Friday, December 5, 2008
Homo I'm Dan Savage and I Approve This Message
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality—Peter LaBarbera's outfit—is attempting to generate controversy by outing me as non-monogamous. Under the headline "PERVERTED PARENTING," LaBarbera has posted a long excerpt from a piece I wrote for Salon way, way back in 2004, most of which ended up in my book The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage and My Family. So it's not like I was trying keep this non-monogamy stuff a secret or anything.
I've long suspected that LaBarbera is a highly placed operative of the International Homosexual Conspiracy. He regularly attends BDSM and fetish events, like the Folsom Street Fair and IML, to take pictures of gay men in leather and fetish gear. LaBarbera's pictures are passed around suburban mega-churches as proof that gay people are unfit to marry or be parents because, um, gee, you see, like, no straight people have kinky sex or wear fetish gear. Or something. 
I've always wondered how many deeply closeted gay men have seen LaBarbera's pictures and said to themselves, "You know what? To hell with this mega-church—I'm coming out and moving to San Francisco and buying myself a pair of chaps and going to this Folsom Street Fair! It looks awesome!"
And I've always wondered if that wasn't LaBarbera's secret gay agenda with all those Folsom and IML photos.
Anyway, reading his post about my perverted sex life—it's really not my parenting that's perverted, Peter—left me more convinced that LaBarbera is a highly-placed operative of the International Homosexual Conspiracy. If his intentions were to make me look bad, if he wanted to convince his readers that I was a deranged sexual libertine and a threat to my child, LaBarbera could've just written that I was openly non-monogamous and left it at that. His readers would picture slings in the dining room, late-night orgies after the kid went to bed, crazy fetish nights at the Savage's. But LaBarbera quotes the piece at great length and includes sections like this:
But of course straight couples don’t have to be monogamous to be married or married to be monogamous. Monogamy isn’t compulsory and its absence doesn’t invalidate a marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of heterosexual married couples involved in the organized swinging movement and God only knows how many disorganized swingers there are out there. Married straight couples are presumed to be monogamous until proven otherwise, and that assumption serves as a powerful inducement to be (or appear to be) monogamous. Even most swinging couples prefer to be seen as monogamous by friends, family and associates. But as with children, monogamy is optional. It’s up to each individual couple to decide for themselves if monogamy is central to their commitment.
And this:
All sorts of nightmare scenarios play out in people’s minds when a male couple—particularly one with kids—admits to being nonmonogamous. While married couples are presumed to be sober monogamists until proven otherwise, nonmonogamous gay male couples are presumed to be reckless sluts until proven otherwise. So, for the record: My boyfriend and I don’t hang out in sleazy bars at all hours, we don’t have three-ways with men we’ve met on the Internet, and neither of us is willing to take irrational risks for the sake of the next orgasm. Like a huge number of straight couples, we have an understanding. “Cheating” is permissible under a few tightly controlled and highly unlikely circumstances; finally, all outside sexual contact has to be very safe—indeed, it has to be hypersafe, almost comically safe. We’ve never done anything, nor would we ever do anything, that would put our child at risk. (There will be no Kramer vs. Kramer moments, i.e., no strange adults wandering nude through our house in the middle of the night.) For all intents and purposes, the limits we’ve placed on outside sexual contact have resulted in a sort of de facto monogamy. In the 10 years we’ve been together the planets have aligned on a couple of occasions. We’re more nonmonogamous in theory than in practice.
The bolds are all Peter's, not mine. Now is it just me or does it look like he's going out of his way to address any fears that his conservative readers might have about non-monogamous gay male parents? It's almost like he's helping to make my argument for me. So the only conclusion I can come to is...
Peter LaBarbera: highly placed operative of the International Homosexual Conspiracy.
1
...or he's going to try and talk you and Terry into a threesome and is trying to get on your good side.
2
The essay will be deeply disturbing to people who can't read. I cut just the section from your essay and pasted it into an analysis tool. It reads at grade level 9-11. By comparison, I recall that the NYT is written at grade 8.
Those who voted for prop 8 turned out to be the stupid, uneducated, and poor. I wonder how many of them can even make it through the NYT? Your strangely crafted, queer words and sentences will threaten them.
Perhaps you could try it again using puppets.
Those who voted for prop 8 turned out to be the stupid, uneducated, and poor. I wonder how many of them can even make it through the NYT? Your strangely crafted, queer words and sentences will threaten them.
Perhaps you could try it again using puppets.
3
It doesn't make me think you are perverted, it just makes me a little sad that your needs aren't met within your relationship.
And all this shit scares me because why wouldn't my boyfriend cheat on me?
And all this shit scares me because why wouldn't my boyfriend cheat on me?
4
This is one of those Taliban moments: a photograph is shown to a group of Islamic extremists. It is a photograph of a woman walking down the street in an American city. She is wearing shorts and a tank top, and her hair is uncovered.
