Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
The New York Times features an extended hagiography of sex columnist Dan Savage in its weekend magazine. The piece centers around Savage's support of non-monogamy.
As many other same-sex marriage activists have claimed, Savage says it's not just marriage law that limits the institution to heterosexuals that's flawed, but also its corresponding norms of fidelity and monogamy. They advocate a new way of looking at things based on the success gay men have had with open relationships.
I'm glad that the media is finally mentioning the relationship between traditional marriage law and traditional marriage norms and how those norms might break down under laws permitting same-sex marriage.
But what was supremely weird to me was how the article had a few gaping holes. One of those being an even cursory look at why society has traditionally held monogamy as a norm. I'm not talking about those of us who uphold monogamy because of what Jesus said or for other religious reasons. I'm just talking about the basic norm of monogamy.
Nowhere does the article mention that children are created when men and women have intercourse. This is the only sex act that creates children. This is a pretty basic point, isn't it? It is this biological fact that relates to marriage (traditionally). I mean, intercourse is called "the marital act." And it is the risk of men littering women and their children all over the place that led societies to encourage fidelity. Because societies didn't want to have to take care of a bunch of children whose fathers were busy making or raising other children.
Instead, the problem with stray children wasn't mentioned except for once. And it turns out it proves that we should embrace non-monogamy for certain people. Savage was (needlessly) worried that the Times' puff piece would use the destruction of the Schwarzenegger marriage and family as evidence that non-monogamy doesn't work. Silly. Arnold's only problem? Not clearing his non-monogamy with his wife and kids before getting busy with the housekeeper.
Of course, no matter how much two men or two women have sex, they will never produce a child. And so the risks of procreation from non-monogamy are non-existent. It's why in this area, at the very least, people who don't engage in intercourse should not set the norms for people who do.
We've had quite a few discussions here making fun of people who assert that changes to traditional marriage law could result in harm toward society.
As a defender of the social norm of monogamy, I applaud the New York Times for pointing out its inextricable ties to marriage as a heterosexual institution.
If you change the definition of marriage from a union that is procreative in nature to a union based on feelings, it stands to reason that monogamy would be less important. It really only makes sense as a social norm because of procreation.
Should we throw off monogamy along with traditional marriage laws?
- Comment (130)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
To destroy monogamy would be to sin against knowledge. Scores of studies have shown conclusively that, if we want well adjusted children, who do well in school, who stay out of trouble with law, who are less likely to experience their own illegitimate child or divorce, the single most important thing we can do is have that child raised by his or her married, biological parents. This is not new and it's as conclusive a finding on an issue as we ever see in the social sciences.
Yet we have nitwits like this guy who propose to do away with single most important means to raise strong kids: married parents.
But then, I suppose, he doesn't much care about what happens to the next generation. It's all about what feels good right now.
It makes you want to cry.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
As a tax payer the only thing I care about is that children are raised by at least two consenting adults. The number(after the initial two) or gender combination do not matter.
What studies are these? The studies I have seen point to the important of a child being raised in a stable household with two parents. I don't recall anything about those parents needing to be of different sexes or biological.
Edited on Jul 1, 2011 at 7:11amRe: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
I'm always puzzled by the blithe suggestion that monogamy isn't "realistic." What, "cheerful polygamy" is realistic? Fine, fine, it's human nature to stray. It's also human nature to be mighty disgruntled when strayed upon. The argument from human nature cuts both ways.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
And it is the risk of men littering women and their children all over the place that led societies to encourage fidelity. Because societies didn't want to have to take care of a bunch of children whose fathers were busy making or raising other children.
Is that true? Before the existence of the welfare state was society really concerned with latchkey children? I thought back in the day children were cheap labor and/or a way to keep the family line going.
It is my understanding that marriage was mainly encouraged by secular society as a way to protect women. The fact that two parents greatly increase the odds of children becoming productive members of society was a happy side-effect of this, not the main purpose.
I disagree. I think there is a perfectly valid argument for marriage as way to protect one's property and to prevent one partner from being taken advantage of. I would even go so far as to say that was the original secular argument for marriage.
Jul '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
The legitimization of perversion will not be slowed by bourgeois concepts of morality like monogamy. Western culture is drowning in its own decadence.
Jun '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Wow, that didn't take long. One of the arguments against same sex "marriage" is that it will cause a breakdown of the family... the fundamental environment for healthy human growth.
4 days, not bad.
That's absurd and counter intuitive. Human history and basic natural law (and natural instinct) are very much against this kind of foolishness. By this logic children could be raised in hippie communities where everyone in the community is a 'parent' just so long as there are at least 2 to begin with. Or, with two fathers and a horse as a mother. Or with 8 mothers and 37 fathers. As a taxpayer, your interest is in healthy future citizens. You have the best odds of a healthy future citizen growing up in a house with 1 mother and 1 father, married and faithful to each other.
