Ruth Institute Blog

Sigh. Monogamy isn’t for everyone. Polyamory isn’t for everyone. People who insist on telling others that one is better then the other are boring and short-sighted, regardless of which side they’re preaching on.

Studies like this will be brushed aside by a Judge Walker as not essential to the core purpose of marriage:

“a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”

Monogomy, like gender, isn’t a reqirement for marriage. I doubt most people want to relax the expectations of monogomy in marriage, but won’t realize the sea change in the institution foisted upon them be the Courts and Harvard elites like Nancy Cott until it is too late.

If monogamy is the best, why do so many people cheat?
For some, probably even most people, it probably is the best way. I’ve just seen enough “happily monogamous” couples fall apart via bitter cheating, and seen some very happy couples in open relationships, that well, gee it comes down to the individuals in each relationship. A lot of people like to throw relationship advice around like one-size-fits-all t-shirts. And like one-size-fits-all t-shirts, it rarely fits well.

Besides, this is a poor defense against gay marriage. We’re going to deny 45% of gay men and 80% of lesbians the right to marry because the remaining percentages have open relationships?
Why don’t we apply that to every aspect of law! 80% of all fatal car accidents are caused by men! Let’s keep men off the road! A person is 32 times more likely to die on a motorcycle then in a car, let’s outlaw motorcycles! Heck, somewhere between 40-50% of marriages end in divorce! LET’S GET RID OF MARRIAGE!

Not everyone associates love with sex. Cheating hurts because it’s a violation of trust. How many times in stories and real life does the “I’m more upset about the emotional affair then the sex” trope come up. If people have decided on having an open relationship, then the trust isn’t violated (usually).

It obviously wouldn’t be a good choice for you. (it’s not for me either). But I’ll support honest open relationships over people who cheat and still claim to be monogamous any day.

But hey, that whole this-post-is-a-poor-argument-against-same-sex-marriage point still stands.

Here’s one bisexual woman wanting to be married to a lesbian, and we BOTH believe in, and practice, monogamy. But nerdygirl is right. Why are so many people obsessed with the sex lives of other people? WHO CARES what people do in their own private relationships? I know a couple of heterosexual married couples who have so-called “open marriages” and this practice is NOT limited to gay men, or the small fraction of lesbian couples mentioned above. It’s not my cup of tea because I like the idea of being committed to one human being and her being committed to me. Neither of us would like the idea of sharing the other with anyone else. But I don’t get involved in the sex lives of my friends and neighbors, that’s for sure.

I can’t help but wonder a couple of things–1) is this phenomenon among gay men in any way associated with the fact that it is two MEN in the relationship? I mean, we do live in a society that socializes boys to believe that “real men” are driven by their sex drive, that “boys will be boys,” that they just can’t help it because they’re wired that way, etc. and 2) is it even the tiniest bit possible that promiscuity is high among gay men because they can’t get married? Since the possibility of same-sex marriage has only been a recent reality, it makes sense to me that a person who grows up with the expectation that they will forever be labeled as a sexual outlaw or a moral deviant and that they will never have access to the universal institution of marriage would in some way act out against the cultural norm because of his rejection from it. Sort of like saying, “oh yeah, I’m not good enough to be just like everyone else, huh? Well, screw you and your ideas of virtue then!”

I believe that the inability to marry leads to unstable relationships, because it is always easier to walk away from someone who is your boyfriend or girlfriend than it is to walk away from the person who you married. This instability battles against every human’s desire to be loved always without fear of abandonment. I wonder then if some gay men allow for an open relationship so as not to risk losing the people they love. It strikes me as hypocritical to complain about the promiscuity of some gay relationships when society has thus far refused to allow LGBT people the stability, norms and values of marriage!

Last thought–which is worse: being honest with your spouse/partner or lying to him or her and doing things behind his or her back? I have learned the lesson in life that you can never control what another person does; you can only control how you choose to respond. Considering that infidelity is rampant among married heterosexuals, I have to wonder whether it is worse to know that your spouse is sleeping with someone else or to live in the dark until the awful secret eventually comes to light? In the end, though, it’s up to each and every individual to decide for himself and herself the kind of person he or she wants to be with, and the kind of relationship that he or she wants to have. I’m just grateful that the woman I love shares the same values on this issue that I do!

And keep in mind, someone whose polyamorous might just think the same thing about you and your relationship. That it can’t be true love and you’re just lying to yourself. That the monogamy you and your husband share is just a safe front for the true desires and yearnings you ignore.