To some, it's a picture from the Travel section of a newspaper. To others, it's proof that the United States is the Great Satan.
That's what your writing is to fundamentalist Christians and homophobes, Dan. You read it, you see the best parts of your argument. They read it, they see that their worst fears are true. They fact that you don't get that is one of the many reasons I'm glad you're not more directly involved in politics.
To some, it's a picture from the Travel section of a newspaper. To others, it's proof that the United States is the Great Satan.
That's what your writing is to fundamentalist Christians and homophobes, Dan. You read it, you see the best parts of your argument. They read it, they see that their worst fears are true. They fact that you don't get that is one of the many reasons I'm glad you're not more directly involved in politics.
5
And here is what LaBarbera wrote today
There once were some people called “gay”
Who were used to getting their way.
They lost on “queer marriage,”
Then set out to disparage
Churches, and make Mormons pay.
“Down with Prop 8!”
Angry “gays” said it was all about “hate.”
Their hypocrisy uncanny,
They roughed up a granny
As for liberal court activism they wait.
There once were some people called “gay”
Who were used to getting their way.
They lost on “queer marriage,”
Then set out to disparage
Churches, and make Mormons pay.
“Down with Prop 8!”
Angry “gays” said it was all about “hate.”
Their hypocrisy uncanny,
They roughed up a granny
As for liberal court activism they wait.
6
The long and the short of it is that traditional homosexuality requires a continual stream of "Fresh Blood" to keep the pool from burning out. Since gay men have something like 200 encounters with different partners, gay "marriage" is simply another lightning rod to advertise gayness to the populace.
7
eclexia - The New York Times is most definitely not written at Grade 8. The general rule of journalism is to write for the eight grade level, but the NYT's is purposely above that level.
Has there never been a time when you've read it and had to double click the word on their Web site to figure out what the hell it means?
Err, uh, me neither.
Has there never been a time when you've read it and had to double click the word on their Web site to figure out what the hell it means?
Err, uh, me neither.
8
Every two years I go to Folsom Fair. I'm gonna find this guy and get him fallated.
9
Blatant copyright infringement. You can quote pretty liberally in the context of your own work (reviewing the article or something) but you can't just copy and paste several paragraphs and call it a day.
10
I've got no problem with (or interest in) your private life, or your family life. But when you try to suggest that there is no difference between the sexual habits of straight people and that of gay males -- well, nobody really takes you seriously.
11
busted
12
Commitment != exclusivity.
'nough said.
'nough said.
13
Judging from his picture, while that dude might not be gay, he sure looks like he's sucked a lot of cock in his day
14
Most men can separate sex from love. Gay men can do so even better.
I'm monogamous in that I only love my husband (we're not polyamorous), but we're not sexually exclusive. I usually clarify it as "emotional monogamy." And like Dan, extracurricular relations aren't overly common.
I think gay male couples are much better at talking about sex and sexual desires in a relationship than either straight couples or lesbians. Most gay male couples have at least had the _discussion_ about sex outside of the relationship or about a 3-way. How many straight couples have ever even talked about it?
I'm monogamous in that I only love my husband (we're not polyamorous), but we're not sexually exclusive. I usually clarify it as "emotional monogamy." And like Dan, extracurricular relations aren't overly common.
I think gay male couples are much better at talking about sex and sexual desires in a relationship than either straight couples or lesbians. Most gay male couples have at least had the _discussion_ about sex outside of the relationship or about a 3-way. How many straight couples have ever even talked about it?
15
Peter LaBarbera aka PoPo, Miss Streisand, Bitch, Punk, Worm
formerly trendy, now a neighborhood "favorite." Safe word is "tapioca" but repeat patrons say "you'll never hear it." Avoid the moral "conundrums" as they lead to the very cute servers weeping in your lap.
Franchise locations: Chicago, South Beach, San Francisco (South of Market), New York (Meatpacking District closed), Salt Lake City
formerly trendy, now a neighborhood "favorite." Safe word is "tapioca" but repeat patrons say "you'll never hear it." Avoid the moral "conundrums" as they lead to the very cute servers weeping in your lap.
Franchise locations: Chicago, South Beach, San Francisco (South of Market), New York (Meatpacking District closed), Salt Lake City
16
Buttfuck for world peace
17
@2: It's all fun and games until someone says words like apoplexy.
18
Dan,
Your popery never ceases to amaze me. You have absolutely no insight into the fundamentalist mind. The word they are concentrating on here is HOLINESS. He is showing this as a little diorama in which gay marriage is portrayed. The fact that monogamy is such a loose concept for you sets little bells off in their minds about the SANCTITY of your--and by extension all of--gay marriage.
This is a worldview that believes in the literal interpretation of Scripture in respect for its supernatural character; a single infraction as to the procedural elements in "God's Plan" for us is by definition deviant and worthy of eternal damnation, were it not for the "Grace" obtained by means of the crucifixion of Jesus. This impossible ideal of perfection the key element in the mantra of "We're all sinners"--and by extension also the favorite verse of the biblically-illiterate, "Judge not".
So when you openly admit to mutual (I presume) license vis-a-vis adultery, the extended explanation you offer as to how "safe" your pre-existing arrangement is only goes to show how cunning you are in avoiding the punishment an angry, jealous, supernatural God sends you through the medium of nature to warn you of your sinful life and consequently of your immanent (look up "immanence" in Wikipedia) and eternal damnation.
You don't know that because you were not raised in that tradition. A simple description of you and your husband going to Mass would elicit a similar reaction from his intended audience--since the pope is the Antichrist and all--as mundane as that activity may seem to you.
Your popery never ceases to amaze me. You have absolutely no insight into the fundamentalist mind. The word they are concentrating on here is HOLINESS. He is showing this as a little diorama in which gay marriage is portrayed. The fact that monogamy is such a loose concept for you sets little bells off in their minds about the SANCTITY of your--and by extension all of--gay marriage.
This is a worldview that believes in the literal interpretation of Scripture in respect for its supernatural character; a single infraction as to the procedural elements in "God's Plan" for us is by definition deviant and worthy of eternal damnation, were it not for the "Grace" obtained by means of the crucifixion of Jesus. This impossible ideal of perfection the key element in the mantra of "We're all sinners"--and by extension also the favorite verse of the biblically-illiterate, "Judge not".
So when you openly admit to mutual (I presume) license vis-a-vis adultery, the extended explanation you offer as to how "safe" your pre-existing arrangement is only goes to show how cunning you are in avoiding the punishment an angry, jealous, supernatural God sends you through the medium of nature to warn you of your sinful life and consequently of your immanent (look up "immanence" in Wikipedia) and eternal damnation.
You don't know that because you were not raised in that tradition. A simple description of you and your husband going to Mass would elicit a similar reaction from his intended audience--since the pope is the Antichrist and all--as mundane as that activity may seem to you.
19
New shit has come to light man.
20
In a few years, it will come to light that this man has had naughty, non-Christian, non-monogamous sex. He'll try to pass it off as research.
This is the premonition I had after seeing that picture of him.
This is the premonition I had after seeing that picture of him.
21
I think he wants a dick in his mouth.
22
@10: But when you try to suggest that there is no difference between the sexual habits of straight people and that of gay males --
I'm not sure that's what Dan's saying. I think he's saying just the opposite and that's why there's so much divorce.
Dan's point (as I interpret it) is that "attitudes" about sex between straight and gay relationships are similar, not habits.
In other words, monogamy is as difficult for straight men as it is for gay men. The whole idea of monogamy is as despised among straight men as it is for gay men. Straight men no more honor or look forward to monogamy than gay men. And successful monogamy is as rare in straight relationships as it is in gay ones. Gay men are comfortable admitting all of this; straight men inevitably pretend otherwise.
I think that Dan is saying the habits of a gay relationships are different than a majority of straight ones, and a small minority of straight relationships are similar to gay ones, and if more straight people adopted the behavior of gays, their marriages and partnerships would be more successful. And he's right.
But behavior won't change until attitudes do, and the first step is honesty. Unfortunately, most straight women can't handle that, and so the men in their lives keep all of this to themselves.
Result: cheating.
I'm not sure that's what Dan's saying. I think he's saying just the opposite and that's why there's so much divorce.
Dan's point (as I interpret it) is that "attitudes" about sex between straight and gay relationships are similar, not habits.
In other words, monogamy is as difficult for straight men as it is for gay men. The whole idea of monogamy is as despised among straight men as it is for gay men. Straight men no more honor or look forward to monogamy than gay men. And successful monogamy is as rare in straight relationships as it is in gay ones. Gay men are comfortable admitting all of this; straight men inevitably pretend otherwise.
I think that Dan is saying the habits of a gay relationships are different than a majority of straight ones, and a small minority of straight relationships are similar to gay ones, and if more straight people adopted the behavior of gays, their marriages and partnerships would be more successful. And he's right.
But behavior won't change until attitudes do, and the first step is honesty. Unfortunately, most straight women can't handle that, and so the men in their lives keep all of this to themselves.
Result: cheating.
23
@22 I agree with your assessment and with Dan's feelings about non-monogamy and I also agree it is probably harder for men to remain monogamous or to even to want monagamy than it is for most women.
EXCEPT, in my experience--straight men ARE NOT great at feeling the same about their women. And therein lies the difficulty in their pleas for the right to stray. They want to do it, but they don't want their women to have the same freedom.
So in a straight relationship it looks as if it is the woman holding the man back, because most of the time women don't even want to go there--they aren't interested in the concept and they do get jealous. But if a woman is open to it--then the straight guy jealousy kicks in. So poor straight guy still has his quandaries and struggles. I want it!! But I dont really want her to have it.