But, we'll soon see who is right as NY and NH and the others will serve as very interesting case studies in the absurd and in the progress of man.
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17
Mollie Hemingway
And it is the risk of men littering women and their children all over the place that led societies to encourage fidelity. Because societies didn't want to have to take care of a bunch of children whose fathers were busy making or raising other children.
Is that true? Before the existence of the welfare state was society really concerned with latchkey children? I thought back in the day children were cheap labor and/or a way to keep the family line going.
It is my understanding that marriage was mainly encouraged by secular society as a way to protect women. The fact that two parents greatly increase the odds of children becoming productive members of society was a happy side-effect of this, not the main purpose.
Not "latchkey" children but orphaned or otherwise abandoned children. Women who are abandoned by their mates have greater difficulty taking care of their little ones. Imagine that monogamy is not the norm and a man has kids with two women. How well are those kids taken care of? Not as well (in terms of time or money) as if the man has all of his kids with his wife.
Jan '11
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Once the author told me that Dan Savage wasn't a church-goer, but was "culturally Catholic," I knew that the spin was going to be as relentless as it was vapid. And it was. What a load of nonsense ...
Gay marriage is a problem because to embrace it, you have to abandon child-bearing as integral to the institution of marriage itself. Now Savage wants us to abandon monogamy also. That's called "dating." It isn't marriage.
Why on earth would you expect the government to license your dating, or that it deserves the same prestige and respect as a child-bearing family marriage? Again, the government doesn't have a Relationship Police, judging and prosecuting relationships. These people come to the government. If they don't want government judging what their relationship is, then don't come to the government first, asking the government to treat the relationship a certain way.
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17
I disagree. I think there is a perfectly valid argument for marriage as way to protect one's property and to prevent one partner from being taken advantage of. I would even go so far as to say that was the original secular argument for marriage. · Jul 1 at 7:20am
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. What relationship do you think procreation has with the norm of monogamy?
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Samwise Gamgee:
4 days, not bad.
That's absurd and counter intuitive. Human history and basic natural law (and natural instinct) are very much against this kind of foolishness. By this logic children could be raised in hippie communities where everyone in the community is a 'parent' just so long as there are at least 2 to begin with. Or, with two fathers and a horse as a mother. Or with 8 mothers and 37 fathers. As a taxpayer, your interest is in healthy future citizens. ... 1 mother and 1 father, married and faithful to each other.
Are there any studies saying that a child raised by the same two men or the same two woman is at any significant disadvantage compared to he child raise by the same man and the same woman?
I also have problems with the hippy commune comparison. The studies say a child must be raised by stable household. The relationships between a child and its parents must be constant and stable. A commune does not allow for that, to say nothing of the ridiculousness of throwing in non-sentients(i.e the horse) into the equation.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Actually most of the concern through history regarding monogamy had to do with property and inheritance. In particular, where primogeniture reigns, who's your daddy matters to daddy, and to the eldest son. If the maid's daughter looks just like daddy and was born six months before the oldest son, that can create a heap of trouble.
Solution through the years was strict legal rules about monogamy, who is "daddy" by law and such.
The miracle of DNA testing moves us past those concerns.
As some have noted, the question of "child support" has too been a concern--although that is a more recent issue. Again, DNA testing solves that as well.
Fact is, we no longer need the state involved with marriage at all. We no longer need "legal presumptions" to answer the "who's your daddy" question because the miracle of DNA testing answers all questions.
The only reason that people want the state to be involved with marriage today (gay or heterosexual) is to preserve what are now anachronistic claims to off the shelf legally mandated marital benefits.
You will always be able to enjoy a religious marriage regardless of what the state does.
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17
Are there any studies saying that a child raised by the same two men or the same two woman is at any significant disadvantage compared to he child raise by the same man and the same woman?
I also have problems with the hippy commune comparison. The studies say a child must be raised by stable household. The relationships between a child and its parents must be constant and stable. A commune does not allow for that, to say nothing of the ridiculousness of throwing in non-sentients(i.e the horse) into the equation. · Jul 1 at 7:34am
Nyadnar17, etc.,
Could I request that we really keep things focused here? There are, assuredly, thousands of angles we could discuss when it comes to changing norms surrounding same-sex marriage.
But we can't discuss them all here. Let's focus on the norm of monogamy.