Some people it works, some it doesn’t. Whatever floats your boat and what not.

And again, plenty of real monogamous relationships (even ones without cheating) end in divorce.

And, you know, having actually met people in open relationships. It’s not CHEATING if your partner knows about it. CHEATING is when you go outside the bounds of a monogamous relationship or the pre-negotiated bounds of an open relationship. Honest, non-monogamous people are not cheaters.

Open monogamy and homosexual marriage are both oxymorons. By changing the definitions of words we weaken our contact with the many previous generations that used those words in their traditional sense, resulting in a corresponding change in values. Open marriage sounds so much better than infidelity or adultery, but we ought to call it what it is. We should call something by its proper name. Then, and only then, can we rationally decide if society should promote it, sanction it, ignore it, or disapprove of it.

Well, technically the post title is a misnomer. I don’t think anyone in an open relationship is trying to change the meaning of monogamy, I mean, you can’t Mono = one. They may be challenging the notion that marriage is always “closed” but I don’t think anyone with any sense calls an open relationship, be it swinging heteros or homosexuals, monogamy.

In regard to the argument that “promiscuity is high among gay men because they can’t get married,” here are two articles that specifically discuss *married* gay and lesbian couples who prefer “open relationships.”

1. Meredith May, “Many gay couples negotiate open relationships,” San Francisco Chronicle (July 26, 2010) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/16/DD4C1EDP1A.DTL [copy and paste into browser]

See third to last paragraph: “Having an open relationship is not incompatible with same-sex marriage…At least half those interviewed were married…”

2. Scott James, “Many Successful Marriages Share an Open Secret,” New York Times (Jan. 28, 2010) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=4 [copy and paste into browser] This article mentions “open” lesbian, gay men, and heterosexual relationships.

In regard to the “What’s the Harm?” question, I am interested that there is no mention of children in any of the comments. They are the most likely group to be seriously harmed by their parents’ non-monogamy/infidelity/cheating, no matter if the “cheating” is consensual between the adults. Monogamy may not be the “preferred option” of two adults, but I can’t imagine many children who would prefer their parents not to be faithful to each other!

….Hey, I’m just gonna go out on a limb here, but um, maybe the ones interested in open relationships are also not interested in having kids. Mainly because the people I’ve known in more casual/open relationships, aren’t interested in having a family.

That said, any “extreme” behavior exhibited by parents can harm kids. Good god, ever meet an atheist who was brought up super-conservative catholic? THERES some issues.

I imagine if a couple in an open relationship wanted to have kids, they would have to be very cautious to ensure that the kids are not exposed to their parents sex lives. Children are not able to comprehend sex the way adults do, and seeing parents in compromising situations like having sex with a stranger or even seeing mom and dad having sex can be damaging to a child. Yes, I’ve heard an anecdote or two about it as well. It can be harmful.

Also, here is a revolutionary idea. MAYBE SELFISH PEOPLE SHOULDN’T HAVE KIDS. Maybe, some aren’t meant to be parents. I don’t understand why you think everyone should have kids. Yes, for many parents, having children is the best thing in their lives. But that doesn’t mean everyone should have kids. Maybe some people know they wouldn’t be good parents, and instead of saddling everyone else in the world with their poorly raised offspring, they decide the skip it altogether. Maybe some people have genetic conditions, that they feel wouldn’t be fair to pass on to another. Maybe they don’t like kids. Maybe they’d rather spend their life helping and volunteering for others then raising their own. Who are you to sit and judge why people would want and open relationship, or why they would or wouldn’t want to start a family? I mean seriously, you cry about people being discriminated against for their beliefs, yet you pass judgement over everyone who doesn’t want to be a part of your christian-american family with 2.5 kids. What does it say about you when you write such things?

Fair enough, you never said everyone should have kids, just that people who don’t are selfish. So, you don’t think everyone should have, but you’ll certainly pass judgement over those who don’t.

“I think this is fair. People who want the pill can simply go to a different pharmacy. Big deal. This reminds me a little of the counseling student issue. Surely they could have worked something out there, too. But perhaps I’m naive about people’s open-mindedness going both ways.”

As far the student school counselor goes. She was in a SCHOOL counseling program. You don’t get to pick which students you counsel when you work in a school. You are responsible for every student. You don’t just get to work with the ones you like. Her beliefs caused her to not be fit for the job. I’m sorry, but based on what you’ve written, open mindedness only suits when it matches up with your views.

