Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...mous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

Whelp for something which was erroneously touted as a "basic human right", it looks like a good chunk of gay couples aren't even going to be interested in getting married now that they have this right. This is is why the comparisons to "slavery" and the like are pretty ridiculous in hindsight, since I guarantee that the majority of liberated blacks didn't choose to remain on plantations anyway.

Not even going into the merits of homosexuality itself - I think this really shows that the "gay rights movement" was more about cultural Marxism than it was about rights, and that the cultural Marxists wanted it more than gays themselves did.


The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days.
Hanna Rosin Hanna Rosin

Hanna Rosin is the founder of DoubleX and a writer for the Atlantic. She is also the author of The End of Men. Follow her on Twitter.

But the thorny part of the gay marriage experiment is sex, and more precisely, monogamous sex. Mundy writes about an old study from the '80s that found that gay couples were extremely likely to have had sex outside their relationship—82 percent did. That was before AIDS and the great matrimony craze in the gay community. She also tells the story of Dan Savage, who started out wanting to be monogamous until he and his partner had kids, and then they loosened up on that in order to make their union last. “Monogamish” is what he calls his new model. But as Mundy asks, can anyone out there imagine a husband proposing that same deal to his pregnant wife?

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:
ADVERTISING


The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.

In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships.

In his interviews with married gay couples, Thrasher gets them to open up about the arrangements they invent. Most are some version of Dan Savage's “monogamish.” They are monogamous when they are in the same city, they can have sex with other people but not fall in love, or they can have sex with other people for some period of time. In some far-off, ideal world, this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples may actually start to tackle the age-old problem of boring monogamous sex. But do any of us really believe that?

 

Most heterosexual couples aren't getting married either.

 

But they aren't claiming that marriage is a basic right - state recognition of marriage is a privileged based on merit - the marriage benefits were an incentive designed to benefit the state (ex. through procreation), not an entitlement to any two people who are "in love".

The marriage has to benefit the state in some way; since gays can't naturally procreate then discrimination is IMO perfectly constitutional, since it's based on merit (ability to procreate) versus "arbitrary" things like race.

 

Eh, this is why I didn't care too much about the gay marriage debate- the "sanctity of marriage" has been gone for generations. Everyone is degenerate now; real marriage is all but forgotten. Might as well let the full-on reprobates in on the farce.

 

36 years... still sacred, still joined before God.

Of course, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman... so... it follows that sans Relativism, it would be.

 

On the other side of the coin some people stayed in dead marriages not out of real commitment but just out of social pressure.

Prior to the welfare era, birth control, etc marriage was also a lot more necessary for the provision of the wife and child since she had to rely on her husband to provide her - now instead she relies on the welfare state, and people are loser about who they sleep with since they think birth control and abortion means they can sleep around without consequences, yet there are still tons of unplanned children growing up on welfare with no dad around.

If you want to blame something on a nation-wide scale it's the economic changes which are to blame; people didn't just start doing all of these things out of thin air.

 

There would be plenty of people calling it a right if there was a proposal to remove it. People don’t care about rights unless (they think) they’re being taken away.

Just because something is Constitutional doesn’t automatically make it right. That’s about what government shouldn’t do, not what it should.

There can still be arguments made for the state/social benefit to extending marriage to same-sex couples in the same way it already extends to couples unwilling or unable to have their own children for other reasons. When an elderly couple get married, people say it’s sweet. When a gay couple gets married, they says it’s disgusting. On the other hand, it could be said that the state/social benefit of marriage in general is actually quite limited given how many people live together without getting married, how many married people don’t live up to it and how easy it now is to break.

 

Imagine the billions wasted on this.

 

yes they were, a heterosexual was also one of the victims in court.....

being allowed to marry when your ready to marry doesn't mean you HAVE to marry

 

when they come up with a reliable male birth control pill, it will be covered by insurance and the birth rate of unwanted children will go down

 

There's no right for the state to give special benefits to any couple just because they're "in love".

Just because the state can't imprison them just for being in a physical relationship doesn't mean that the state's entitled to hand out benefits to a couple for being in the relationship.

It has to benefit the state economy in some way (ex. which straight relationships do via procreation).

If not then why can't two male college roommates get "married" - why is "having sex" a requirement for marriage when having gay sex doesn't benefit the state in any way? If it's an entitlement for being in some type of relationship then it renders the entire point of marriage benefits meaningless.

 

your right, the state could 100% ban all marriage, they can not be descriminitive about it though

 

So what? The idea wasn't to make them marry, it was to permit that option. I don't particularly support government being involved in the process at all, but I just don't see the issue with gays not getting married at expected rates.

 

I’m not clear whether you mean nation state or US State but either way, there’s nothing to say either doesn’t have the right to do this. Of course, if the citizens don’t like it, they’ll replace the people running the state.

Relationships that produce children will generally benefit the economy (though you can have too much of a good thing too). Mixed-sex marriage in general doesn’t automatically do so. If your concern is only about procreation, why not attach the incentives to having and rising children rather than just being married?

Having sex isn’t a requirement for marriage. Non-consummation remains grounds for divorce or annulment in some places but only if one or both partners objects. It remains perfectly legal to have a completely platonic marriage. It remains perfectly legal to be married but only have sex using birth control.

For good or bad, marriage hasn’t been what you’re imagining it to be for a long, long time, well before the idea of same-sex marriage was ever raised. Your frustration at that fact is misdirected.

 

Bahahaha.........a pill NOT taken will never be reliable!
Today's female birth control pill is better than 99% effective yet there are many unwanted children. Why? Because they forgot to take "the pill". Throw in a male birth control pill and they'll still forget to take it.........
The ONLY reliable birth control is one that they can NOT forget to take and/or forget to use. Spaying and neutering those little puppies is the ONLY 100% effective birth control.

 

I am reminded of the fact that the world is full of people who care entirely too much about things that don't concern them.

 

Take away all those special benefits for married couples (gay or straight) and get the feds/states OUT of the marriage business where they should have been in the first place!

 

There are plenty of Gay couples who chose to marry and are happy, so, this is all that matters.

 

Hetrosexual marriage is also declining. One fourth of Millennials will probably pass on marriage according to people who look at the trend.

About 1/2 of men and 1/4 of women commit adultery according to the Kinsey Report. So gays don't have exclusivity on messing around.

 

men never get the child in those unwanted child cases and they pay child support, they would be more likely to remember to take it

and it would double the odds if both partners took it

I agree, though, a Depo-Provera like shot for males would be better

.

 

If your a believer the god-fairy can fix this by using his magic to allow same-gender couples to have children, I have a SSM niece and she and her wife are trying hard to have a baby of their own and don't use birth control so that should make the religious happy is it their fault the sky-fairy seems to not grant them a child.

But in all seriousness the do benefit society its a stable household, they both work sharing the risks of life and if one is for a time unable to work the other partner can help reduce the burden or eliminate it from the State's demands and since they adopted two older children (siblings in fact) they give these children a stable home and the benefits of a household and adults to love and care for them.

 

Equality in marriage contracts now means that couples in the US have the right to marry or not to marry without the State dictating either choice to them.

What a country!

 

What do you care? Most black people aren't eating at Katy's Kountry Kitchen even though segregation ended.
The principle and the practice are separate things.

 

So a hetero couple who can't have children should be discriminated against in your little world, eh?

 

Most people don't own guns or have any interest in owning them. So I guess all that right to bear arms crap is just a bunch of nonsense too.

Most businesses don't have any desire to discriminate against homosexuals for religious reasons, so I guess the whole push for freedom of religion laws is a bunch of hooey too.