Gay Men, Monogamy and Joy Behar


I'm a little curious where the notion of monogamy came from in the first place. It seems to be an idea that's been with us for all of recorded history. At some point, early human society hatched the crazy idea of only putting your penis in one person in particular. Even if you really wanted to put it in the rest of the village too.

But if men don't seem to be too keen on the idea, was it hatched by prehistoric women as some evil nefarious method of ensuring food for their children, protection for lions and a roof over their heads. Or was it the church trying to control people?

Wait, aren't there apes who pair up for long periods? Maybe it really is part of our nature to have a partner. But only part. The rest just wants to feed, fuck, and fall asleep.
This is a reason homosexual marriage is poor public policy.
Society defines the parameters of 'marriage' and has a stake in mantaining the fidelity of the institution. Hence many jurisdictions have laws against adultery, and proscribe the conditions under which a marriage may be disolved.
Even if a spouse is unconcerned about infidelity society has a right to expect certain standards in return for the benefits of marriage and those standard may exceed what some couples expect of each other.
Certainly marriage as an institution is weakened in our society and those standards are under assault from a variety of directions but the enlightened response, and one societies from the Greeks and Romans forward have engaged in, is to seek to renew society's adherence to those standards and strengthen marriage.
To throw one's hands up in the air, quip 'whatever...' and skip merrily toward Gommorah is an option; and a popular, easy one; but one that leads to social chaos and disintergration.
If homosexual men are inherently going to be promiscuous, as Dan suggests, perhaps some arrangement other than marriage would meet their needs with less conflict.
2, If you feel that gay marriage is going to cause you to cheat on your spouse, then that says something about your weak marriage, not marriage as a whole. Stop blaming gay people for your inability to be monogamous.
Implied in Dan's assertion is the notion that homosexual men who marry should be allowed to give each other free pass to commit adultery. This would require a(nother) fundamental degradation in the standards for what marriage represents, and is an example of what those Dan loves to mock have in mind when they assert that homosexual marriage would open the door to other changes that effectively destroy the institution of marriage.
4, If you feel that gay people's marriage arrangements are threatening your marriage, then you don't have a very good marriage.
When spouses cheat and then get jealous and then divorce it has consequences for the children of that union and for society at large.
'Savage Love' is full of letters from couples who thought they could handle "openness" and affairs but find it has destroyed their relationship and cast the future of their children in peril.
Cheating is everyone's problem and everyone's concern.
it was just as innane the second time....
Simple math would suggest that heterosexual women have just as much difficulty with monogamy as heterosexual men. After all, with the exception of men taking a walk on "the wild side," who are all of these men going out to be non-monogamous with? Women, right? Now, it's possible that you end up with a few women you have sex with dozens of men, but not vise versa--I suppose this is consistent with the phenomenon of prostitution--but in terms of non-monogamous, heterosexual incidents, by definition, there was a woman on the balance sheet each time, the numbers have to balance out. Basically, when one claims that men are less monogamous than women, one is either suggesting that math doesn't matter, or that straight men cheat with guys.
@4: You don't have to be married to be monogamous or monogamous to be married—so long as you're straight.

@3: And men are bad at monogamy generally. Lesbian couples are likelier to be monogamous than gay male or straight couples. Want to ensure that marriages are overwhelmingly monogamous? Only let dykes get married.

Thank you for playing Slog.
Men and Women are fundamentally different and bring unique strengths, desires and emotional skills to a marriage. Those complement each other. When women pair with women or men with men the couple gets too much of some things and not enough of others. Male homosexual couples have very different sociological characteristics from female homosexual couples, whichs both differ from male-female heterosexual couples.
Homosexual coupling introduces inherent weaknesses into the couple.
The solution is to strengthen sanctions against people who commit adultery.
Not to seek to legitimize cheating.
We should just ban anyone from getting married and have a public policy of fucking whoever whenever and whereever you want to.

Problem solved!
6, If you cheat on your spouse, that is on you, not gay people and their marriages and living arrangements. Why do you feel gay marriage will cause you to cheat?
she also dismissed dan's contention that many men would want to fuck the women tiger woods fucked - something like "i don't believe that. i know lots of men who wouldn't give those women a second look".

no you don't, and if you think you do, they're LYING TO YOU. tiger fucked SWEDISH BIKINI MODELS, dumb ass.
"Hence many jurisdictions have laws against adultery"

you're a moron. Name one. And give us the list where you need fault to get divorce, too, it's down to about 8 states and even there the allegation of fault is rote.

