Monogamania: Then and Now
It’s a radical change even from your own definition, which includes “and commit to do so monogamously.” As has been understood for decades, the homosexual (at least gay male) definition of monogamy does not entail sexual exclusivity. That this fact is dismissed or swept under the rug is not surprising since it would make the cause of SSM even more difficult to achieve. But it’s been well established and used to be the justifying reason why gays weren’t interested in marriage.
If this is an important component of your definition then you need to ask what happens when the majority of gay men refuse to include this in their own definition of “marriage.”
Despite the fact that I disagree with Joe wholeheartedly on this issue, I respect him a great deal and consider Joe to be an opponent of marriage equality who is worth engaging insofar as doing so generally leaves me feeling like I’ve learned a bit more and understand the topic at hand a bit better. As mentioned, I’ve seen Joe make the above argument on numerous different occasions and I don’t doubt that he has data to back up his assertions (Joe, in my experience, is a responsible writer in that way). But, I must admit, I myself have never sought out such data, so last night I decided to do so.
What I found has some bearing, I believe, on the veracity of Joe’s argument. [Read more →]
November 9, 2009 69 Comments
