What They Mean by Monogamy

Friday's SFGate.com, home of the San Francisco Chronicle, has what will surely be a little-reported story by same-sex marriage opponent, David Benkof. Though he's a regular blogger at GaysDefendMarriage.com, Benkof's revelation in his article "Monogamous same-sex adultery" is one homosexuals will want to keep under wraps.

Why? Because what they mean by marriage likely isn't what you and I mean by marriage. Think homosexuals who say they want to be able to marry are sincere? Think they feel cheated by their perceived "second class status"? Think they'll rush to the justices of the peace in every community where renegade courts say they may? Regardless of how they answer those questions, and how much their answers tug at your heart strings, when homosexuals say monogamy, it's not what they mean.

Benkof says they may use the same words as heterosexuals, but they mean a whole different arrangement. His source? The Partners Task Force website, buddybuddy.com -- a site "that is promoted as a marriage resource by several major gay Web sites, including those of Marriage Equality USA, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network, Equality Texas, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, and even the Metropolitan Community Church."

Benkof goes on to say that though the site does contain a few friendly words about monogamy, those are "mostly from heterosexual, married allies of the cause."

The bulk of the site presents a totally different message. Consider,

... the site defines monogamy as being married to one person at a time, no matter how many sexual partners one has. When two gay men say they are monogamous, the vast majority of people assume they don't sleep around. From now on, I suggest, gays who say they are monogamous need to be asked if they mean monogamous using the usual connotation, or the little-known gay definition of having only one spouse.

The site quotes a therapist who criticizes sexual exclusivity as inadequate for male couples because of the nature of gay relationships.

An essay on relationship tips gives 15 suggestions for working adultery into your marriage without going overboard. For example, it suggests, feel free to have extramarital sex in your home, but not in the bedroom.

Keep the adultery confined to the kitchen and the living room. Now that's great marriage advice. Sounds like a recipe for divorce. Certainly not an environment well-suited to the rearing of children (adopted, conceived via sperm-donor or otherwise).

Benkof suggests a way to clear away the confusion:

If you hear gay people objecting to the argument that same-sex marriage is fundamentally different from marriage, ask them if they consider sexual exclusivity (don't say monogamy because they might answer using the gay definition) an essential part of a proper marriage. Feel free to ask straight people the same question. Then you decide based on what you hear.

Benkof goes on to say that though the site does contain a few friendly words about monogamy, those are "mostly from heterosexual, married allies of the cause."

The bulk of the site presents a totally different message. Consider,

... the site defines monogamy as being married to one person at a time, no matter how many sexual partners one has. When two gay men say they are monogamous, the vast majority of people assume they don't sleep around. From now on, I suggest, gays who say they are monogamous need to be asked if they mean monogamous using the usual connotation, or the little-known gay definition of having only one spouse.

The site quotes a therapist who criticizes sexual exclusivity as inadequate for male couples because of the nature of gay relationships.

An essay on relationship tips gives 15 suggestions for working adultery into your marriage without going overboard. For example, it suggests, feel free to have extramarital sex in your home, but not in the bedroom.

Benkof suggests a way to clear away the confusion:

If you hear gay people objecting to the argument that same-sex marriage is fundamentally different from marriage, ask them if they consider sexual exclusivity (don't say monogamy because they might answer using the gay definition) an essential part of a proper marriage. Feel free to ask straight people the same question. Then you decide based on what you hear.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Amy said the following at 11:32 AM on Jun 27:

This isn't just a gay problem -- there are people of all sexualities who subscribe to the idea that monogamy doesn't include sexual exclusivity. There are many, many gay people who don't think that's okay and who choose to have traditionally monogamous relationships.

2. John said the following at 11:40 AM on Jun 27:

Amy,

What do you mean by "sexualities"?

What do you mean by "many, many"?

3. Steve Watters said the following at 12:02 PM on Jun 27:

Amy: You can't find one study showing that married couples are as promiscuous as homosexual couples. There's absolutely no equivalence.

4. Laura_MH said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 27:

I agree with you Amy. I have two gay acquaintances (one a co-worker, one the son of a close friend) and both are in long-term, monogamous, *exclusive* relationships and want to get married.

If only I could say that about some of my hetero friends.

5. Chantell said the following at 12:29 PM on Jun 27:

Just a week ago, a friend revealed to me that he was leading a homosexual lifestyle. During the ensuing conversation, I asked for his thoughts on gay marriage, and he told me that he believed it was a farce for the very reason that this post describes. He also told me that he holds his parents' marriage (of 38 years) in such high esteem that he wouldn't dream of putting gay marriage, with its definition of "monogamy," on par with theirs.