In Washington if a spouse tries to delve into adultery in a dissolution of a marriage the judge will pretty say don't go there, it's not relevant to the division of assets. I don't know what stronger proof there is that in the straight world, ADULTERY IS OKEY DOKEY cuz there ain't no remedy for it in our laws, unlike really serious shit, like parking tickets or speeding tickets which can lead to $250 fines and having to appear in court 'n' stuff.

Like most morons you're so wrong about the facts you can't make a coherent argument. You cite the Romans to prove marriage has always been ... um...traditional? Are you insane? The Romans were the biggest divorcers and adulterers and partiers in history. The Greeks loved man teen boy love. All that plus the recent changes in our marriage laws shows that there is NO fixed traditional insitution of marriage. And if you point to our own 19th century marriages you will no doubt conveniently forget other aspects of traditional marriage like ....the women being the chattel of the man, not being able to sign contracts, being in a lesser civil state, etc.

You're just wrong, utterly and moronically wrong, so go away and git you sum edjication, ok?
The gay guys wanting to get married are probably just as monogomous as their staight counterparts ... despite some old run-down stereotypes.
try to follow, Bob-

when the neighbor cheats and then he and his spouse get a divorce it impacts their children.
they end up needing more social service spending and going to prison and cheating on their own families and their kids repeat the cycle etc etc...
all of that costs everybody.

repeat after me-

when my neighbor cheats and destroys his family it costs ME and EVERYONE else.

why does dan keep repeating those stereotypes?
Looking to apes for guidance on what 'natural' human sexuality is (as in a sexual expression that isn't rooted in culture) isn't going to help much. Our closest relatives, chimps, bonobos and gorillas, don't really go in for any sort of monogamy. Whereas historically, most people are mostly (serially) monogamous.

Where did the idea come from? It didn't 'come from' anywhere- neither did walking upright, speech, multipart toolmaking, or giving birth to totally helpless infants. All of these things evolved. They stuck around because, biologically, they allowed the people who did things that way to pass on more copies of their genes, and usually to raise those genetic copies in whatever behavioral system/culture allowed them to make copies.
I don't know where the concept of monogamy originated, but it's probably a pretty safe bet there was a woman involved.
10, How will gay marriage adversely affect your marriage. Do all those married gay folks make you cheat? Do you always base your life choices on what others are doing?
Hense, the man said "Certainly marriage as an institution is weakened in our society and those standards are under assault from a variety of directions ..."

The Roman's invented the politics of "Family Values".
17, If you feel that divorce is a threat to you, then work to ban divorce. You can't blame gay people for your weak marriage and family. States with legal gay marriage have lower divorce rates.
Monogamy is an evolutionary advance in our species.
It takes much longer for our young to mature into functional adults (18 years or so in advanced societies..) and the childrearing and reproductive strategies that work for mice that mature in a few weeks don't work for us.
Monogamy and keeping parents together through the years of raising the children produces stronger societies and evolutionary advantage.

We can be better than the apes.
You assert that homosexual marriage lowers divorce rates?
Please provide evidence.

(states with legal gay marriage also have colder weather.
is gay marriage causing the Climate Crisis?)
25, You are very weak in the area of history. Monogamous one man -one woman marriage is a relatively new social concept to human kind. It's not an evolutionary thing.
26, I also notice you just can't seem to answer how gay marriage is weakening your marriage.
Please don't link to that tacky Hooper website ever again. Even in defense of your various tv hosts. When Hooper slips and refers to himself in the third person you can tell he wishes he could write that way all the time.

Plus, the site design is unforgivable. I need a good de-chintzing.
i'm fine with saying that monogamy isn't "natural." i'm not fine with saying it only isn't natural for men. there is a ton of precedent in the natural world for multiple mating in women. there is also a ton of precedent in real live women that shows that monogamy isn't all that easy for women either.
if anything, women are much more the victims of cultural restraints than men. if men are pressured to be "unnaturally" monogamous, quadruple that "unnatural" pressure for women.
evolution is an ongoing process, Bob-
don't get left behind with the other chimps
32, You don't seem to understand difference between the concepts of evolutionary, and social changes.
@11: Right, because the fascist approach to marriage is the one that works best, Dear Leader.
Proof that gays should be satisfied with a separate but equal relationship recognition structure. Gay relationships are different from heterosexual relationships and people should get it over and accept a separate but equal system.
Dan, you do realize you sound just like a fundalmentalist n this issue, right? Broad sweeping generalizations, straw man arguments and unsupportable characterizations. Who the hell says this?:"The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others ..."

