Seems on Saturday they were "on about" a NYT piece from a couple of weeks ago entitled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret" and focused on a forthcoming study that came to the following conclusion:
“With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”Wow. Pretty significant stuff. Pretty definitive difference between "straight people" and "gay people" -- what with it written with such specificity and clarity. And it was -- after all -- in the New York Times so of course it must be true. And so of course the Titusoneniners were off to the "I told you so" races ... this time with a scientific study to back them up.
That would be a scientific study of 556 couples. 556 male couples. 556 male couples in the San Francisco Bay Area. Which led to the conclusion that 50% of them weren't monogamous. Which is pretty much the stats for heterosexual couples ... in the Bay Area or out of it.
And so I'm wondering this afternoon how monogamy would stand up to a scientific study of 556 heterosexual couples ... oh, let's just pick some at random. How about members of the PGA Tour? And let's make sure to include Hugh Hefner, David Letterman and Eliot Spitzer ... just to round out the numbers.
I'm actually not a believer in "three strikes laws" but I'm ready to be a convert when it comes to preserving the sanctity of marriage. I'm ready to make the argument that with the moral example lead off hitters like Mark Sanford, John Edwards and Tiger Woods have set, it's time to call "three strikes and you're out" for the heteros and to bring in some homos from the bench and give them and a chance to show what they -- and their relationships -- are made of.
As I noted in my 2007 piece "Speaking of Monogamy"
Here is as non-ambiguous a definition of monogamy as I could find:So back to the NYTimes article. Here's the part that didn't make it "above the fold" on the Titusonenine site:
Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos, which means marriage or union.
One mate. A couple. Two people. Clear? Non-ambiguous? Sounds that way to me. But then so did C051 -- the resolution passed in 2003 at the Episcopal Church General Convention outlining the standards for holiness in relationships that rose to the level of being blessed by the church:
That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that "We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God," and that such relationships exist throughout the church ... [and] we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
Hardly the "anything goes" we keep hearing about, is it? Actually, the ONLY thing that "goes" is heterosexist privilege -- and it's about time!
Now, are there those in the LGBT community who are not attracted to these standards: to monogamy, fidelity and all the rest? Of course there are. And here's a news flash: there are straight people who aren't either! And those aren't the relationships we're talking about blessing! How's that for clarity?
Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.Hmmm ... (some more!)
“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”
Maybe Colleen Hoff (the study's "principal investigator") needs to re-examine her conclusions. And maybe those conclusions might more accurately be revised to read:
“With some people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with other people it does not have such negative connotations.”Because I did a little not-so-scientific study myself. On my Facebook page. And here was my favorite response:
"It sure as heck has 'negative connotations' in MY gay marriage," wrote one colleague. "Should I ever be so foolish as to consider non-monogamy, my wife would call it: "Buried in the back yard!"
(FYI ... comments are closed over at T19 on this one. When you can't stand the heat sometimes the only thing to do is close down the kitchen! :)