Saturday, March 28, 2015

No orifice left unentered

Even if it's magnanimously granted that the push for and acceptance of same-sex marriage was primarily driven by a desire for perceived equality, it looks like the redefining of the institution is going to be a consequence. Over the last four consecutive survey years, the GSS has asked married respondents, categorized by sexual orientation, whether they have ever had sex with someone other than a spouse while married. The results (n = 5,380):

The sample sizes for homosexuals and bisexuals are small (26 and 67, respectively), but it's striking how well these results corroborate those revealed in a NYT article that slipped under the radar in early 2010. The piece mentioned a study in San Francisco of 556 gay male couples that found:
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 great augur and adonis prognosticates thusly:
Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.
Those who continue to claim that same-sex marriage will have no affect on heterosexual marriage are either disingenuous or naive. Speaking of naivety, one might think that awareness of as much would've been germane to the discussion about whether or not legalizing same-sex marriage was a good idea. You see though, poor naif, in America we like to push things through first and then find out what it was we pushed through by the consequences that follow as a result!

Homosexuals have become sacred objects over the last couple of decades in the West. The pace of deification has been such that Vespasian would've been impressed. Consequently, criticism of homosexual mores is not tolerated in polite company or professional circles. As more gays marry up without shackling up, the concept of open marriage will lose the "negative connotations" that currently surround it. It will also inevitably lose its place as the societal bedrock of nuclear family formation in the process. Besides raising 'problematic' issues of paternal uncertainty, marriage devoid of expectations of exclusivity becomes little more than a legal maneuver for the purposes of expediting property transfers and reducing income tax bills.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, EVSTRAY(1-2)


JayMan said...

"Those who continue to claim that same-sex marriage will have no affect on heterosexual marriage are either disingenuous or naive."

Actually, I seriously doubt that it will. Even if the structure of straight marriage changes (and gross changes are doubtful), as with all secular changes, pinning a precise cause will be difficult to nigh impossible.

Jokah Macpherson said...

For some reason I can't see the 2014 dataset in your hyperlinks and when I go to the site it only has up to 2012.

Anyways for the one through 2012, out of curiosity, I took a look at the details of the gay/lesbian group and it turns out that the females (lesbians) were more likely to have had extramarital partners than the males (gays). Obviously the numbers of subjects are tiny but I thought lesbians were supposed to have low sex drives 'cause they were women or something. Of course, it could have been from instances where they were married to a man and realized that sort of thing wasn't for them.

Audacious Epigone said...


The affect might not be pronounced, but it seems impossible to me that it'll be non-existent. Fortunately now we have a lot of "on the record" predictions for these sorts of things, so we'll see.


Yes, the new address keeps redirecting. Not sure why. Anyway, cut+paste this:

It's the exact same address except for the XX at the end for survey year 20XX.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Thanks, that worked.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if it will affect straight people's marriages, but it may be difficult for children to have two promiscuous dads and a string of other men passing through their lives.

Besides, it's not really a marriage if you're allowed to be with other people. It's just that they feel less if they don't have everything straight people have.

Anonymous said...

You need to hog tie Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has a school boy's understanding of romantic love and marriage, and shove all the evidence in front of him.

Kennedy, basically a religious guy, a Roman Catholic, was influenced to see gay marriage in a liberal light because he was astonished to discover many years later that the dean of the law school at which he taught part time in Sacramento, a colleague, a friend, and a benefactor, was gay.

I guess previous to that Mr. Kennedy believed homosexuals to be horned devils or something.

For many, it's difficult to put aside personal attachments and still think long-term ramifications.

Further, I'd imagine all but Scalia even know anything of the original intent of marriage.

The Hull said...

With gay marriage being a fairly new institution it still has to follow its own evolutionary path. Marriage as we know it now might not have necessarily started out as monogamously as it is occurs in present day. Ideals and morals shift from decade to decade and there may have been a time or times since the introduction of marriage that the idea of monogamy may not have been held in such high esteem amongst those participating as it is now.

Audacious Epigone said...


It wasn't monogamous, quite the opposite. Marriage is going full circle back to what it was 2000 years ago. Sex outside of marriage was socially acceptable for men in antiquity because there was no expectation that it signified romantic love between the two people who were married. Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar's great rival, was regularly ribbed for his apparent genuine, doting affection for his wife.

Philandering was less acceptable for married women, but that was because of the obvious issues it raised with regard to paternal uncertainty. Unmarried women having sex with married men was just fine, even expected. The Catholic Church is probably the single biggest reason, historically, that the contemporary European understanding of marriage is what it is.

I'm of the opinion that the institution of marriage that emerged out of the forge of Christendom is a spectacular achievement that has played no small part in the building modern society. Historically a higher percentage of women than of men have successfully reproduced (estimates as disparate as 80% of women but only 40% of men though I doubt the gap is that large on average, ultimately hard to tell precisely and there are ebbs and flows like genetic bottlenecks) because men with high status had wives and (exclusive) mistresses while low status men often had little to no sexual access at all. That's still more-or-less how things go in lots of tribalistic societies, like say in the cases of our 'allies' (lol!) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Middling men who millenia ago wouldn't have had much stake in society now have some stake in it, and they have reasons (their wives and children) to help maintain a large, high-trust super community.

I don't think it's trolling too hard to say that we know the outcome when open relationships are ubiquitous--see inner city America.

Anonymous said...

Richard Nixon thought that Greece fell because "homosexuality destroyed them" and that "the last 6 emperors were fags". Maybe it won't be too long before Nixon's theory is tested here. Heck, if a Lindsey Graham gets elected, we might find out sooner than later. Or maybe Hillary could be the start.

Dan said...

In the eyes of Gnon, same-sex 'marriage' doesn't exist; it is a contradiction of terms. This is because, to Gnon, reproduction is not a tangential thing, it is the central thing, at least as far as marriage goes.

Being one of the elect who sees, I am obliged to side with Gnon on this.

Meanwhile, the left is too dumb to see the correlation between America going all gay all the time, and vast sections of reaction in the world including Africa, India and the Middle East that have decided to ban homosexuality outright. That's close to half the world's population. It wasn't even on their radar before.

M said...

Its hard to say how much of a role religion played in romantic monogamy. Generally I think none compared to the constraints of the pre-industrial economy pushing there (cf Asia, South and East) but it may have restrained the powerful in how much they could openly do (cf powerful Asians vs powerful Europeans). Greg Cochran gave a reality check recently on how different repro variance could've been - not as high as deluded MRM types would think. High enough that high status men could call on lots more brothers and cousins (likely more so where the powerful have lots more wives and thus kids).

MC said...

Pretty surprised to see bisexuals as more monogamous than homosexuals. It would be interesting to see it broken down more. I would guess that gay men are least monogamous, followed by bisexual men, then bisexual women, then lesbians.