It doesn't matter if it's natural or not. We do lots of unnatural things (wear clothes, read books, bury the dead).

I don't see why you don't just see monogamy as a kink like all the others and be neutral about it.
"After Caesar's successor, Augustus, won the civil war in 31 BCE and established his autocratic rule over the empire, he sought to establish his political legitimacy by reversing the moral decline of the past century. To do so, he passed a body of moral reforms, most of which were directed at the restoration of family values. In particular, Augustus made adultery a public crime and tried to force Romans to marry and to have a certain number of children, by establishing financial penalties for failure to do so. "

Richard Seller
Fathom Archives
@17 So you're making the wild assumption that all children in two parent homes are stable and happy, and all children in single parent homes eventually go to prison...?

Do you just ignore the "Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father" posts when they come around?
@31 - "there is also a ton of precedent in real live women that shows that monogamy isn't all that easy for women either."

I'm sure monogamy is difficult for many women, but if you're going to claim women don't appreciate monogamy more than men and don't find it more "natural", then you'll have to explain why lesbians are so much more likely to be monogamous than gay men. Gay relationships as convincing a portrait you'll find of how people of that gender will behave when not confined by the expectations/demands of those of the opposite gender.
@35 exactly! While we're at it, let's set up separate water fountains for gays, and separate sections on the bus too!

@29 -- I hate hate hate arguing for this troll, but he never said gay marriage weakens his marriage.

His retarded argument goes something like this:
+ Heterosexual marriage is the only institution saving society from decay
+ The institution of Heterosexual marriage is inherently weak
+ Any change to the institution of Heterosexual marriage will break it's fragile hold on society
+ We'll all go to hell

His marriage is intact because he's not one of the people on the edge of society. It's only the other people he's worried about. He's worried the gays will influence the people who don't raise their kids right, the people who don't have common decency anymore, the people who don't know right from wrong, etc.. etc..

He's worried about the people different than him. The sum of his argument:

If people different than him (the gays) get rights, other people different than him (the blacks, the jews, the immigrants, the poor, the Catholics, the women) will expect rights too. If we give EVERYONE rights, this guy won't be special anymore.
Children from homes with both parents and no divorce statistically do better. Not every such family is functional but more are than other models.
The people who make it into "Every Child Deserves ..." are overwhelmingly not married. Shacking up introduces chaos and mayhem into children's lives. As does Cheating. Negotiated or not...
41, You're missing the point of the question.
Thank you.
I don't bother to correct Bob because it never really sinks in.
You stray in one respect, however- my specialness supercedes all those things you mentioned.
It just bubbles up from within....
44, Again you failed to answer. How will gay marriage adversely affect your marriage? Why can't you seem to answer such a simple question? Why do you work so hard to avoid it?
45, So your argument is that you feel you are superior to others, and that while you're marriage is strong enough to withstand gay marriage, others, who are lesser than you will get divorces? Really? That's what you're going with?
Right on, Dan... being non-manogamous keeps my wife and I happy and rewakens our attraction for each other...
@46 -- If gays are allowed to marry and the world doesn't end, he will have nothing else to talk about.

With no common enemy to fight, his wife will realize he's a cad and ask for a divorce.


If gays are allowed to marry and the world doesn't end, his wife might ask him to explore his deviant fantasies. We all know what happens when that genie is freed from its bottle.
@40 - Don't be mad at me that gay relationships are different from heterosexual relationships. Read this article. They are and as long as the two options are equal then there's not a problem. Activist douchefags screaming about marriage in California while ignoring that gay men in most states don't have ANY fuckin' legal protections need to get over themselves. As the Washington vote proves, domestic partnership can get passed but marriage can't. Rather than being pissed at me, get off your ass and get domestic partnership legislation passed in those states where gay couples have no protections.
@33 Social and evolutionary change are strongly linked and it is difficult to separate them in any empirical sense, especially when the issue is reproductive behavior. Social pressures create selection, and adaptive changes create new social pressures. Repeat. Behavior is an evolving trait.
I think what disturbs me about this, however, Dan, is that she, for some reason, took your statement as one from a sort of "liason" of the gay community, rather than a statement from a man, regardless of his sexual orientation, about the nature of men (gay or straight). I don't think she listened well to what you spoke about. Perhaps that is just me, however. I sometimes tend to misinterpret things.
49, He certainly seems intent on avoiding answering the question. Now the claim is he's much stronger than others. He and he alone will save the lesser straights from evils of gay marriage.

