Comments on: No, the SF study did NOT illustrate that half of gay marriages are “open”

By: News bytes: your weekly news roundup | Pundit Country

News bytes: your weekly news roundup | Pundit Country — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:26:52 +0000

[...] Box Turtle Bulletin: No, the SF study did NOT illustrate that half of gay marriages are “open.” [...]

By: Amicus

Amicus — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:29:06 +0000

Not the first time at all:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

By: Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:14:23 +0000

This isn’t the first time that people have tried to extrapolate from a subset of San Francisco gay men to the LGBT community elsewhere; I’ve commented such attempts at extrapolation before.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:47:52 +0000

From McWhirter and Mattison, who studies gay couples in San Diego in the late 1970s and published a very interesting summary, called, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, upfront in the introduction, page xi:

“We clearly recognize the risks of having our findings etched in stone as the way male couples should and must be, setting new standards, as it were, against which others measure themselves. Once again, the limitation of a nonrandom, geographically limited, moderately sized sample must be recognized. Also, we anticipate the development of a still young gay culture to influence male couples in the future. We did not intend or want a new typology for male couples to emerge from these hypotheses. The dangers of creating new myths about male relationships through studies such as this are clearly to be avoided.”

Doesn’t get more responsible than that.

By: Karen Booth

Karen Booth — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:29:35 +0000

Timothy, I’m often critical of your work, but this was really good. Thank you.

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:47:23 +0000

Excellent research! Thanks

By: Rewind: Week of Feb. 12 | DC Agenda

Rewind: Week of Feb. 12 | DC Agenda — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:10:27 +0000

[...] and gay couples. Although the research out of San Francisco State University only includes men and does not have a statistically valid and representative sample, the author carelessly pronounces that “monogamy is not a central feature for many” gay [...]

By: Brian QTD

Brian QTD — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:02:11 +0000

“prosaic things like material and economic support”
Priya Lynn responded: “I think you’re way out to lunch there…”

Actually I meant to say material and emotional support (none of which necessarily have to do with whom you have sex–that was my point). Obviously, if money were the issue, we wouldn’t have so many screwed up rich kids (tongue in cheek!). Although, of course, finances are pretty high on the reasons for conflict within couples.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:53:33 +0000

Hence, the discourse attacks nonmonogamous people.

Personally, I think this is a perceived and/or contrived slight, not a real one, at least in relation to our political goals, recently sought.

Having followed the ads and the testimony in at least three marriage campaigns with a modicum of attention (ME, CA, and NJ), I can say that no where did I hear anyone on our side overtly attack nonmonogamous couples. I followed the Prop8 trial exceptionally closely, and I found no animus by our side toward nonmonogamous couples. [Did I get it wrong?]

If anything, the distinctions are between the married and the unmarried. Which seems natural, because the argument is that marriage has benefits and is related to couples, not singles.

Of course, in the popular discourse, emotions run high. But even then, I’m not aware of a group of ‘monogamy seekers’ making a point out of attacking couples. In fact, the questions have come the other way, no? There was one post, somewhere, suggesting that, if you have just accidentally shot your partner in unusual circumstances, you might consider not giving testimony at the State House on marriage equality. Otherwise, …

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:40:10 +0000

Brian said “Family success (and children’s success) depends on pretty prosaic things like material and economic support. Not any starry-eyed notions about “the one” and “masculine and feminine”.”.

I think you’re way out to lunch there. Most families have adequate meterial and economic support and yet there is a 50% divorce rate anyways. The success of a family is much more due to how compatible people are – its much more about “the one” than about how much stuff you have.