You know what really ticks me off about this post? It takes the choices of some and uses it as a reason to prevent equality for all. Just because some gay relationships are open doesn’t mean that they all are. Plenty of heterosexual marriages are open too, and yet people don’t have to prove that they will be faithful to one another to get a civil marriage license. It’s the same stupid argument made with respect to children. Heterosexuals don’t have to prove they’d be fantastic parents before they’re allowed to marry, so why do we have to jump hoops to prove that we’re entitled to the same constitutional rights as straight people? It is just plain stupid, and I get so tired of having to justify MY life, MY sexual orientation, MY parenting, and MY choices. Isn’t this the land of the free? It sure would be nice if we could at least try to live up to our national motto. If people would just mind their own business about other people’s lives, especially their sex lives, I think this country would be a much better place to live. I just want the same rights as everyone else. I want the same options, and the same legal protections. I don’t want something as arbitrary as the sex of the person that I love to interfere with my civil rights. Can we please, please, please just stop trying to justify discrimination?

I was harsh. I can admit that I can be judgmental. I really, honestly think this post is out of place, because it reads as “gay people sleep around, they shouldn’t marry!” but, legally, monogamy isn’t a requirement for marriage. And it’s been pointed out that heteros cheat have open marriages, but they aren’t denied marriage for that reason. Like I said above, denying 45% of gay men and 80% of lesbians the right to marry because 55% and 20% have open relationships, is stupid. Legally it holds no water. It be like saying 80% of white people can’t dance well, so white people shouldn’t be allowed to dance.

As for the whole people who don’t have kids are selfish thing, either I misread your intent, or misworded your intent, or a combination of the two. Some of your statements come off as very judgmental to me, just as I come off very judgmental to you. I should have taken more care with my tone. I also should have said “stereotypical christian american family” as opposed to just “christian american”

Starbucks is evil. Their frappucinos are delicious and overpriced. However in my experience they are frequented more by annoying hipsters then anyone else.

I apologize for changing the subject from the pleasantries of coffee-shop talk, =), but I think that one really interesting point that comes up in these articles re: monogamy (or lack thereof) is that while “cheating” (or whatever you want to call having sex with someone you’re not in a serious relationship with, while you are in a relationship with someone else) is still by-and-large considered to be an aberration – something wrong and distasteful – among heterosexual couples (with exceptions, of course). But the same behavior is described not just as neutral, but *positive* to many same-sex relationships, by their own admission (see the quotes in the posted article and those I linked to).

This, to me, raises the question of whether legalizing “same-sex marriage” is “expanding” marriage to new types of relationships, or is genuinely “redefining” marriage to be something completely different.

Nerdygirl has a good point that perhaps the same people who prefer “open” relationships are those that don’t want kids…but perhaps the cause & effect goes the other way too? Perhaps because a gay or lesbian couple can’t have kids naturally (that is, through each other / biologically of their own), there is less need for monogamy. In other words, if monogamy’s purpose (in part) is to ensure that children are born to two people who are committed long-term to each other, then this justification for monogamy is totally unnecessary in same-sex relationships. It seems like this logic might explain some of the “open relationship” phenomena in the articles.

Thought?

A question for the pro-gay marriage crowd: you think that traditional definitions of marriage are discriminatory and need to be expanded. My question to you is: why stop at gay marriage? I’m quite serious here. If the rights and responsibilities attendant to marriage aren’t inherently limited to traditional male/female couples looking to raise children, then what is so special about people who want to be sexual partners that they should get those same rights and privileges while denying them to other adults able to enter into contractual relationships? I mean, it’s clear that nobody considers monogamy a criterion for a legally valid marriage. Couples are legally free not to have children. So if there’s no monogamy, no children, and no man and wife, why on earth should a desire to live with another person in a sexual relationship be required to form a marriage?

My solution to this issue is simple: allow any 2 adults (straight, gay, related, roommates, whoever) to enter into a “marriage” contract. The benefits, etc. can be conferred by one of the “marriage” partners on the other. From the point of view of society at large, it would be nobody’s business what relationship the people in the household have, other than that they are making a legal/financial commitment to one another.

That would be true equality, would it not? Would that suffice? Is legal equality really the issue? Or is this about trying to use the courts to force people to approve of one’s lifestyle? The issue of legal equality I have some sympathy for. Legislating approval I have no sympathy for. You may have a right for society not to interfere with your life (up to a point), but you don’t have a right to force people to approve of you. The reason I am wary of gay marriage is that once it’s approved, the next step is to force various religions to start perofrming them. Oh, you’ll argue that that’s not the point. Sure, not for now it isn’t. But the same way people try to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions because “it’s the law” or provide adoption services to gay couples because “it’s the law” or force pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions that violate their moral precepts because “it’s the law” — why on earth wouldn’t we expect that that is the next logical step?