Super Hetero! Able to withstand two married guys down the street without cheating or getting divorced! Better than all those weaker heterosexuals, who will immediately jump in bed with the nearest gay person available as soon as gay marriage is legal.
51, Not even close.
Gays are their worst own enemies. I became a parent through surrogacy but am totally judged by the gay community because I didn't get the gay parenting merit badge by adopting or the true gold medal - adopting a child of a race different than mine. I've actually had a gay parenting group tell me that I'm a racist because I didn't adopt a child of a different race. What the fuck bullshit is that? Additionally, several gay folks have told me that I'm selfish for having used a surrogate. Get over yourselves.

Now, you have non-monog gays claiming superiority over monog gays and acting as if monog gays are frauds or liars. What a bunch of douchefags.
@54 Well that's good to hear. Neurologists will be relieved to know that this silly "evolution" thing doesn't apply to brains.
I don't give a sh*t about who's more likely to be monogamous or not. Basic civil rights should not be denied because of sexual orientation.
Dan, I really hate when you say "men are this way about sex." I know you are not saying women ARE naturally monogamous, you're just talking about men because you are a man and are in relationships with men, but not everyone takes it that way. You need to be specific. "I can't speak for women, but from my experience with men..."
What's the matter Bob,
doesn't the special bubble up in you?
56, Evolution has to do with small physical changes in species over millions of years, not with the social mores that change from one decade to the next.
@59 -- I apologize for the personal comments.

I know better. My comments @49 did nothing to advance the conversation.
59, Typical non-response from someone without a real argument.
@53 -- Maybe a better argument our troll could make:

Allowing gays the rights and benefits of marriage is a big societial change. Big societal changes are scary and often have unintended consequences. Some of the intended consequences are scary, too.

We should slow down this march toward normalcy until I'm no longer scared. We should roll back some of the other big societal changes we've made in the last fifty years until our society is more like my idealized version of society from before those changes.

I believe this argument is the core of almost all social Conservative arguments against allowing people more rights.

It is also the implicit argument made when social Conservatives say, "if we allow X, Y will be next to demand their rights. Where will we draw the line?"
Monogamy is a byproduct of patrilinial societies. If you want to make sure that the child you feed and clothe and leave your property to is actually YOURS you have to keep the woman you mate with away from other men, as much as possible. In the same situation a woman does herself (and her children) a favor by trying to limit her man's procreation with other women, which will tend to divide his resources and his loyalties.

I honestly think that men and women are naturally inclined to have a variety of partners. Monogamy is an invention of society. And not one of it's best, either.
no problem, it's all good.
I appreciated your other comments.
@60 Speciation generally occurs on timescales of millions of years, but adaptive evolution can be observed on generational timescales. Allele fixation can occur quickly even when the selective pressure is weak. Attitudes towards monogamy have been generally stable for many generations. There has been plenty of time to genetically reinforce that behavior. Personally I doubt it, but it can't be discounted. Complex systems are hard.
66. Monogamy isn't a species wide phenomenon. It varies by group, and society, and the concept has come and gone throughout human history.. It has nothing to do with evolution. It's a social trend, not evolution.

65, You really just don't have a real answer to the question do you?
I see she's made the full transition from comic to journalist. A comic understands that context is everything and uses context carefully. A journalist is supposed to understand that context is everything, but in today's media proper context is frowned upon.

There is a common media narrative about gay people, and that is that they are sexually promiscuous. I make no judgment on that assessment other than to note that straight people are promiscuous too. That was Dan's overall point, although he did speak about men and not women. Thankfully, Joy was able to play her part in helping to perpetuate that incomplete and ultimately discriminatory narrative. Well done. Whatever you do, Joy, make sure you can and do everything you can to help paint the "gay people are sick" stereotype vividly in the public's mind.
@67 It doesn't have to be a species-wide phenomenon to be evolutionary. Evolution is not speciation. Speciation is just a result of evolution; there are plenty of trait variations within a species, and sometimes it's pretty extreme (e.g. dog breeds). Evolution is genetic change. It can be subtle and vary across populations of a species. So to say that a particular trait is "human" is misleading, since different human populations have different traits. Some behaviors are known to be traits, and many more could be.
70, You just making stuff up.
Genetic evolution is tricky is advanced societies.
We patch up and cover for harmful traits and behaviors and allow them to breed when in less complex societal units they would die out.