6. obewan said the following at 12:42 PM on Jun 27:

“>>Amy: You can't find one study showing that married couples are as promiscuous as homosexual couples. There's absolutely no equivalence.<<”

There is no equivalence for unmarried heterosexuals either I bet since there are many more non-Christian couples who cheat. How many people that are heterosexual are promiscuous before marriage? Quite a few I suspect. While I don’t support the gay agenda in any way shape or form, I think there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to moral issues. The biggest fish of all for heteros is pre-marital sex and then divorce. The evangelical community keeps accusing the gays of “attacking” marriage when their own divorce rate is equal to the worlds’.

7. Irene M. said the following at 12:50 PM on Jun 27:

Boundless, thanks again for another thought interesting and provoking post. I'm looking forward to seeing what the other commentators have to say.

However, I do have a few questions. Does this article apply to both gays and lesbians? The post seems to suggest all homosexual couples while the article seems to single out homosexual men. I'm a little confused about the terminology and just want to make sure that I understand the author. Also, is there any other evidence for this besides the Partners Task Force? I'm sure that are major differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples, but Benkof's evidence seems rather insubstantial. Are there some other studies that I've missed?

Thank you for your patience.

8. mary kate said the following at 12:57 PM on Jun 27:

i'm def. not backing the psychologist they mention in that article, but there's truth to the idea that gay men can't be monogamous (or have a harder time being that way). obviously, anything outside of god's design isn't going to work how he wants it to. with gay men, their relationships are often over-sexualized. i think it's the idea that the woman really draws out or awakens a man's monogamy/desire to commit/settle down whatever. and in a similar fashion, the man awakens or invites the woman's sexuality/desire. in a homosexual relationship, you have two very sexual beings with not much of a gravitation toward monogamy/commitment. i'm sure there's a more psychologically sound way to describe it.

9. Candice Watters said the following at 1:18 PM on Jun 27:

Irene M. and others who are wondering, there's a host of research available at www.narth.com, the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. I did a search on the site for "gay promiscuity" and within seconds had a long list of evidence that the "gay" lifestyle, among men and women, is characterized by sexual experimentation and promiscuity.

It would be well-worth your time to give even a few of the articles a read.

10. andrew spivack said the following at 1:22 PM on Jun 27:

Actually, Steve, the onus is on you to show that for comparable educational, fiscal etc. backgrounds homosexuals are significantly more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Simply stating this as fact is not very useful. You might be right (though I doubt that the statistical differences are all that great any more), but you still have to provide evidence for this sweeping statement.

Also, it is very possible that homosexual couples are more promiscuous precisely because they're not married. After all, unmarried heterosexual couples are probably much less faithful than married heterosexual couples. Comparing unmarried homosexuals to married heterosexuals is pure drivel. As for websites, I'm sure I can dig up a dozen or so within 10 minutes that promote heterosexual swinging lifestyle. Does that mean that a) these sites speak for ALL heterosexuals and therefore b) we shouldn't let anyone get married?

11. Louise said the following at 1:23 PM on Jun 27:

Hey, I know PLENTLY of heterosexuals, both males and females, who cannot stay monogamous!

I agree with comment 1, this isn't just a gay issue!

I also agree with comment 7 that is is unfair to single out gay males in this way.

12. Motte said the following at 1:36 PM on Jun 27:

andrew spivack, Louise, and others with a "heterosexuals-are-as-promiscuous-as-gays" sentiment:

Check out this article from National Review Online explaining why so few same-sex marriages happen after it's legalized. This portion gives voice to those who speak on behalf of homosexuals regarding their goal to redefine "sexual fidelity":

Second, many gay married couples reject "heteronormative" assumptions about marriage, and they (as well as the New York Times) are becoming remarkably more open about this.

When Andrew Sullivan tentatively suggested in the early Nineties that gay couples have a thing or two to teach heterosexuals about the rigid presumption of sexual fidelity, the public outcry lead him to recant (and today, he gets mad at you if you point out that he actually did say it).

Less than a decade later, Eric Erbelding from the perch of his legally recognized Massachusetts gay marriage, is quite comfortable explaining to the New York Times that "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical."

Eric elaborates why he think it works for gay men: "I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn't mean anything."

Still, Mr. Erbelding said, in what to the old-fashioned ear is the most astonishing single sentence in the whole piece: most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

For the most part . . . except for the casual three-way?

But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil-rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?

13. Candice Watters said the following at 1:55 PM on Jun 27:

It's tragic to see so many on a Christian website doing the work of the homosexual activists for them. It's well documented that homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals.

