|
|
Saturday, August 09, 2003
THE MYTH OF GAY PROMISCUITY: Dale (cont.):
Maggie, you're exactly right about the nub of our disagreement: If gay marriage is allowed, I expect the positive effect on gays generally and gay couples specifically will be significant, and that the negative effect on marriage generally and married couples specifically will be small to nonexistent. You think the positive effect on gays generally and gay couples specifically will be small, while the negative effect on marriage generally and married couples specifically will be significant. It could turn out that we're both half right: the positive effect on gays and negative effect on marriage will be small or zero. If that's the case, I would still argue, why not gay marriage so that at least a few gay couples can benefit from it? I think the studies you cite actually support my view slightly more than yours: (1) Take your first point, that legal recognition will not reduce promiscuity (a potential reduction in promiscuity is only one of many possible benefits of gay marriage, by the way). The Dutch study you cite says that men in "homosexual relationships" have an average of 8 partners a year outside that relationship. This study has been endlessly cited by religious conservative groups as proof that gays are irredeemable It proves nothing of the kind. Note first and most importantly that the study is not limited to gay male couples who are married (something that's only existed in the Netherlands since 2001), but includes all gay male couples, so it tell us nothing about the effect of marriage. Note second that an average, not a median, is used. Averages allow a few hyper-promiscuous people to skew the results, where a median comes closer to measuring what most couples are actually doing. Note third that lesbian couples are not included. I would predict lesbian couples will be less promiscuous than straight couples (given women's greater demand for monogamy) and will be more likely to marry than gay male couples (given the experience of Vermont civil unions), so they will more than compensate for the expected higher promiscuity of gay male couples. (2) Now your second point, that few gays will benefit from marriage because few will marry. The Dutch experience, showing that 1 in 7 same-sex couples have married or registered as partners, proves little or nothing. First, we don't know what the comparable Dutch figures are for opposite-sex couples so we have no comparison. Unmarried cohabitation, straight and gay, seems to be a Dutch phenomenon more than an American one. Second, we have only two years of experience, so it may take some time for the opportunity to sink in culturally among gay couples. None of these Dutch gay couples grew up with the expectation that they could marry, as the next generation will. But perhaps more striking, Maggie, is this: The number of gay families in the Netherlands has increased 25% since the country made registered partnerships available. A sign that a culture of settling down and coupling is taking hold? As for Vermont I am actually heartened that it appears 25% of gays in a "partnered households" may have entered civil unions. What is the comparable figure for opposite-sex households in Vermont? On the benefits, it does not surprise me that so few employees at GM have registered for same-sex benefits. First, gays are probably no more than 3% of the population, so the numbers will be low at the outset. Second, the auto industry in general is more culturally conservative than other professions, so fewer gays would be expected to take such jobs to begin with, and the few who were there would stay in the closet about it. Third, we have no way of knowing what percentage of partnered gays at GM have applied for the benefits. But all this emphasis on the tiny numbers of gay couples involved, even if accurate, cuts both ways. Perhaps few gays would benefit (I don't concede that). But just how is it that such a tiny number of people are going to bring down the institution of marriage and cause us to "lose our civilization"? Maggie, you yourself point out that women in marriage demand monogamy. Fair point. Will they stop doing so because gays are allowed to marry? Dale |
|||||||||
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
Post a Comment
<< Home