When the gay marriage movement becomes the “any 2 adults can marry” movement, and when the law clearly stipulates that religions and other groups have the freedom to marry and admit whom they choose, then I’d consider not voting against it. Until then, I am highly suspicious that this issue is just the thin edge of the wedge to try to force people who think differently from you to conform to your notions of what’s “right.”

DJR12. Any two straight adults can already get married, provided they are not any closer related then 2nd cousins (many states allow 2nd cousins). Your point is invalid.

Jane, that might be part of it. I mean, heck, a large part of our society considers homosexuality to be wrong and distasteful. It’s not that far of a stretch to imagine that a outside group, oftentimes discriminated against, would question the values of the mainstream society that shuns them and decides to go against the grain a bit.

Nerdygirl, your “provided that” is a mighty big exception, given the likelihood that a large percentage of single people who would like to provide benefits to a partner would want to do so for a near relative. Once you take traditional marriage out of the picture, restricting benefits and legal rights only to people who are (or claim to be) having sex with each other is absurd.

So, are you in favor of expanding marriage rights to every adult willing to get married, including close relations, or not? If not, why not? On what basis do you discriminate? If the state has no business defining marriage narrowly, on what basis should it be restricted?

Enh. Stop taking the Santorum route. Incest is frowned upon because it carries a higher risk of genetic defects. You have a larger problem in that, heterosexual people don’t have to prove their sleeping together to get married. Your example doesn’t work, because it’s already flawed.

I don’t think people who aren’t in a committed relationship should get married. But I also don’t want the government being the one deciding if a relationship is valid enough to be worthy of marriage. And unless you’re interested in giving the government that power, your argument holds no water.

Heidi said: “WHO CARES what people do in their own private relationships?”

Right, so why should the gaycentric version of the one-sexed arrangement be considered more worthy than the nonsexualized version? Or, for that matter, for the vast majority of nonmarriage in which the types of relationships and arrangements are not sexualized?

If you are talking about private relationships, then, you are not really looking at marriage in the first place.

Nerdygirl this is on point since marriage makes monogamy normative. When people transgress, even you call it cheating, right? if you are going to claim that nonmonogamy is nobody’s buisness, would you also abolish adultery as grounds for divorce?

The coital basis for adultery does not fit the one-sexed arrangement, anway, and that has a lot to do with the lack of application of the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Monogamous or not, what has sex got to do with SSM, at law? Not much.

But it is a big deal for marriage.

“Can we please, please, please just stop trying to justify discrimination?”

Why so fearful of being anything but indiscriminate? How low must standards drop before discriminating between optimal and good enough becomes entirely out-of-bounds?

Non-monogamy is tolerated in society but that does not mean it ought to be endorsed with indifference and even approbation of the kind I’ve read above.

The reason for the restrictions based on relatedness is sexual. And since marriage is a public relationship, by type, because it is a sexualized relaitonship, by type, lines are drawn accordingly.

There is nothing about the one-sexed scenario that is intrinsically sexual. Not only is there no legal requirement for monogamy, in SSM, there is no legal requirement for sexual consummation, no provisons for annulment based on same-sex sexual criteria, no sexual grounds for adultery-divorce, and no sexual basis for presuming a man to have impregnated another man nor for presuming a women to have been impregnated by another woman.

So for marriage there is a sexual basis that does not apply to the one-sexed scenario. How can monogamy mean the same thing to marriage as it would to SSM or any other version of the one-sexed scenario?

If people are going to focus on the private deals that people might make in their sexualized relationships, fine, but marriage is a public relationship held in high regard due to its sexual basis.

Of course there is no risk of genetic defects since no one-sexed scenario is procreative alone. So the incest line on SSM could not be justified by what nerdygirl said.

However, SSMers often point approvingly to novel technologies that one-sexed twosomes might partake in order to procure gametes (from the other sex_ that would be used to create children. Well, on the horizon is experimentation with tricking the ova of one person to treat the genetic material of another ova as if it was sperm; this entails loads of risks for genetic defects.

So, as things stand today, there is no risk that same-sex sexual behavior would pose the risk in procreation that nerdygirl put forth as the reason to draw a line against incestuous marriage. Besides, she also acknowledged that there is no law that makes same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for SSM and none is proposed. And, in the near future, there is the prospect that one-sexed scenarios could use experimental technologies that do run the very risk that nerdygirl put forth. However, that risk would exist regardless of the relatedness of the same-sex scenario.

Either way, the incest line is hard to justify, if it can be at all, for SSM, given the argumentation of SSMers. This is a big shortfall in their viewpoint. At best they might resort to the “ick” factor and dismiss incestuous marriage but relatedness is inborn and people do experience genetic sexual attraction and so that fits the SSM argumentation far too well.

That said, DJR12, what you propose would fit almost all of the category that is nonmarriage. And monogamy would certainly not be normative there because the central feature would be designation of beneficiaries. Sexualization of the arrangement would not be expected as it is for the conjugal relations of husband and wife. It would not be embedded in the law for nonmarriage the way that the marital bed is featured deeply in marriage law.

So, DJR12, I think you have put your finger on what SSM actually means (provided that the gaycentricism is put aside) to society. I don’t see how monogamy would enter into it, really, since it would not be of societal interest — and SSMers above admit that when they say “who cares?” and offer shrugs of indifference.

Remember, these studies were done in New York and San Fran. The “norms” are very different in those cities. As a previous poster put it: heterosexual couples do not need to prove they are monogamous to get a marriage certificate and, trust me, many aren’t.

What, if any, societal significance would be affixed to sexual monogamy in the one-sexed arrangement?

The marital presumption of paternity does not apply, because it cannot apply, to the one-sexed arrangement — sexualized or not.

Meanwhile, since no SSM law requires that those who show up for a license prove that they are sexually attracted nor even that they’d engage in same-sex sexual behavior, sexual monogamy would be mimickry of conjugal relations rather than something intrinsic to the SSM idea.

This is another instance in which SSMers shrug and concede far more than they know.

Chairm: Is marriage ONLY about sex and paternity? Why are SO against two consenting adults who love each other forming a lasting and legal bound?

Please, open your heart and mind.

Love? There is no such legal requirement for “forming a lasting and legal bond”.

By your response I take it that you acknowledge that the basis for the SSM idea is not really about legal requirements that would make the essentials of SSM (whatever these might be) mandatory for each and every instance of SSM. I say that because your question included two non-requirements — love and lasting.

If it is a bond based on consent, then, that opens up your idea to the vast range of types of relationships and types of living arrangements that are not marriage. SSM is but a subset of that very broad category. SSM is neither marriage nor of significantly different from the rest of nonmarriage.

Please, open your heart and mind to protection equality for the nonmarriage category and stop showing so much favoritism for the gay subset of nonmarriage.

Meanwhile there is an unanswered question: What, if any, societal significance would be affixed to sexual monogamy in the one-sexed arrangement?

Your response emphasized consent which strongly hints that you are among those who’d shrug. Is that correct?

No, Mark, the social institution of marriage is not “ONLY about sex and paternity”.

But that is, at the very least, at the core of the institution. Marriage is the response, societally, to huge stuff which just happens not to apply to the one-sexed arrangement — gay or not, sexualized or not.

The SSM idea exlcudes sex integration and responsible procreation. The SSM campaign places gay identity politics at the fore, rather than the core of marriage, and while that is okay politically it is not okay to demand that this supplant the core of marriage in our laws and culture. Marriage is not a vehicle for asserting the supremacy of identity politics — gaycentric or otherwise. To impose such a nonmarriage use on marriage would be unjust.

The SSM idea should stand on its own two feet instead of piggybacking on this foundational social institution. Hence the question about sexual monogamy and the one-sexed arrangement that, according to SSMers, is to be assumed (without justification) to be a sexualized type of arrangement. An answer to the monogamy question might go some way to establishing the beginnings of a justification for treating the sexualilzed one-sexed arrangement as being of such societal significance that it merits special treatment over and above the rest of nonmarriage.

SSMers tend to runaway from dealing forthrightly with this central theme of the SSM campaign.

Given the silence on the question asked [see note] from the SSMers who have read the question, it appears that little if any thought has been given by those SSMers when it comes to the societal significance (as opposed to the purely private significance an individual here or there might affix to it) of same-sex sexual behavior, monogamous or not.

Note: the question as asked is — What societal significance, if any, would be affixed to sexual monogamy in the one-sexed arrangement?

It says something, I’m not sure what exactly, that SSMers run from the opportunity to deal directly with the central theme of the SSM campaign and its complaint against the man-woman basis of marriage in our laws and culture.