I still stand by yesterday's observations that aggressive factions within the gay community ridiculing those who advocate monogamy are predatory. Outspoken, these folks are everywhere. Their doctrine is communicated endlessly in our gay press, where the expectation is constantly reinforced that if you aren't out there having multiple partners that somehow you've compromised your proud gay ideal and gotten sucked into some sort of compromised heterosexual norm. As if there is something less wonderful and intrinsically limiting in committing both your heart and your body to one person.
And yeah I do see it as an issue of integrity.
While the agreements that two individuals make defining the parameters of their relationships are up to them, the fact that anyone that wishes for or who proclaims the desire to enjoy a monogamous relationship is subjected to such skepticism and or scorn makes my point.
And on a personal note I've been there and seen both sides of the equation. I've seen open relationships and closed relationships. I've seen a lack of integrity displayed by men who claimed to be monogamous and by those who enjoyed open relationships but who still couldn't abide by the boundaries set up by both partners. Integrity is not limited by relationship guidelines. It's limited by character, will power and faith.
There's no point in making broad sweeping generalizations.
I damn well know there are some decent open relationships out there. But, when Playwright Rudnick offers that his idea of a monogamous gay relationship is synonymous with science fiction, that's hardly honoring those who strive to keep such commitments. Openly ridiculing even the possibility that such a thing exists is hardly open minded.
His words, taken directly out of the NYTimes piece and his sentiments are reflective of many attitudes within the gay community.
This isn't about some sort of puritanical throwback to a by gone era that may have never existed in the first place. It's about the progressive vision that maybe, just maybe, two people could care for each other so much that they have the balls to be faithful to one another and that they aren't looking to entertain outsiders in the middle of their bed. Seriously what is so threatening about that idea? Why is there such a backlash against the very idea of monogamy? Why must it be so difficult to find such champions within our "honor diversity" litmus tested community?
I mean if we can honor the choices of those in an open relationship, why can't we offer the same respect toward those who are in a closed and monogamous one? And can someone tell me why is it that so many not so nuetral observers fully expect, anticipate and encourage the other shoe to drop out of monogamous unions. Celebrating with such glee when these relationships succumb to whatever assails them and actually fail?
Today's prayer concerns...
That healing would come to Renee who is preparing to have hip surgery...
That peace and stability might find Dwight...
That Jennifer's marriage might reconcile...
That Kevin's dad's Alzheimer's might slow...
Links, links, links...
...The most important story of the day. Please take action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14kristof.html?th&emc=th
...More scary religious fanatics stuff... http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050613/ts_latimes/losttotheonlylifetheyknew
...And from the whacked pastor from Kansas...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228401_westboro14.html
...Liking to ride a bike...
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org
...Piercing float doesn't float the parade committee's boat
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228422_piercings14.html
...The recall is on...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228413_recall14.html
...The saddest story...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228376_childmurder14.html
...Texas Governor gets taken to the woodshed...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201433.html
...log cabin hoo haha...
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-guerriero24jun12,1,2511394.story?page=3&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=la-headlines-magazine
1 comment:
Well, unlike others I claim no "voice of the nation" capabilities.
I know I do feel that framing monogamy as GOOD and anything else as BAD or vice-a-versa on either side of the argument does not follow my experiences or any common sense.
The world is not simplistic or black and white.
Relationships do not come completely mapped and safe for anyone.
Add to that the implication I see mentioned allot right now that "gay
marriage" is another term for monogamy and I think allot of people are barking up the wrong tree.
A couple I know and am good friends with have been together for 29 years. They are Catholic and met in seminary school, so now imagine they are not monogamous and never have been.
29 years seems rather a long time to not think of them as committed to one another now, right?
Is there anything not miraculous than in this day and age staying
together and having a loving relationship for 29 years?
Would you even question their their love, their fidelity and integrity or consider them foolish?
The point that concerns me is not whether we are in relationships that are monogamous or like having threesomes.
The real concern should be "why are you doing it?"
Is it because of love or are you doing it for other reasons and
insecurities?
I guess I just like to analyze and question the reason, not so much judge the action. People are just too good at performing self-destructive actions with good intentions whether gay, straight, married, or unsure.
Rudnick's reaction let's me know more about his inability to handle other points of view and his lack of maturity and inexperience as a whole than whatever he thinks of
monogamy.
Although I wish to point out that gay romance novels have been around for a while and are usually pretty bad so negative gut reactions is a given.
I'm not grandstanding for either side of the monogamy debate which I think is purely based on personal choice of two consenting adult individuals. I'm just noting what I think is a valid argument and what comes across as simply more rhetoric.
Post a Comment