According to "Report on 'The Gay Report,'"

The Gay Report was unique in that for the first time society was permitted a glimpse into the gay subculture, to see if the rumors, stories and hearsay that had persisted for so long were true. In many cases, it appears, they were.
Accusations of promiscuity had long been levelled at the gay community. As Jay and Young's research indicates, these fears were justified. According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives (p.249); 18% admitted to having had between seven and 60 such partners in the previous month alone (p. 248), and 18% to having had three or more in the previous week (p. 248). 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had did not last longer than a year (p. 340). For lesbians the average relationship lasted 38 months (p. 302).

In answer to the question "how often do you go home to have sex with someone you have just met?" a total of 50% answered under the "always," "very frequently" or "somewhat frequently category" (p. 251). Jay and Young sum up, "Clearly, then, the one-night stand is within the experience of an overwhelming majority of gay men" (p. 252).

Furthermore, 77% of respondents had taken part in "threesomes" at least once, while 59% had taken part in orgies or group sex (p. 587). 38% had partaken of sadomasochistic practices at least once and 23% had practiced urination in association with sex (p. 555). 24% admitted to having been paid for sex (p. 260).

Nor are gay leaders shy to publicize their feelings in this regard. In the classic gay work Gay Manifesto, author Carl Wittman said that sadomasochism, "when consensual can be described as a highly artistic endeavor, a ballet the constraints of which are the thresholds of pain and pleasure" (cited on p. 554). Celebrated gay poet Allen Ginsberg commented favorably on orgies that, "It's an important human experience to relate to yourself and others as a hunk of meat sometimes" (pgs. 589-590), and referred to the orgy as "one holy divine yoga of losing ego" (590).

Curiously, Jay and Young appear to have little notion that the above constitutes "promiscuity." According to them, "Where does one draw the line and say that certain people have been promiscuous, and others have not? What value judgment is implied by the term 'promiscuous'? These questions are impossible to answer because they depend on subjective attitudes" (p. 249).

They cite gay respondents as saying that, "Promiscuity is a heterosexual concept used to attack us... If you speak in terms of 'sexual freedom' and sharing of sensual experience, it can be a fine thing. I guess it all depends upon motives" (p. 249). Another asserts that, "I have trouble with the word 'promiscuity' because I really do not know what it means. What is the line between infrequent or frequent sex and promiscuity? If I have sex three times a day and am very selective in the choice of mates, am I promiscuous or highly selective and super-horny?" (p. 249)

Does anyone really believe that as homosexuality has become more accepted, and our culture more sexualized, that these trends have gone the other direction toward faithfulness?

14. John said the following at 2:20 PM on Jun 27:

Obewan,

True born-again believers do not have a divorce rate equal to their non-believing counterparts.

I suppose next you're going to tell us that half of all marriages end in divorce.

Come on. You can do better than that.

By the way, I don't see a "adultery agenda" or "pre-marital sex" agenda trying to redefine marriage and family through legislation.

15. Shanka said the following at 4:15 PM on Jun 27:

Mary Kate (8): your logic makes sense to me; I would probably guess that these statistics apply more to males than to females given our gender generals.
I think that the purpose of this post isn't so much to denigrate homosexuals as it is to shed some light on their actual stance on what marriage is. Which if it doesn't only apply to one male and one female, shouldn't it *at least* apply to a monogamous (one partner) couple? If it isn't going to define marriage as such, then, what exactly is the point of this fight? What would be the point of defining marriage? Should there even be laws that support marriage and/or ban polygamy? Should we just abolish the marriage title all together? See the slippery slope down which this can go?

Alright Jesus. Any day now.

16. Rich said the following at 4:18 PM on Jun 27:

For all who are asking, the book *Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate* by Schmidt references many studies on heterosexual and homosexuality (around 200, I think). In that book, he compares the sexual practices of unmarried homosexuals to that of unmarried heterosexuals, and he finds that the two are still very much apart.

So, according to Schmidt, the objection that "its unfair to compare married heterosexuals with unmarried homosexuals" doesn't hold water...the promiscuity rates of the latter group is still much, much higher than unmarried heterosexuals.

Of course, since the book was written in the mid 90's, the studies he references are from the 70's and 80's, so you could say they are outdated. I don't have any solid knowledge to refute that, but just by taking a glance at the stuff offered here and the stuff I see elsewhere (plus, I have significant relational interaction with some homosexuals, and my experience bares this out), I don't think things have changed much at all.

"You're being intolerant."
--Bullfeathers. Truth is no respecter of persons. Sometimes, you gotta worry more about love than hurt feelings.
Would I be intolerant if I gave some stats that links smoking to higher chances of lung cancer? Would I be intolerant if I gave stats showing that those who drink and drive tend to get in car wrecks?

17. Irene M. said the following at 6:23 PM on Jun 27:

Candice, thanks for the link.