Last week the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided to allow gays in “life-long, monogamous” relationships to serve as clergy and professional lay leaders in the church. The question left unanswered, however, was, “Whose definition of monogamy would be used?”
One of the unspoken assumptions in the debate over gay marriage is that monogamy is equally valued by both gay and straight couples. While far too many heterosexuals opt for a form of serial monogamy—marriage, divorce, remarriage—it is still generally understood that sexual fidelity is too be expected within the bounds of marriage. The same assumption, however, is not necessarily true within homosexual relations.
Many same-sex marriage advocates will naturally find such a claim shocking, if not scurrilous. The “It’s about love” crowd have often been strong on empathy while weak on their understanding of how homosexual relationships tend to differ from those of heterosexuals. (It also seems to have escaped their notice that marriage may not be the only term that homosexual activists want to redefine.) But this isn’t a controversial idea—at least it wasn’t until the recently.
Until a few years ago, many gay activists freely admitted that the traditional view of monogamy was a heterosexual ideal that did not apply to homosexual relationships. Terry Mattingly notes in a recent Get Religion post:
As a visiting gay theologian once told me during a conference at [Iliff School of Theology], very few gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians have what he called a “twin rocking chairs forever” definition of monogamy. That was just too restricting, he said. Most gays, he said, believe that it is possible to be “faithful” to one partner and, thus, “monogamous,” while continuing to have sexual experiences with others.
Mattingly also references a quote from a Scripps Howard column he wrote in 2000:
“Monogamy” isn’t such a scary word, once people get the hang of redefining it to fit the realities of modern life, according to gay provocateur Dan Savage.
“The sexual model that straight people have created really doesn’t work,” said the nationally syndicated columnist, in a New York Times Magazine piece on post-modern sex. “All it does is force people to lie. … In this society, we view monogamy like we view virginity, one incident and it’s over, the relationship is over.”
Heterosexual couples, he said, should relax and learn from homosexuals. Relationships must grow and evolve. “I know gay couples who have been together for 35 years. They have separate bedrooms. Sometimes they sleep together and sometimes they sleep with other people, but they’re a great couple,” he said.
Of course that was a decade ago, when homosexual activists were more once open about this redefinition of monogamy. Back then Andrew Sullivan felt safe to admit in his book Virtually Normal:
There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. . . .The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”
And in a 1998 issue of The Advocate we find this full-length article:
Monogomy: Is it for us?
The Advocate examines the controversial subject of monogamy from many anglesOne of the hottest debates in today’s gay world involves the m word. Is it for us, we wonder, or is it just aping straight society? Is it a basic human drive or a dumb social construct? And, of course, each of us wonders, Is it for me?
But this m word is not marriage. It’s monogamy. Etymologically, the word means “one marriage.” So how can it possibly apply to a group of people who are not legally allowed to wed?
[. . .]
“A commitment is something made by two people, not by a minister or license,” Carmichael says.
But, in fact, two men or two women making a commitment is different from a man and a woman doing it. Evolutionary scientists say males and females set different standards for sexual partners. They argue that since sperm is cheap, males instinctively want to spread their seed among many partners, but eggs are precious, so females seek copulation with one mate who will be a good provider. Socially, that results in compromises–marriage and adultery–but what happens when two people of the same gender don’t have to meet in the middle?
One result might be the old joke: What do two lesbians take on their second date? A U-Haul. What about two gay men? What second date?
Thus, says neuroscientist Simon LeVay, gays and straights can be seen as biologically similar: The males share an interest in casual sex, while the females want to settle down. He cites studies from San Francisco in the pre-AIDS 1970s showing that the average gay male had had 500 partners up to the time of the survey interview; the average lesbian, fewer than ten.
[. . .]
Michael Cohen, a psychotherapist in Hartford, Conn., thinks monogamy is a social construct derived from religion and may or may not be natural.
[. . .]
Others disagree. Frances Donovan, who has “experience on both sides of the monogamy fence” and ducts workshops on that topic at educator and youth conferences, believes nonmonogamy is a negative definition. She prefers polyamory—the ability to love more than one person at a time—and says the key to successful polyamory is open, honest communication. At one workshop, participants listed several benefits of polyamory, including freedom, love, happiness, and trust.
Which brings us to two specific types of polyamory: threesomes and open relationships. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the strongest advocates for monogamy view threesomes with equanimity.