ER tramau units save drunk drivers and drug overdoses and skate board jackass stunt victims so they go on to pass their genes to a new generation of functional retards.
In an evolutionarily ideal world they would have died on the spot and taken their crummy genes with them.

Reproductive strategies that should die out are subsidized and likewise hang around, to the detriment of the species.
The 'welfare queen' with a half a dozen kids and no income exists because functional members of society pay for food housing etc. In the real world momma and her brood would starve and the genetic material of the sack of shit males that impregnated her but didn't stick around to raise their offspring would die also.

Practioners of promiscuous sex would get AIDS or gonorrhea or some other STD and die or at the least become sterilized. Instead we treat and cure those conditions and again, defective genetic material and practices are passed on to future generations.

The result is that the problem traits, rather than being pruned out gradually and keeping the species hearty, build up until they are massive pathologies that overwhelm the society's ability to continue covering for the problem behavior and destroy the entire society.

In Africa AIDS is reaching those proportions. Without intervention from outside societies AIDS would have already devastated entire populations and may do so yet.

By treating our own STDs without addressing the underlying behavior that breeds, develops and spreads them we make society one huge Biological WMD Lab, breeding ever more lethal STDs until eventually the true Killer Plague (easily spread, rapid onset and progression,flesh eating, antibiotic resistant, etc etc) Bug comes along and wipes us out. That bug will develop in populations that have contracted but been treated for STDs and have continued promiscuous sexual behavior with seemingly impunity.

Bottom line- you can not thwart Biology, if you try you wmay hold her off a while but eventually and inevitably she will chew your ass off with a vengance.
Don't blame Joy.
Dan didn't get to say all he wanted to say on the show so he had to rush in here this morning to make sure everyone gets his point that HOMOSEXUALS DON"T DO MONOGAMY.

It's not 'natural'.

So don't even ask.

(they're not so crazy about wiping their asses, either.
not natural, you know...)
I've gotta say I disagree that women (and lesbian in particular) are wired for monogamy. I've known quite a few lesbians who were in long-term relationships but still open to 3-ways and the like...

So I guess it's my opinion that gay couples tend to be more open to non-traditional relationship boundaries specifically because our relationships on a very basic level are non-traditional to begin with. We don't feel that heavy social pressure to stay monogamous like straights do, nor the pressure to immediately end any relationship where monogamy failed.

Just making sure everyone say Cato's post.
you seem to be under the mistaken impression that registration and trolling are mutually exclusive.
the most tedius boring trolls on slog are registerted.
Dan, please explain to me then why gay men are okay with their partners having sex with another man, but straight men freak out at the idea of their partners having sex with another man? What is the difference there? Potential of children? That can't be it.

I know your thing is that men are horndogs, yes, and I agree with you. But isn't it highly unfair for a man to want one-sided polyamory?
Oh yay, another science-ish conversation to which I can contribute. A few points:

1) @ChuckieD (25) Humans taking 18 full years to 'leave the nest' is a relatively new development. Sexual maturity occurs 3-6 years before that, and weaning obviously far sooner -- and turns out, the breastfeeding period pre-weaning is really the most important period for paternal investment. It's also worth noting that while many apes wean much later than we do, human infants are more helpless for longer than apes (a consequence of increased brain and thus head size).

2) Polygyny in human evolutionary history may have actually increased the selective pressure for stable pair bonding -- if there are fewer marriable women because polygyny is the norm (or even if it only occurred at low levels), protecting the relationship you're in becomes more important. And in this case, more important for the man than the woman, for those of you who think monogamy is all about the woman.

3) Interestingly, alloparenting seems to contribute to unstable pair bonds, so maybe we should be blaming nannies and boarding schools for the Decline of Heterosexual Marriage.

4) While on the topic of pair bonds, the definition of one is a stable sexual relationship that at minimum lasts through conception, infancy and to weaning. It's not evolutionarily adaptive to have kids with single parents (same sex parents by this model are equivalent to hetero), but serial monogamy is not outside the norm.