Feb '11
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
The general 'me-first', 'whatever makes you feel good', 'damned be the consequences to anyone else' is by far the greatest threat here. There are actually many, notably over at gaypatriot.net, who rail against the anti-monogamy stance which is prevalent amongst many of the more vocal of the gay community ( though not necessarily a majority opinion amongst the group as a whole). The lifelong commitment of two people to each other is a far more important idea than whether or not those two people are biologically capable of producing children. Without being able to subordinate your own wants to the needs of your family, a person will never be capable of being anything more than a leech in society, consuming what they will, returning nothing, and feeling no obligation to care for themselves. The only thing the government should be concerned about at all is the legal intertwining of two lives. Commitments should be seriously made, seriously kept, and not easily broken. Sham marriages of any stripe should be subject to social condemnation and social ostracism. To make such a thing a political issue is quite frankly outside the purview of what government should be for.
Dec '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. What relationship do you think procreation has with the norm of monogamy? · Jul 1 at 7:30am
Sorry I should have quoted the whole paragrah.
I was trying to say that I think a valid argument can be for marriage based on property rights as oppose to procreation. I was also trying to argue that property rights and the protection of the woman was the original reason for secular societies encouraging marriage, not procreation.
Fair enough. In my view monogamy is only important to me as a taxpayer because it provides an environment where children can grow up to be productive citizens and it provides for the protection of individuals' private property rights. Neither of the concerns is contingent upon the partners in the marriage being opposite sexes.
Edited on Jul 1, 2011 at 7:48amMar '11
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17:
What studies are these? The studies I have seen point to the important of a child being raised in a stable household with two parents. I don't recall anything about those parents needing to be of different sexes or biological. · Jul 1 at 7:10am
Edited on Jul 01 at 07:11 am
Is it not possible that children benefit from having one member of each sex as parents? You know, the role model thing. Personality integration. Mon and dad. Stuff like that. Or is that thinking too antediluvian?
Sep '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
I think you guys are missing the point here. This is not about studies or statistics or what is best for children or society. This is about the worship of self-gratification, in this case, the orgasm. No rules, no restrictions, no limits, no expectations.
The people you're debating know about the studies. They know about the statistics. Their point is that you shouldn't be able to tell them how to live their lives.
So how do you fight that?
Edited on Jul 1, 2011 at 7:52amRe: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17
I was trying to say that I think a valid argument can be for marriage based on property rights as oppose to procreation. I was also trying to argue that property rights and the protection of the woman was the original reason for secular societies encouraging marriage, not procreation.
Fair enough. In my view monogamy is only important to me as a taxpayer because it provides an environment where children can grow up to be productive citizens and it provides for the protection of individuals' private property rights. Neither of the concerns is contingent upon the partners in the marriage being opposite sexes. · Jul 1 at 7:47am
Not entirely sure that secular societies developed marriage but there were certainly many reasons why it and its accompanying norms developed and procreation is just one.
I do think it would be weird to expect monogamy of people who have much less of a rational interest in the norm. This article rather perfectly explained that, however much it may not have intended to do so. And that change in norms affects us all.
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Hanging the views of Dan Savage on all Gays is like hanging the views David Duke on all Republicans.
Just because someone is in a group doesn't mean he speaks for them.
There is no reason to believe that Gays seek monogamy in any lower percentage than heterosexuals, 40% of whom don't seem to seek it at all by virtue of the divorce rate.
Jun '10
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Nyadnar17
A commune does not allow for that, to say nothing of the ridiculousness of throwing in non-sentients(i.e the horse) into the equation. · Jul 1 at 7:34am
So the number does matter, you're saying? It can be 2 mothers and 2 fathers but not 8 and 37? Are there studies saying that 2 mothers are preferable to 37 mothers? Are there studies that say that a horse can't be a perfectly fine mother? How dare you impose your social norms without firm scientific evidence that my horse Buehla can't be a wonderful mother.
The point is, the best chances of a child becoming a healthy citizen is from a family with one mother and one father. Any other combination is not as stable. Be it 2 and 1, 2 and 37, 2 and Buehla. So your interests, as a taxpayer, are firmly on the side of a monogamous, heterosexual, faithful marriage.
Re: Gay Marriage's War On Monogamy
Tommy De Seno: Hanging the views of Dan Savage on all Gays is like hanging the views David Duke on all Republicans.
Just because someone is in a group doesn't mean he speaks for them.
There is no reason to believe that Gays seek monogamy in any lower percentage than heterosexuals, 40% of whom don't seem to seek it at all by virtue of the divorce rate. · Jul 1 at 7:55am
Again, we're not talking about failure to achieve a norm but the norm itself. And Savage is certainly not alone. His views on monogamy are similar to Andrew Sullivan's, rightly praised as a father of the gay marriage movement. And various other advocates are on record as well. They've been fairly open about their goals, testifying in Congress and publishing these thoughts in newspapers and academic journals.
And this NYT article is a really good look at why monogamy would be cast out as a norm in a regime that embraces a new definition.