“They can be shared experiences that couples go through together,” Berzon says. “The key is that it has to be both partners’ choice. If it is, my job becomes helping them think about the best ways to make it work.”
“There’s a difference between emotional monogamy; and sexual monogamy,” argues Cohen. “If a couple have threesomes occasionally and are still committed to each other, they can usually separate the two.”
[. . .]
Most people draw the line at cheating–that is, having outside relationships without the knowledge or consent of one’s partner. “The rules are simple: If you are in a monogamous relationship, you don’t cheat,” says Jeffrey Denke, 26, a video producer. “It is a matter of self-control and will.” The best way to combat the desire to cheat, he says, is to “explore a variety of sexual encounters together. Third partners and other couples are a great way to add variety to sex.”
Yet Ann Northrop, a lesbian activist and coanchor of the Gay USA cable TV news show, sees the debate about monogamy as “a window of opportunity” for gays to be honest about our behavior–far more honest, in fact, than straights, who from U.S. presidents on down have never been paragons of monogamy.
“We don’t have the hypocritical, hierarchical heterosexual system of rewards” that flow to folks in monogamous, committed relationships, she says. “However, we also have not talked openly about what we want from a relationship, where sex and intimacy fit in, and what may or may not work for us.” Now, Northrop believes, is the time.
Same-sex marriage advocates often bristle at the idea that polygamists should have the same rights that they seek for homosexuals. But by redefining monogamy they are attempting to gain legitimacy for a particular type of polyamoury while excluding other, more open, forms of multi-partner arrangments.
This hypocrisy obviously has less to do with moral outrage over polyamoury than it does with shunning politically harmful associations. That is also why you’ll find few homosexual activists openly discussing in public their disdain for traditional monogamy. But while they no longer want to talk about it, the issue must be addressed. If monogamy is not considered a necessary component of same-sex marriage, then it will only be a matter of time before the leavening effect of language reduces the importance of monogamy in all marriages.
Are religious supporters of same-sex marriage ready to redefine marriage in a way that leaves out monogamy?
August 24th, 2009 | 11:10 am
I have serious doubts whether any homosexual clergyperson will ever be disciplined for breaking the monogamy rule.
August 24th, 2009 | 1:17 pm
So if I am a heterosexual ELCA pastor who chooses to live in a “life-long, monogomous” relationship with a member of the opposite sex, is that okay now?
Would it be considered sinful (under the new ELCA thinking) for a gay couple living in a state that allows gay marriage to live together outside of marriage?
Is there any evidence that the ELCA convention even considered some of these thorny implications?
August 24th, 2009 | 2:36 pm
[...] been picked up by others in the religious conservative blogosphere, including Rod Dreher, First Things, and the Anglican warriors. The argument flows from Mattingly’s interpretation of some 1980s [...]
August 24th, 2009 | 3:56 pm
You ask:
“Are religious supporters of same-sex marriage ready to redefine marriage in a way that leaves out monogamy?”
My answer is no — I support same-sex marriage without any change to the traditional monogamy rule.
Just as it was wrong for same-sex marriage opponent and now apparently ex-gay Ted Haggart to cheat on his wife (if he did), it would have been equally wrong for him to cheat on a husband (were he allowed to marry a person of the same sex).
Does that help clear matters?
BTW, if you are worried about monogomy and marriage, you might want to start with the straight marriages already lawful in each of the 50 states and recognized by the churches (with the exception of remarriages, which of course are not accepted by all churches).
This website, for instance, has compiled some interesting statistics (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html), including the following:
* Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 – Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)
* 90 percent of Americans believe adultery is morally wrong [meaning 10 percent do not?].
* Only 46% of men believe that online affairs are adultery.
* 8-10 percent of Internet users become hooked on cybersex.
It would also be interesting to know what percent of married men view pornography — an act that, under Jesus’ definition, consitutes adultery.
Thanks.
August 24th, 2009 | 8:39 pm
Does it make no difference that the GLBT pastors whom the ELCA will now ordain and the same-sex couples whose unions it will now bless are placing themselves in a position of visible, public accountability to the church?
Just because a substantial portion of the gay community is not attracted to monogamy (assuming, for the sake of argument, that your argument is correct), that is not sufficient reason to assume that GLBT Christians will follow suit automatically. These folk, like all Christians, will hold themselves and be held to a higher standard, i.e. the one named in the resolutions (monogamous, life-long, etc.).