4) There's a fascinating review from the APA Bulletin last year by Paul Eastwick on the phylogeny of human mating. Summary:

Eastwick identified seven unique features of human mating, identified whether they are shared by by our ancestors and if so, how distant were those ancestors? Three traits are shared by sexually reproducing animals across the kingdom. One trait, attachment and pair bonding, is more fuzzy. Infant-caregiver attachment is prevalent throughout the monkey line, but pair bonding seems to be exclusive to us and gibbons, so chances are good we evolved the behavior separately. This is interesting because there are many behavioral similarities between infant attachment and adult pair bonds, and so natural selection could have hijacked already-extant mechanisms to a dual purpose (this is a lengthy section in the review, and generates a really cool idea that Eastwick explains further, but this is good enough for now). Three traits are found to be exclusive to Homo sapiens, and Eastwick explores why they may have evolved by selection or due to cultural influences.

Take-home message: there are uniquely human aspects to our mating behavior that modify older adaptations. We have cognitive fluidity that allows us to compartmentalize our everyday interactions -- we don't have to think of everyone of the opposite sex as a mate and everyone of the same sex as competition. We have self-control, so we don't HAVE to listen to base sexual desires all the time. We have culture that heavily drives our views on bonding and sex. But deeper, the instinct to pair bond goes back about 2 million years in our evolutionary history, but due to individual variation, it's LIKELY to differ widely in practice which is, of course, what we observe. And likely what we feel, anecdotally. So @1, monogamy came about a couple million years ago, but it didn't have to be -- and we shouldn't assume it's adaptive for it to be -- LIFELONG monogamy.
I love Dan, but I jus' don't agree that monogamy is as hard as he is making it out to be. Sure, it's hard for hormone driven teen-agers & 20 somethings, but for middle-aged peoples?? Really??? I don't buy it.

I honestly believe that some people appear to have an agenda when complaining about how hard monogamy is. It shouldn't be that hard for middle-aged men or women. At least on a hormonal level.

You are right, however i do think that "cheating", even with permission and in the open, is much more damaging than most people anticipate it will be and does a lot more damage than they expected and destroys a lot of "open" relationships.
are you suggesting Dan is a
washed up
flaccid old man
who protesteth too much to overcompensate?

don't be mean, keekee-
you'll get old one day too...
Thinking about what damages and/or taxes social infrastructure the most...I suggest that it's NOT the same-sex couples in long-term non-monog relationships. It's the serial-monog heteros in short-term relationships. More specifically, it's the women cranking out tons of babies they can't afford and the irresponsible, often-unemployed screw-ups who keep knocking them up. I don't see how "strengthening" marriage laws will have any effect on people who don't bother to get married.
I don't know where the concept of monogamy originated, but it's probably a pretty safe bet there was a woman involved.

That certainly explains why so many cheating women are murdered by their partners when the converse rarely happens. Because only women care about monogamy.
super good post.

1)- you are totally right, 'biologically' humans are capable of going out and reproducing etc at 13 or 14. However, in our complex society, it takes another half dozen years to develop the life skills and education to be a contributing functional self sufficient member of society. and a stable (aka two parent no divorce) family is the best incubator and support system in which to develop those traits.

we are pumping out biological units with no problem, however, we are failing miserably to develop them into the aforementioned contributing functional self sufficient members of society. too many uneducated teens having kids and raising them to perpetuate the lifestyle. etc.
the proportion of the population that are nonfunctional deadbeats who depend on public support (not (just) welfare- health care, training, childcare etc etc) to subsist is growing and the number of contributing functional self sufficient members of society who pay taxes to support it all is shrinking.

the sloggers who squeal that there is no chance heteros will quit popping out kids miss the point, having the kids is the easy part.
Raising them that extra 6-10 years to be contributing functional self s sufficient members of society is the real challenge and the area where a stable two parent no divorce family is so helpful.
That family model is fast becoming extinct and homosexual marriage is not the greatest threat to it but in the context of the very real jeapordy to the family the enlightened solution is to shore it up and not to totally throw it out.
When it comes down to it, people against gay marriage make nebulous claims that it will hurt straight marriage, but they cannot explain how it would hurt their own marriages, or that of anyone else. They just have some silly theory that is disproved by the fact that gay marriage already exists, and it hasn't hurt straight marriage one bit.
Excellent point.
When sloggers contend that Mass allows gay marriage and divorce rates are low they ignore the fact that Marriage rates are also low- more people are not getting married and raising their kids in other situations.
Gay marriage is not the only or greatest threat to "marriage"- heterosexual adultery and divorce and substance abuse and etc and etc also take a huge toll.
All of the problems need to be addressed and society's attitudes toward and commitment to "Marriage" need to be strengthened and renewed.
Um... I'm in a monogamous gay relationship. I don't really feel an urge to cheat. Keeping up with my partner is all the fun I need.
All of my relationships have been monogamous. I just prefer it - I just can't imagine having more fun with someone else than I do with my partner, and when I CAN imagine it (and therefore desire someone else), then it's time to end the relationship.
I get that not everybody feels the way I do. But isn't there room for me too under the big gay umbrella?

