ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE: Maggie responds to Jonathan

Jonathan, I am trying to figure out why your ten-point post (below) makes my heart sing. I think it is point number 10, "Let the lesbians marry, then." How like a gentleman, chivalrous even. It gives me little bursts of inexpressible delight that you said this. As a woman, I thank-you.

As an intellectual, though, I have to point out that the question of yours I was trying to answer is: will quasi-marital legal benefits help bring the moral benefits of restraint and commitment to gay men? Letting the lesbians marry is probably not relevant to this particular question.

And the context in which I was raising the question of sexual fidelity is not Stanley Kurtz's concern (will promiscuous gay men compromise the public ideal of fidelity?) but as pointing to what might be called the natural basis for fidelity in marriage, arising out of the need to manage sex difference, including procreation, male jealousy etc.

Whatever the exact proportion, there is I think without any doubt (see Troy Perry's remarks below) a sizable and public chunk of gay men in partnerships who do not consider sexual fidelity to be that important, either for themselves or their partners. Now, there are a fair chunk of straight guys who do not consider fidelity that important for themselves. But really very few who can manage that attitude towards their wives.

This is a phenomenon that points (I think) to unacknowledged but profound differences in the basis of male sexual friendships and enduring relations between men and women.





posted by maggie at 10:53 AM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home