August 24th, 2009 | 11:08 pm
Mark H,
You are missing the point of Mr. Carter’s ending rhetorical question. He is asking you if you are ready because, if you are not (as you say), then now would be a good time to prepare for it. Your personal lack of readiness does nothing to clear up matters. You gave up the biblical prohibition on homosexuality. Why do you hold on to the “monogamy rule”? The gay community does not seem terribly interested in this rule. As long as the infidelity is consentual, no?
August 24th, 2009 | 11:57 pm
trying to define “monogamy” for homo-sexually active clergy is really just a waste of time. It’s like trying to read the roadsigns whizzing by at 90mph while you drive over a cliff.
August 25th, 2009 | 8:49 am
“Does it make no difference that the GLBT pastors whom the ELCA will now ordain and the same-sex couples whose unions it will now bless are placing themselves in a position of visible, public accountability to the church?”
I think it’s a bit fantastic to imagine that this is actually what ordination (or baptism for that matter) does in the mainline churches.
At least that’s not how it has worked for the gay ECLA minister I know. She has been a prominent ECLA minister for decades and everyone who knows her knows that her ‘roommate’ is her lover.
Similarly for the apparently less progressive United Methodists. The only UM pastor I know recently confessed to being unfaithful to his wife of over 30 years, blamed her, divorced her, married his new lover and got promoted to a larger church.
August 25th, 2009 | 8:52 am
[...] Monogamy … the next waffle word? [...]
August 25th, 2009 | 8:53 am
[...] Monogamy … the next waffle word? [...]
August 25th, 2009 | 11:52 am
Cherod, you missed my point. There’s no need to prepare for the end of monogamy and marriage — it’s already here. And probably has been for some time. Read some history. Starting with, say, the story of David and Bathsheba. Or just look at the papers. The name Governor Sanford ring a bell?
What you — and we as a church — should be doing is articulating why monogamy in a good that is worth pursuing. The reliance on scriptural textproofs, while perhaps convicing to some, does not appear to have much sway these days, even over Christians.
And, no, I did not give up on the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. I believe that all sex outside of marriage (which would include virtually all homosexual sex throughout history, at least from a legal standpoint) is a sin — not in the sense that God is up in heaven arbitrarilly creating rules to follow, but because it does not bring us the sort of abundant life Christ came to give.
But sex in marriage does. As does a life of celibacy, provided God has called us to such a life and given us the gift to attain it. If he has not, however, then it is, as Paul said, better to marry than burn. That goes for gays as well as straights.
That Paul (or St. Augustine or whoever else) did not apparently consider this option no more bothers me than it does (1) that Paul appears to have truly believed it is “against nature” for men to have long hair or women to have short hair or (2) that the church continues to evolve in its understanding of gender roles, as evidenced by the rapid changes experienced in Christendom these last 150 years or so.
The Spirit was promised to lead us into truth; but it was never promised this would happen overnight. And I rather like that — the knowledge that we, too, are playing a role in the unfolding drama of understanding the Incarnation excites me.
August 25th, 2009 | 12:49 pm
I think lesbian couples are probably likelier to take advantage of same sex marriage and the monogamy issue is simply not the same as it is with gay male couples. Lesbians marriages will have no problem meeting monogamy norms. Gay male couples, on the other hand, might have some issues; but taking male and female SSMs together as a whole, I doubt you’ll see SSMs violating monogamy norms to any significant degree greater that OSMs.
August 25th, 2009 | 12:49 pm
[...] First Thoughts — A First Things Blog http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/08/24/marriage-minus-monogamy – view page – cached First Things requires that you have JavaScript enabled on your browser. For a better experience, please turn on JavaScript or upgrade your browser. — From the page [...]
August 25th, 2009 | 2:58 pm
Since monogamy seems to be more of a problem for men than for women, it would follow that lesbians in a committed relationship will be far more monogamous than heterosexual couples. Since the experience so far in states that permit same-sex marriage is that more lesbians actually marry than do gay men (as opposed to wanting the right to marry), the likelihood is that permitting same-sex marriage will add to monogamy rather than lessen it.
August 26th, 2009 | 6:27 pm
Mark H writes:
>What you — and we as a church — should be
>doing is articulating why monogamy in a good
>that is worth pursuing.