I speak as an admittedly unusual woman who has no trouble with her partners either falling in love with others or having sex with others. I pick good men I can trust, and then I don't try to control them. And I've done this very very carefully while maintaining two LTRs. It's the men in my life who struggle most with jealousy.
Maybe it's the evolutionary thing that kicks in about men not wanting to be cuckholded and stuck raising other people's babies. Maybe that's why gay men can do it better by allowing for mutual fooling around with less drama.
As to the religeous right? Oh, man, I wish they weren't picking on Dan because they probably have all of those struggles inside of them and think they are fighting the devil--and someday Dan just might be tired of being their devil to kick at. They start throwing around his very honest and truthful comments---which are in sharp contrast to their ways of deluding themselves--and it raises fear in them. So yeah, strategically it means they can twiddle up some sort of storm that might contribute in some minds to the scary vision of gays, or any liberal interpretation of marriage.
But on the other hand. Dan pushes the envelope but it's with truth. He pushes and he gets slapped back pretty hard--but eventually it means more light comes through the door for all of us. In the end, after the inevitable shitstorm--in the end it hopefully will lead to more breathing room for everyone. I just can't help worrying about the shitstorm, though. But I'm grateful to him for putting himself out there.
More...
EXCEPT, in my experience--straight men ARE NOT great at feeling the same about their women. And therein lies the difficulty in their pleas for the right to stray. They want to do it, but they don't want their women to have the same freedom.
So in a straight relationship it looks as if it is the woman holding the man back, because most of the time women don't even want to go there--they aren't interested in the concept and they do get jealous. But if a woman is open to it--then the straight guy jealousy kicks in. So poor straight guy still has his quandaries and struggles. I want it!! But I dont really want her to have it.
I speak as an admittedly unusual woman who has no trouble with her partners either falling in love with others or having sex with others. I pick good men I can trust, and then I don't try to control them. And I've done this very very carefully while maintaining two LTRs. It's the men in my life who struggle most with jealousy.
Maybe it's the evolutionary thing that kicks in about men not wanting to be cuckholded and stuck raising other people's babies. Maybe that's why gay men can do it better by allowing for mutual fooling around with less drama.
As to the religeous right? Oh, man, I wish they weren't picking on Dan because they probably have all of those struggles inside of them and think they are fighting the devil--and someday Dan just might be tired of being their devil to kick at. They start throwing around his very honest and truthful comments---which are in sharp contrast to their ways of deluding themselves--and it raises fear in them. So yeah, strategically it means they can twiddle up some sort of storm that might contribute in some minds to the scary vision of gays, or any liberal interpretation of marriage.
But on the other hand. Dan pushes the envelope but it's with truth. He pushes and he gets slapped back pretty hard--but eventually it means more light comes through the door for all of us. In the end, after the inevitable shitstorm--in the end it hopefully will lead to more breathing room for everyone. I just can't help worrying about the shitstorm, though. But I'm grateful to him for putting himself out there.
24
I'm Cookie W. Monster and I approve all the other frequent Slog commenters--except for scary tyler moore, who is a closeted Republican and Foghat's #1 fan.
25
I don't get it. What's the truth? Dan even admitted being non-monogamy is more fulfilling in theory than practice. how can he argue with a straight face that gays should be allowed to marry (they should) but their best chance at happiness, and natural inclination is non-monogamy? why wouldn't civil unions be enough according to Dan's logic? I guess I fail to see how Dan's argument is anything other than doublespeak, rather than the universal truths he thinks he's revealing. The argument that straight couples cheat on each other all the time isn't really a valid argument either. It just leads to more circular logic without ever arriving at why gays should be allowed to marry.
I mean, I've never found it difficult to be monogamous. Think about other people? Sure. Act on it? Not really appealing at all. The kind of closeness and intimacy you gain from being with someone for a long time really is a wonderful thing. It doesn't mean it will last forever. But being married takes work. A hell of a lot of work. You can't just do whatever you want whenever you want, which includes sexual indulgences. I'm not saying people who are in open marriages are immoral or wrong. I just don't see the logic process by which open marriages are an argument for marriage equality.
I mean, I've never found it difficult to be monogamous. Think about other people? Sure. Act on it? Not really appealing at all. The kind of closeness and intimacy you gain from being with someone for a long time really is a wonderful thing. It doesn't mean it will last forever. But being married takes work. A hell of a lot of work. You can't just do whatever you want whenever you want, which includes sexual indulgences. I'm not saying people who are in open marriages are immoral or wrong. I just don't see the logic process by which open marriages are an argument for marriage equality.
26
@23: you make a good point. I think that most straight men are much more willing to (and comfortable with) their wives sleeping with other women than other men. It's a sexist double standard that I have little patience with.
@25: I don't think that Dan is singling out gay relationships when he talks about non-monogamy. I think he thinks the best chance for happiness for all relationships is honesty, and one aspect of that honesty is discussing whether or not monogamy year and year, decade after decade is a reasonable (or achievable) goal. For some people it is. For far more others, it's not.