I am fundamentally more interested in the biological underpinnings of our behavior, but I'm not actually sure your point follows. Healthy parental figures -- one or two or four, male or female, gay or straight -- are important for a child's development. But when we talk about pair bonds being evolutionarily important for the pre-weaning period, it's because of resources: the mother has to spend extra energy breastfeeding, and extra time caring for the child, and a partner who can pick up the slack, so to speak, greatly increases the child's chance of survival. In modern terms, it's less about the baby's survival but more positive outcomes later in life. Often, this bond would be between the biological or adoptive parents -- the ones who HAD the baby in the first place.

After weaning, and after sexual maturity, I think you're still looking at resources. There is no inherent reason that a single mother can't raise a happy, productive, well-adapted child on her own. What hinders her ability to do so is circumstance: if she has to work two jobs and do all the cooking and cleaning because she's single, that severely cuts into the supervision, nurturing and teaching time the child needs from her. However steady, stable help from ANYONE: her lesbian lover, gay best friend, sister, father, two different long-term boyfriends...any of those will increase the amount of time the child spends with a parental figure.

NOT TO MENTION that marriage is not all about children. The pair-bonding behavior doesn't happen BECAUSE two people have a child together. It's completely independent, and there's NO reason to expect that everyone who pair bonds (or falls in love, if you like!) wants to or is able to have kids.

Totally dude - I think that's the idea; relationships and people come in all styles, and there's room in this world for all of them, methinks. I'm not really a monogamous guy at this point in my life, but I don't assume that everybody is or isn't as well. Same deal with you, from what I've read. Good on ya for that.
87, Mass isn't in the top 5 of states that have low marriage rates. Do you have anything that isn't a lie to back up your statements?
look in the bottom 5
The number of marriages performed each year in Mass has dropped over 10% since homosexual marriage became legal.
If I was into dudes, I wouldn't have married a woman. If my wife wasn't into men, she wouldn't have married me. I just don't see how men marrying men or women marrying women is going to change that. If gay marriage becomes legal in most US jurisdictions, only the bisexuals would really have a choice whether to have a life partner or spouse of one sex or another. But I doubt, as a general proposition, that a bisexual person is going to use what's legal as the primary consideration when he or she chooses his/her life partner. So this threat-to-marriage crap is just that - crap.
91, 93, Maybe a reading comprehension class would do you some good? Mass is not even close to having the lowest marriage rates.

@2 It's called civil unions or domestic partnerships and they're already available.

It's interesting to note that beneath all the shouting and accusations being leveled at those of us who seek to keep marriage between one man and one woman, gays deep down all their anger know why marriage is a particular institution meant for heterosexual couples. When they're truly honest, gays themselves make the best argument for why homosexuality is not compatible with marriage.
@91, 93, 95:

Marriage rate, US: 7.1 per 1000. Mass: 5.9 per 1000, ranked 10th lowest of 51 states + DC.
Divorce rate, US: 3.5 per 1000. Mass: 2.3 per 1000, ranked 2nd lowest.


Relative to the rest of the country, MA has a low marriage rate but an even lower divorce rate. Of course someone should check the statistical significance.
what was the rate when gay marriage was legalized?

You assert that homosexual marriage lowers divorce rates?
Please provide evidence.

(states with legal gay marriage also have colder weather.
is gay marriage causing The Global Climate Crisis?)
The divorce rate in Mass correlates to the number of Catholics there compared to other states.
@96 So separate drinking fountains and sections on the bus made sense too? To protect racial purity and all that?

And I couldn't help but notice you assume only gay people are non-monogamous, and also that gays are incapable of monogamy. Pathetically inaccurate on both counts.