If I understand this statement correctly (and I may not, in which case you’ll correct me), then this misunderstands the meaning of faith. Having faith means that we trust that what God tells us is good (e.g., marital fidelity within a heterosexual marriage) is true. Sex in any other context, homosexual or otherwise, is sinful.
It’s His universe and we are His creation. We are to order our lives to His will, not ours — no matter what we think of it…sort of a “tis not ours to reason why, ’tis but ours to do or die”, if you will.
Mark H also writes:
>The reliance on scriptural
>textproofs, while perhaps convicing to some,
>does not appear to have much sway
>these days, even over Christians.
I sympathize with this sentiment, but would point out that the theologians that support the gay agenda marshall all kinds of newly discovered interpretations of God’s will in sexual matters — interpretations completely missed over the thousands of years of moral reflection.
Michael
August 28th, 2009 | 2:22 am
Michael — you seem to suggest that the scriptures are self-interpreting texts, as though we have no need for scholars, priests, preachers, and parishioners to prayerfully interpret their meaning, trusting that the Holy Spirit will be our guide to truth (as Christ promised on the night he was betrayed).
I think the wisdom of this view (or lack thereof) speaks for itself.
By the way, if marriage can only be (1) the union of (2) two people who (3) are of the opposite sex, why have the first two parts of this definition changed so radically over the centuries?
Consider that just a century ago marriage rendered wives chattel property of their husbands for purposes of the law; divorce was extremely difficult to obtain lawfully, even in situations of abuse (e.g., in some states, the state legislature had to vote to approve individual divorces); and when divorce was permitted, husbands almost always were awarded custody of the children.
I daresay this is not what most good Christian men and women who marry today mean when they decide to marry one another and to become one flesh. But perhaps they are wrong, women should keep silent, not cut their hair short, literally turn the other cheek when their husbands abuse them, and follow all the other scriptures all but the most fundamentalist of conservative Christians today conveniently skip over.
August 30th, 2009 | 1:34 am
[...] Marriage Minus Monogamy » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog Mail this postSHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Meaning Of Couples Counseling", url: "http://www.temporarychildcustody.org/the-meaning-of-couples-counseling" }); [...]
September 4th, 2009 | 8:45 pm
Good grief. Where to begin.
“Michael — you seem to suggest that the scriptures are self-interpreting texts”
No. He didn’t. Unless you can point out specifically where he did. Note also that this doesn’t further your claim as the authorities you then list have condemned homosexual acts over the course of history. Even the pagan ones, think of Aurelius thanking his uncle for teaching him that homosexual love corrupted.
“By the way, if marriage can only be (1) the union of (2) two people who (3) are of the opposite sex, why have the first two parts of this definition changed so radically over the centuries?”
It has? I am unaware that the Aztecs claimed that marriage was between men and dogs or the same sex or…whatever. There has been variance as to polygamy. The interesting thing is that by and large it has been limited to the aristocracy. Even in China where concubinage was allowed it was considered unseemly especially for the women. However, even given your premise when has Christianity acknowledged polygamy as a norm? Or what about Judiasm for that matter? Again _as a norm_.
“Consider that just a century ago marriage rendered wives chattel property of their husbands for purposes of the law;”
I’d love to hear this law. Care to cite?
“divorce was extremely difficult to obtain lawfully, even in situations of abuse (e.g., in some states, the state legislature had to vote to approve individual divorces);”
Ah! So it wasn’t chattel property. It was that divorce was difficult. I never realized the two were so intertwined. Of course such reasoning presupposes that marriage is a form of slavery which probably leads to all sorts of confusions. Of course if its slavery we should undermine the institution…wait…
“and when divorce was permitted, husbands almost always were awarded custody of the children.”
Again, care to cite?
“literally turn the other cheek when their husbands abuse them”
Given the lead we are to assume this is a scripture in the NT. I tire of asking, but care to cite? That is, where are wives singled out for such treatment?
“and follow all the other scriptures all but the most fundamentalist of conservative Christians today conveniently skip over”
Which are? Please enlighten us unwashed masses.
September 8th, 2009 | 11:00 am
[...] does monogamy mean? – Different things to different people, it seems. In First Things, Joe Walker discusses how monogamy is being redefined in the same-sex debate without an open discussion of what is meant [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact