay and lesbian people don't actually care about marriage being legal for them. In fact I've witnessed them proclaim that they only push for gay marriage because they know other people consider it sacred. In some hypothetical world where marriage wasn't put on such a cultural pedestal they probably wouldn't support it. I'm not saying that there aren't gays and lesbians who genuinely support marriage, but I am saying that for the activists this is just an attempt to erode culture. Maybe we're witnessing the side effects of fighting for cultural influence instead of rights.

Crude said...

Acatus,

Oh, I'm well aware. It ranges from the pettiness of just wanting to do something those dreaded conservatives or religious people don't want them to do, to not being able to accept any cultural institution that excludes their relationships, to otherwise. It's multifaceted, I'm sure. The only problem is it's a bit tough to find public concession of as much from major figures, so that's hard to focus on.

Goldenrush Apple said...

Crude,

Many times I have heard that kids are detrimental to ones "true self" (couldn't go with friends, couldn't smoke pot) and were a hindrance in "experiencing the world" (couldn't stay up late to speak to 'interesting' people in Brazil or take Euro or Asian backpacking trip). Oddly enough such people who say these things don't say "I was a hindrance to my parents." It's only when they're faced with the unwanted pressure/expectation to have kids, or when they're asked by their parents when they're going to have a baby that they pull the "don't want kids" [insert some inane reason]. It's a meta they didn't pick up.

Also, are there any articles on libertines (sexual, human property - especially the "I can do what I want with my body because it's MY body - it's none of your business!" types)? I'm trying my best to search articles on the sites I visit, but I'm kinda getting empty nets every time I lower them into the water.

Crude said...

Golden,

I suppose if anyone really thinks that way, perhaps the world is better off without their progeny. On the other hand, it'd be even better if they sorted themselves out a bit more mentally. Good point about 'I was a hindrance', I admit.

As for the articles... I -think- Ed Feser may have some in that general direction. I could have sworn he dealt with the idea of someone's body as their property previously. Is that the sort of thing you want?

Goldenrush Apple said...

>>Is that the sort of thing you want?

That's the general idea of what I'm looking for. Thanks.

Crude said...

This may be what you're looking for.

Goldenrush Apple said...

@ Crude: Thanks you for the link.

Since you've given me Ed Feser, have you heard of John C. Wright (author, atheist turned orthodox Catholic)?