I've read a lot from Dan over the years, and I don't recall him ever saying that people in committed relationships should be able to do "whatever we want whenever we want." Ever. Even he and Terry don't do that. They have specific times and specific situations that they've agreed to--as a committed couple. I don't know why you even brought this up, since it's nowhere in anything Dan has written, especially about his own marriage.
Words like "fidelity," "exclusive," "faithful," and even "monogamy" are relative and fluid. These words mean different things to different couples. You've implied that being open negates "closeness" and "intimacy," and you are wrong. An open relationship does not mean an "unfaithful" or "uncommitted" relationship. And it certainly doesn't mean the chaotic free-for-all that you seem to think it does.
@25: I don't think that Dan is singling out gay relationships when he talks about non-monogamy. I think he thinks the best chance for happiness for all relationships is honesty, and one aspect of that honesty is discussing whether or not monogamy year and year, decade after decade is a reasonable (or achievable) goal. For some people it is. For far more others, it's not.
I've read a lot from Dan over the years, and I don't recall him ever saying that people in committed relationships should be able to do "whatever we want whenever we want." Ever. Even he and Terry don't do that. They have specific times and specific situations that they've agreed to--as a committed couple. I don't know why you even brought this up, since it's nowhere in anything Dan has written, especially about his own marriage.
Words like "fidelity," "exclusive," "faithful," and even "monogamy" are relative and fluid. These words mean different things to different couples. You've implied that being open negates "closeness" and "intimacy," and you are wrong. An open relationship does not mean an "unfaithful" or "uncommitted" relationship. And it certainly doesn't mean the chaotic free-for-all that you seem to think it does.
27
@26
I bring it up because I too have read many of his writings over the years on this subject. And while the wording is obviously not exactly how I succinctly paraphrased it, he has definitely shown a distaste for the idea of monogamy for anyone. Which is fine. He can't dislike it all he wants and look towards a future free of societal bonds, blah blah blah.
But my comment wasn't really about that and you're trying to change the subject. I certainly don't think it's a 'free-for-all'. Rather, I was pointing out that meaningful relationships, of all kinds, involve sacrifice and compromise. Sometimes this takes the form of being exclusive, sometimes it does not. I was simply pointing out the lack of logical consistency in Dan's argument.
Another point:
"Words like "fidelity," "exclusive," "faithful," and even "monogamy" are relative and fluid."
You are wrong. You're using doublespeak rather than addressing the actual issue. The idea of a marriage will vary from couple to couple, but the words I used have very concrete meanings. You seem to extrapolate a lot from Dan's post that isn't there. I suggest you go back and read other things he has written on open relatioinships to get a clearer picture of how he has presented his views.
I bring it up because I too have read many of his writings over the years on this subject. And while the wording is obviously not exactly how I succinctly paraphrased it, he has definitely shown a distaste for the idea of monogamy for anyone. Which is fine. He can't dislike it all he wants and look towards a future free of societal bonds, blah blah blah.
But my comment wasn't really about that and you're trying to change the subject. I certainly don't think it's a 'free-for-all'. Rather, I was pointing out that meaningful relationships, of all kinds, involve sacrifice and compromise. Sometimes this takes the form of being exclusive, sometimes it does not. I was simply pointing out the lack of logical consistency in Dan's argument.
Another point:
"Words like "fidelity," "exclusive," "faithful," and even "monogamy" are relative and fluid."
You are wrong. You're using doublespeak rather than addressing the actual issue. The idea of a marriage will vary from couple to couple, but the words I used have very concrete meanings. You seem to extrapolate a lot from Dan's post that isn't there. I suggest you go back and read other things he has written on open relatioinships to get a clearer picture of how he has presented his views.
28
Alan: Your marriage is legally valid whether it's open or closed, sexually exclusive or not, whether you're monogamous or not, whether you or your wife or the both of you commit adultery at some point or not.
Monogamy is not a defining characteristic of heterosexual marriage. Why should gay relationships be held to a higher—excuse me, different—standard?
Monogamy is not a defining characteristic of heterosexual marriage. Why should gay relationships be held to a higher—excuse me, different—standard?
29
@27. How can my quoting directly from your post and addressing your points be "changing the subject." You didn't just paraphrase Dan's point "succinctly"; you paraphrased it incorrectly.
And don't change the subject. It doesn't matter whether or not Dan has a "distaste" for monogamy. You said he was advocating a "whatever we want whenever we want" behavior. You're wrong.
Honestly, before suggesting what I should and should not read, try some reading comprehension of your own in this one, short post of his, k?
And don't change the subject. It doesn't matter whether or not Dan has a "distaste" for monogamy. You said he was advocating a "whatever we want whenever we want" behavior. You're wrong.
Honestly, before suggesting what I should and should not read, try some reading comprehension of your own in this one, short post of his, k?
30
Dan-
Monogamy is not a defining characteristic of marriage? Really? You can't honestly believe that marriage does not imply monogamy. While it doesn't invalidate a marriage, it is certainly a cornerstone is it not? Have you really reduced marriage to...property rights? Taxes? Wills?
I mean what exactly are you trying to convince your readers of? I support gay marriage. Donated against Prop 8.
As a politcal theorist, I don't think gay relationships should be held to any other standard, higher or lower. But once again your circular logic has no point, no conclusion. At the risk of sounding like Mudede, there is no center from which to pull the separate ideas you espouse together. You have child. You are in an non-monogamous relationship (more in theory than practice) and these are reasons Peter LaBarbera is wrong about gays making bad parents? How does being in an open relationship make you a better parent or spouse?
Do you see how muddled and non-sensical your argument is? Have you actually thought about this at all?
Monogamy is not a defining characteristic of marriage? Really? You can't honestly believe that marriage does not imply monogamy. While it doesn't invalidate a marriage, it is certainly a cornerstone is it not? Have you really reduced marriage to...property rights? Taxes? Wills?
I mean what exactly are you trying to convince your readers of? I support gay marriage. Donated against Prop 8.
As a politcal theorist, I don't think gay relationships should be held to any other standard, higher or lower. But once again your circular logic has no point, no conclusion. At the risk of sounding like Mudede, there is no center from which to pull the separate ideas you espouse together. You have child. You are in an non-monogamous relationship (more in theory than practice) and these are reasons Peter LaBarbera is wrong about gays making bad parents? How does being in an open relationship make you a better parent or spouse?
Do you see how muddled and non-sensical your argument is? Have you actually thought about this at all?
31
@30: The different traditions under which two people may be married mandate different behaviors; some are rigid, with many "Thou shalt nots" and others are less so. I should think that marriage-in-general demands loyalty to one's spouse. One can be loyal to one's spouse without being loyal only to one's spouse, if and only if the two agree to a set of rules governing their actions, and if they both follow those rules.
Rigid traditions impose rules upon married couples; it seems to me that Dan is saying that adults can make their own rules.
Rigid traditions impose rules upon married couples; it seems to me that Dan is saying that adults can make their own rules.
32
@30: How does being in an open relationship make you a better parent or spouse?
Alan, he's not saying that he's a better parent or spouse that those who are monogamous! He's saying he's not a worse one!
He might also be saying that the honesty that he and Terry share makes their relationship more stable than other couples who just parrot the status quo in order to appear "normal," but that's just common sense.
And I don't think "invalidate" means what you think it means.
And commitment is a defining characteristic of marriage, not monogamy, especially among most gay men (I would imagine). And monogamy doesn't affect commitment one way or the other.
Alan, he's not saying that he's a better parent or spouse that those who are monogamous! He's saying he's not a worse one!
He might also be saying that the honesty that he and Terry share makes their relationship more stable than other couples who just parrot the status quo in order to appear "normal," but that's just common sense.
And I don't think "invalidate" means what you think it means.
And commitment is a defining characteristic of marriage, not monogamy, especially among most gay men (I would imagine). And monogamy doesn't affect commitment one way or the other.
33
More...
Yes, Alan, monogamy is not a legally defining characteristic of marriage. Monogamy may be implied, it may be assumed, but it's absence doesn't invalidate a marriage. The End.
It's like cohabitation: marriage generally implies that two people are living under the same roof. But they needn't, and many don't. Those couples are still married. Same with kids: marriage is often about kids. But you can be married and not have kids or have kids without being married.
Yes, monogamy is assumed; it's even traditional�just not for straight men, not in practice, not until about 60 years ago. In many religious traditions it is emphasized and expected. But so long as straight people can be married without being monogamous�and monogamous without being married�gay people should be able to do the same. And be honest about it.
Are Bill and Hillary Clinton married?
Being in an open relationship doesn't make me or anyone else a better parent. But there are lots of people out there in closed relationships who are lousy parents, so it's clear that a closed relationship isn't the magic ingredient.
The boyfriend and I have, by hammering out an agreement about limited, safe, and rare outside sexual contacts, managed to defuse a bomb that routinely destroys relationships. I'm not going to leave him because he "cheated"; he's not going to leave me because I "cheated." And seeing as how common infidelity is, Alan, it does seem to me to be in the best interests of our child�any child�for his parents to defuse this bomb.
Has it made us better parents? No, it hasn't. But we are, after 14 years together (almost 11 as parents), still together. And the longevity and strength of our relationship is due, in part, to the small degree of openness that we've allowed each other. Maybe we'd still be together after all this time if we were strictly monogamous. But what we're doing works for us, just as it works for tons of legally-married-and-not-monogamous straight couples, and I don't see a need to fix what ain't broke.
34
"The boyfriend and I have...managed to defuse a bomb that routinely destroys relationships."
Destroyed mine. 13 years. We were both too chickenshit to sit down and have an adult discussion about it.
Destroyed mine. 13 years. We were both too chickenshit to sit down and have an adult discussion about it.
35
Dan, I don't think you should even put quotes around cheated. If you tell Terry, or he tells you, very soon after, then it really isn't cheating. Cheating is about deception. And deception is a MAJOR relationship-killer.
36
Alan @27 you speak of Dan's writings.
I've taken immeasurable comfort throughout the years by what Dan has written about monogamy, and I don't think he's been inconsistent. He writes about careful, respectful and realistic agreements between people.
Years ago, before we got married, my husband and I decided it was only realistic, especially since neither of us were hugely experienced, to think that we would each maybe be attracted to other people, and have crushes on others throughout our married life. And we decided we could trust each other to be respectful and to want each other to not to have to be ashamed or closeted about such feelings.
No one who knows me would think I'm anything but a responsible person, a good parent to my children, and that I have strong relationships. Even so, it doesn't mean there haven't been bumps along the road.
I remember one bumpy time years ago hearing Dan on This American Life talk about monogamy and non-monagamy, and how monogamous people have trouble, too. It was so calming to me, because everyone out there told us we were crazy. And yet Dan was sure right--it was right in front of our faces, though it was like the thing no one sees because their ingrained beliefs makes the obvious invisible. Whatever bumps we experienced, my monogamous friends experienced as roughly or more roughly than did we --and it was often about crushes and attractions they had to hide. They had affairs. They got divorced. We honestly and very carefully allowed each other to explore, and we kept our family together.
To me Dan's voice on this has always been very smart. To each their own on how to structure a relationship--he has always said that. And neither monogamy or non-monogamy is easy(for straight people, anyway!).
So I don't think he has been inconsistent and I don't think he's told people not to be monogamous--he has just spoken up against the common perception that non-monogamy is somehow not a workable standard, or that it somehow negates a strong commitment. And that sometimes monogamy doesn't work, and he gives the realistic suggestion that maybe, for some people, the alternative done carefully, can actually make a marriage stronger.
It's very logical. I don't get what the problem is except it's foreign enough to people that they have to fight the idea because on some gut level it is uncomfortable.
More...
I've taken immeasurable comfort throughout the years by what Dan has written about monogamy, and I don't think he's been inconsistent. He writes about careful, respectful and realistic agreements between people.
Years ago, before we got married, my husband and I decided it was only realistic, especially since neither of us were hugely experienced, to think that we would each maybe be attracted to other people, and have crushes on others throughout our married life. And we decided we could trust each other to be respectful and to want each other to not to have to be ashamed or closeted about such feelings.
No one who knows me would think I'm anything but a responsible person, a good parent to my children, and that I have strong relationships. Even so, it doesn't mean there haven't been bumps along the road.
I remember one bumpy time years ago hearing Dan on This American Life talk about monogamy and non-monagamy, and how monogamous people have trouble, too. It was so calming to me, because everyone out there told us we were crazy. And yet Dan was sure right--it was right in front of our faces, though it was like the thing no one sees because their ingrained beliefs makes the obvious invisible. Whatever bumps we experienced, my monogamous friends experienced as roughly or more roughly than did we --and it was often about crushes and attractions they had to hide. They had affairs. They got divorced. We honestly and very carefully allowed each other to explore, and we kept our family together.
To me Dan's voice on this has always been very smart. To each their own on how to structure a relationship--he has always said that. And neither monogamy or non-monogamy is easy(for straight people, anyway!).
So I don't think he has been inconsistent and I don't think he's told people not to be monogamous--he has just spoken up against the common perception that non-monogamy is somehow not a workable standard, or that it somehow negates a strong commitment. And that sometimes monogamy doesn't work, and he gives the realistic suggestion that maybe, for some people, the alternative done carefully, can actually make a marriage stronger.
It's very logical. I don't get what the problem is except it's foreign enough to people that they have to fight the idea because on some gut level it is uncomfortable.
37
Alion, you say what's in my head so much better than I do.
38
Ahhhh, thanks, Jade. But it ain't so. I'd say I was just more longwinded. Not particularly a virtue.
This you said
And commitment is a defining characteristic of marriage, not monogamy, especially among most gay men (I would imagine). And monogamy doesn't affect commitment one way or the other.
Kind of wraps it up in a nutshell.
Also I agree with @35--I don't think it's cheating (even in quotation marks) when there is no deception. But semantics, semantics.
This you said
And commitment is a defining characteristic of marriage, not monogamy, especially among most gay men (I would imagine). And monogamy doesn't affect commitment one way or the other.
Kind of wraps it up in a nutshell.
Also I agree with @35--I don't think it's cheating (even in quotation marks) when there is no deception. But semantics, semantics.
39
Wow, reading the selected passages actually makes me think this Mr. LaBerbera is kind of ... stupid? From what I read there was nothing that flat-out advocated wild nights of gay sex (or straight sex for that matter) with anyone someone desires. If anything the above sections, even with bolded text, seem to say "Think about your kids first and what it might to do them." How is that a bad message? How many children have come out of situations like that only to find themselves badly damaged? Relationships are about give-and-take, and most importantly communication. Sometimes the right-wing nutbags make me laugh, if only because they aren't all that bright with their tactics.
