Counterculture Con HQ

May 17, 2010

The ‘Open’ Secret About Gay Marriage

This is big. And for me, this is the lynch pin on homosexual marriage …  and even homosexual ordination.

The story goes as so: How could Homosexual marriages be an ‘assault’ on the institution of marriage and family when 1) there is still the union of two loving partners (who just happen to be of the same sex) and 2) they can adopt and raise children in loving homes just like loving heterosexual couples can?

The ‘Open’ secret is why.

For a long time I thought that the only strong argument against homosexual marriage was from the Roman Catholic church who incorporated their objection into are much larger and integrated order of things. We marry because we are designed to be in communion with a partner, we are designed to reproduce, and we are designed to enjoy sex. Any combination that excludes one of these elements begins to erode marriage.

Now, if it could be demonstrated that Homosexual marriage could fit this matrix (without being as ‘dogmatic’ as the Roman Church can be … although, as we shall see for good reason!) then it should be ordained by God.

A lot of media and capital has been spent selling this picture of Gay marriage … but there has been a dirty little secret in that community.

Homosexuals have a culture of ‘open’ marriages:

Scott James of the NY Times says —

… As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage. … (read the rest here)

Now of course it should be noted that marriage in general is in a progressive state of decay. Divorce rate is up, cheating and non-traditional options are more than usual becoming the norm. But we know that this is all part of the general decay of Western civilization precipitated by New Lefty Liberalism. Consider this asinine article by Damon Linker at The New Republic (here). Listen to the twisted logic:

“Even if we assume that the study cited in the Times article is accurate and that gay community as a whole shares the outlook and attitudes of married homosexuals in Bay area, traditionalists need to explain the mechanism whereby the practices of roughly half of the members of a tiny minority who choose to marry will decisively influence the marital practices of everyone, or even anyone, else. Traditionalists dread this influence—just as some of those quoted in the article welcome it. But do those fears and hopes make sense? How is the change going to happen? Why should we assume that it will? Because sleeping around is fun, and the only thing holding traditional mores in place is ignorance among mainstream Americans that it’s possible to engage in consensual polyamory?”

1) Oh, Damon … I didn’t realize homosexuals were such a ‘tiny minority’ since the world of such a ‘tiny minority’ has been rammed down our throats in television, film, news, and print

2) Damon … maybe when such a ‘tiny minority’ has the engine of a much larger project running it (namely the project of the New Left who wish to dismantle traditional Westernism), then it would have a disproportionate amount of influence.

3) Just maybe Damon, there is good reason to ‘dread this influence’? Just maybe?

4) P.S. Damon … your strawman of what conservative and holders of traditional marriage

“the only thing holding traditional mores in place is ignorance among mainstream Americans that it’s possible to engage in consensual polyamory”

is absurd and reminiscent of a high school level reasoning. But I wouldn’t expect someone who actively dismissed the great cloud of witness that is Western tradition to understand this.

There are two attacks against the traditional view of marriage.

This is the argument that is usually pinned on conservatives:

This can be dispensed with as a wholly false analogy!

The other  is that “Marriage is human right not a heterosexual privileged”.

Okay, the question we now have to ask ourselves … what in the world do you mean by ‘Marriage’?


  1. >>>This can be dispensed with as a wholly false analogy!

    Indeed. This false analogy rests entirely on the notion that there are no differences between the sexes, i.e., men and women are the same (you can thank the rad feminists for that), just as blacks and whites are the same. But that’s obviously not true. Men and women are different, and a child in a mixed race family still gets the benefits of a mom and a dad. That’s not true of a same sex marriage, so the mixed race marriage analogy fails.

    Comment by Jesusland — May 17, 2010 @ 10:34

  2. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Period.
    Gay “marriage” needs the scare quotes, if you please.
    Where I live, a man has been petitioning for a license to “marry” his ice machine. In Japan, a man has “married” a “love doll” (if you don’t know, you don’t want to know). Just watch “Gattaca” (1997) to get an idea where all this might be headed unless it is decisively stopped now. All the other stuff is a smoke screen.

    Comment by Thorvald — May 18, 2010 @ 07:12

  3. i think that gay marriage should be allowed in certain states but not in other states ;;.

    Comment by Dry Scalp Treatment — December 1, 2010 @ 15:32

  4. You could certainly see your enthusiasm within
    the article you write. The sector hopes
    for more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to mention
    how they believe. At all times go after your heart.

    Comment by Gino — September 14, 2013 @ 21:49

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: