The far right's mono-game: Deny gays of monogamy, enshrine them as a monolith
I, Jeremy, am a gay man. A married gay man. A married gay man who places a premium on monogamy in my own life, and whose shared vow is to be with one man for the duration life. A married gay man who dedicates a large portion of that pre death-parted life to the fight to obtain the freedom to marry for all of-age, non-blood-related, human couples who choose that route (with full recognition and respect for the fact that it's not for everyone).
But my reality doesn't matter to Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton. To him, I'm part of a "they." A "they" that's supposedly incapable of understanding marriage:
"The [San Francisco State University monogamy study] demonstrates clearly what we've been arguing: That gays bring a different definition to marriage," Glenn T. Stanton, a sociologist who is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family, told Baptist Press. "And it's not just a different definition that male and female become optional, but that monogamy becomes optional as well. They are coming into marriage with a wholly different view of marriage than anybody has -- left, right, conservative, liberal.... They come in with that understanding of openness. These are people who come into marriage with a wholly different and really radical definition of what marriage is about."
Study showing lack of gay monogamy could impact nation's marriage debate [BP News]
Oh yes: Behold the "radical agenda," if you can stand it:
(photos: JAG Studios)
Not sure if the parents, nuns, children, or vari-faithed attendees who celebrated my and Andrew's love are also part of this generalized "they." We'll have to ask Mr. Stanton about his "radical by association" boundaries the next time he stands outside our window throwing stones at a life and love that he knows nothing about.
**Oh, and get this: In the Baptist Press story where Stanton makes his quip, the writer also cites Dan Savage's views on monogamy. But here's the annoying thing: In order to get to Dan's words, they literally had to jump over my own thoughts. That's because the piece of Dan's writing that they use is setup around something that I had written! My name is in the first five words!
But my thoughts don't matter to the far-right. Viewpoint diversity among the LGBT community doesn't matter. They want, nay, need to make us a monolithic "they," so they ignore anyone who doesn't fit their preconceived script. It's nothing short of enraging!
The study they are reporting on second hand was totally mangled by the NY Times. It does NOT prove that half of gay couples are non-monogamous.
It was taken from a sample of San Francisco gay male couples as short as three months, recruited in gay bars and on Craigslist, over 40% of which are HIV positive (as compared to the national average of about 12%), and in lower social economic status. This demographic no more reflects "gay couples" than a survey of CPAC attendees reflects straight couples.
See my analysis here
Posted by: Timothy | Feb 11, 2010 11:22:32 AM
TK: I'm so glad you've had a chance to give this study a bit of a vetting. I haven't had the opp. yet.
Gonna add your link to the post.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 11, 2010 11:23:53 AM
Why am I not surprised that the anti-gay religiots are again misrepresenting the truth. One could get the impression that they are entirely bereft of truthfulness, honesty or even decency.
Perhaps it is more charitable to suggest that they simply are intellectually challenged, or simply incapable of knowing and/or understanding the truth. Because if they are actually capable of knowing the truth, that leaves only one other option: that they knowingly (and with malice), purposefully misrepresent a non-representative survey (once again) as if it accurately represents our entire population.
While it is easy to believe either of those postulations, in actuality it is probably some combination of malice, intellectual dishonesty and lack of cognitive capacity.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 11, 2010 12:09:35 PM
Glenn T. Stanton of FOTC:
"The [San Francisco State University monogamy study] demonstrates clearly what we've been arguing: That gays bring a different definition to marriage,"
So, Stanton is promoting the traditional definition of marriage where outside sex is done secretly and then lied about. We wouldn't want to change the definition so that if outside sex does happen, it is done openly and without the lying.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Feb 11, 2010 1:32:36 PM
Sounds about right, Richard.
How many ways are they misrepresenting the findings of the study/
For starters, it only looks at gay men.
The survey included participants as young as 18.
"Relationship" was defined as being "together for 3 months or longer".
The couples taking part in the study all came from the same region.
Most of the participants didn't have any kind of formalized commitant that could in theory be comparable to a marriage.
Now, any ONE of those variables would have rendered this study unreliable as a representation of the ENTIRE LGBT community. Taken together, it's even LESS reliable.
And of course, completely ignored is the fact that HALF the participants DID value monogamy.
Posted by: Bill S | Feb 11, 2010 2:01:36 PM
Ummmm....yeah...rriiiiiggghhht! ;oP As if str8 people don't have their own definitions for what a marriage is! Ever heard of Swing Parties? Many heteros. also practice Open relationships, so guys like this really need to stop judging the structure of SOME of our relationships by the standards of his own religious animus.
Still, I gotta' admit, the eventual plans of the Religious Right who want to dominate the US. as a literally Christian nation (and are still attempting to do so!) freaks me the fuck out:
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 11, 2010 2:30:27 PM
And if I remember my history correctly, it's been very common for men to have a mistress or see prostitutes on the side! I even remember hearing a statistic in Victorian England that said it was quit common for men to visit a brothel 3 times a week on average.
Let's hear it for traditional marriage!
At least if a gay couple chooses to have an open relationship, they aren't being deceitful, and won't have to spend time lying about it to their spouse!
If hetero marriages were commonly monogamous Jerry Springer and Maury Povich would be out of a job!
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Feb 11, 2010 3:38:42 PM
And, Jeremy that 3rd pic makes me feel all gooey and fuzzy inside!
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Feb 11, 2010 3:40:11 PM
I suppose their heads would explode at the number of open heterosexual marriages that I know about. Or those who chose not to marry in order to play the field as long as possible.
Or maybe the fact that women can be as sexually voracious as men. That should come as shock to some of the religiously motivated bigots out there.
Posted by: Tony P | Feb 11, 2010 5:57:37 PM
On a lighter note, you and your husband make a very handsome couple.
Maybe someday that's all that will be mentioned when nice pictures like these are posted for all to see.
Posted by: Dale | Feb 11, 2010 6:30:33 PM
huh. So this "Study" is really more like a Fox News: You Decide online poll that only ran for one Bill O'Reilly show.
Figures they're all over it. Has Maggie Gallagher pooped on it and sent it out as an e-mail blast fundraising plea yet?
Posted by: Eric | Feb 12, 2010 12:36:42 PMcomments powered by Disqus