Sucks they win a lot of the time.
Sucks they win a lot of the time.
40
He looks gay as hell to me. Deeply closeted gay man or undercover gay operative...it's a murky, shady world he lives in, like Donnie Brasco or that guy in John Woo's Hard Boiled.
41
Unfortunately, gay people will be held to a higher standard than straight people. So Dan and his partner have an "agreement" At least they are honest about it. They've accepted that they are human males, and thus are not monogamous by nature. Even if scheduling, and conditions make extra-marital activities nearly impossible, things happen. It's not worth throwing away a relationship that works for them. They love each other, and the "agreement" (even if it's only in theory) makes for one less thing to stress over in a relationship.
Straight males are by and large not monogamous either. They just lie and sneak around, resulting in the huge number of failed heterosexual marriages.
Most of the people arguing against gay marriage have not been monogamous in their own lives. Look at the full range of definition entries, and don't just pick and choose the ones that are convenient for you.
Which hurts relationships more? Is is lying and sneaking around, or an agreement that recognizes a couples humanity?
Which one is more likely to harm children? Their parents getting divorced because one of them cheated, and lied, or an agreement to which the children are oblivious, but leads to the parents happily staying together?
Straight males are by and large not monogamous either. They just lie and sneak around, resulting in the huge number of failed heterosexual marriages.
Most of the people arguing against gay marriage have not been monogamous in their own lives. Look at the full range of definition entries, and don't just pick and choose the ones that are convenient for you.
Which hurts relationships more? Is is lying and sneaking around, or an agreement that recognizes a couples humanity?
Which one is more likely to harm children? Their parents getting divorced because one of them cheated, and lied, or an agreement to which the children are oblivious, but leads to the parents happily staying together?
42
Jade, I think you're oversimplifying the situation here:
"In other words, monogamy is as difficult for straight men as it is for gay men. The whole idea of monogamy is as despised among straight men as it is for gay men. Straight men no more honor or look forward to monogamy than gay men. And successful monogamy is as rare in straight relationships as it is in gay ones. Gay men are comfortable admitting all of this; straight men inevitably pretend otherwise."
Speaking for myself and my partner: monogamy is what we wanted, it's what we have. We have about as much interest in non-monogamy as vegan has in a bacon cheeseburger. Nonmonogamy and monogamy both have their difficulties. The only way of making it easy is being honest with yourself, and your partner (or potential partner) about what you want.
I have no idea if we're a typical gay couple, but I will say that it is typical for most of the gay and straight people that we know. Take that to mean whatever you wish.
I do agree that honesty is the best policy. I've known at least one couple in an open-relationship which ultimately failed because one of them really wanted monogamy, but settled for non-monogamy. After a few drinks his true feelings about the situation would slip out, creating much drama.
It does no one any good to pretend you don't want what you want. But it also doesn't help to try to paint the whole gay community as non-monogamous, or to suggest that those of us to who prefer monogamy are somehow liars, prudes, or sexually stunted.
"In other words, monogamy is as difficult for straight men as it is for gay men. The whole idea of monogamy is as despised among straight men as it is for gay men. Straight men no more honor or look forward to monogamy than gay men. And successful monogamy is as rare in straight relationships as it is in gay ones. Gay men are comfortable admitting all of this; straight men inevitably pretend otherwise."
Speaking for myself and my partner: monogamy is what we wanted, it's what we have. We have about as much interest in non-monogamy as vegan has in a bacon cheeseburger. Nonmonogamy and monogamy both have their difficulties. The only way of making it easy is being honest with yourself, and your partner (or potential partner) about what you want.
I have no idea if we're a typical gay couple, but I will say that it is typical for most of the gay and straight people that we know. Take that to mean whatever you wish.
I do agree that honesty is the best policy. I've known at least one couple in an open-relationship which ultimately failed because one of them really wanted monogamy, but settled for non-monogamy. After a few drinks his true feelings about the situation would slip out, creating much drama.
It does no one any good to pretend you don't want what you want. But it also doesn't help to try to paint the whole gay community as non-monogamous, or to suggest that those of us to who prefer monogamy are somehow liars, prudes, or sexually stunted.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Fort Worth Police Chief: That Faggot Had It Coming by Dan Savage
-
Defense Of Marriage Asshole by Dan Savage
-
Delightful Damage by Charles Mudede
-
Palin to Step Down as Governor by Lindy West
-
I'm Pretty Busy Murdering Arthouse Cinema With My Bare Hands at the Moment... by Lindy West
-
Summer In The City by Dan Savage
-
Re: Palin to Step Down as Governor by Eli Sanders
-
Things Come In Threes by Dan Savage
-
Shirt Lifter by Dan Savage
-
Wailin' For Palin by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS