Gay Danish Couples win right to marry in church

[Caroline]

This baffles me. It flies in the face of the conventional wisdom: that male-male attraction leads to the most promiscuity, while female-female attraction leads to the least, with the promiscuous pull of the male and the nonpromiscuous pull of the female in heterosexual couples putting them somewhere in between.

But these overly broad generalizations have their limits, for sure.

I think that if marriage (or "equivalent") stats are those being examined, there's already self-selected bias involved; i.e..you're likely looking at a portion of the population who have already evidenced a preference for pair bonding over promiscuity.

It would also be interesting to cross reference those stats with financials as lesbians couples are often in lower income brackets than gay men, simply by virtue of being women and financial strain is often an issue in marriage dissolution.

[Skyth]

Not so sure it's so much "accepted" as more "invisible." It's far more common for physically-demonstatrative women to be assumed simply as friends, whereas guys rarely get that slack. (Setting aside the whole fetishization angle, which is rarely applied to real people who don't match porno daydreams.)

It's a combination of both. Women living together are usually assumed to be friends. Also, lesbians are seen as less threatening to men (who are usually the ones in power) than gays are. Plus there's the fetishization angle which I don't think is as rare as you would believe.

I also think there's the underlying cultural belief that women in relationships with other women are bi but men in relationships with men aren't which plays into the fetishization angle.

[Caroline]

It's a combination of both. Women living together are usually assumed to be friends. Also, lesbians are seen as less threatening to men (who are usually the ones in power) than gays are. Plus there's the fetishization angle which I don't think is as rare as you would believe.

I also think there's the underlying cultural belief that women in relationships with other women are bi but men in relationships with men aren't which plays into the fetishization angle.

It's not so much that I think fetishization is rare per se, but rather that it's really particularly subject to male gaze - if the lesbians don't match 'hot lesbian' parameters, then they just don't register. I've had friends who have been literally told they can't be a couple because they are just, well, ordinary. (Don't know whether to sigh or scream over that one.)

And yeah, it's all about the underlying misconceptions. Women always want the guy to join in, doncha know, but the gay guy, hell, he might treat me like I treat women, and can't have that!

[Catherine]

On a related note:
Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...c-w-cooke?pg=1

Based on my personal experience of growing up with two dads, no. Gay parenting is not bad for kids. Let me say that one more time, GAY PARENTING IS NOT BAD FOR KIDS. And, I have to say I'm bloody sick of hearing this. Honestly, I don't give a shit about the statistics, studies, or what not. All of that can be easily skewed to reflect whatever it is the people doing the research want it to prove.

You want to know what's bad for kids? Telling them their family isn't really a family, is bad for kids. Denying their parents the same rights as everyone else has, is bad for kids. The fear of being taken from their parents, is bad for kids. The threat of one parent or both losing their job because of who they love, is bad for kids. These are the things that create instabilities, and none of them are actually caused by the gay parents! They're caused by the bigots that perpetuate this nonsense!

Sure, not every kid being raised by same sex couples is going to have a perfect life, but that's just as true for kids being raised by hetero couples! There are plenty of people growing up in hetero households who have really crappy lives. Man+woman+marriage doesn't automatically equal a stable household. We all know this.

My dads were together for 30 years before one of them died of liver cancer. Their house is like a Norman Rockwell painting complete with white picket fence and two dogs in the yard (well, until the dogs died,too). Let me tell you, or anyone else who might be interested, that they were my model of a stable, loving, committed relationship. They taught me and my sister how to be good parents and what it takes to have a successful marriage.

You know what else is bad for kids, even after they grow up? Watching the surviving parent being treated as nothing more than an acquaintance when it came to medical, burial and legal issues, regardless of the will or the fact that he held power of attorney. Being treated as if we were merely "friends of the family" by hospital staff and later, the funeral director. Watching my dad have to pay inheritance taxes on his own damned car and house! Married people don't have to pay inheritance taxes here when a spouse dies, but SSM isn't legal here! Nice little chunk of cash the state got, too.

Please, if you're worried about the children, then don't deny the legitimacy of their families. It's as simple as that.

FYI, this little rant is a general response to the issue, not necessarily a response to you Sailor. You just happened to post the article.

[Darkhawk]

This baffles me. It flies in the face of the conventional wisdom: that male-male attraction leads to the most promiscuity, while female-female attraction leads to the least, with the promiscuous pull of the male and the nonpromiscuous pull of the female in heterosexual couples putting them somewhere in between.

But these overly broad generalizations have their limits, for sure.

One of the things I've seen is that a huge number of gay couples - including long-term committed ones - have some type of nonmonogamy agreement, ranging from acceptable limited-circumstance hookups to full-blown multiple serious relationships. Which of course means that such gay partners have partially or even entirely decoupled relationship stability from the question of whether or not one is attracted to someone else.

I've seen anecdotes that appear to credit generalised existence of nonmonogamous or promiscuous behaviour among committed gay partners for the stability of those partnerships - simply wanting to have sex with someone else is not grounds for a breakup. Only not wanting to be in that relationship anymore is grounds for a breakup.

[Darkhawk]

I think that if marriage (or "equivalent") stats are those being examined, there's already self-selected bias involved; i.e..you're likely looking at a portion of the population who have already evidenced a preference for pair bonding over promiscuity.

It's not like these are the only options or that they're mutually exclusive.

[veggiewolf]

It's not like these are the only options or that they're mutually exclusive.

This. Thank you.

[Caroline]

It's not like these are the only options or that they're mutually exclusive.

Exactly. And when these various surveys and studies self-select on such a narrow band, they really give a skewed picture of reality.

[Altair]

Based on my personal experience of growing up with two dads, no. Gay parenting is not bad for kids. Let me say that one more time, GAY PARENTING IS NOT BAD FOR KIDS.

Thank you for this, and for every bit of the rest of your post.

[Altair]

One of the things I've seen is that a huge number of gay couples - including long-term committed ones - have some type of nonmonogamy agreement

Yup. To varying degrees of success, depending mostly, as far as I can see from my experience, on both members of the couple buying into the same ground rules. The Out of Town rule being the most common one.

And then there are the committed couples who incorporate a third playmate from time to time. Again, depending on the couple and their level of mutual buy-in to the idea, I've seen varying degrees of success with this. In my swinging single days, these were my favorite couples...



For guys, at least, sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity don't have to be the same thing.