Here’s a point I hadn’t thought of, but one that makes sense to me:
Allow me to make a radical suggestion here, which quite obviously I don’t think is radical at all. I submit that I believe that gay marriages, on average, are likely to be more stable and happy than straight marriages — that is to say, more likely to be “model” marriages in which the two partners are committed to each other in a loving fashion. And the reason for this, naturally enough, comes down to sex, as in, sex is not why gays and lesbians will get hitched.
Come on, you abstinence types. You know sex plays a significant role in marriage among the conservatively religious, who trend toward marrying younger than other groups. Indeed, it’s one of the selling points: You can have all the sex you want! And God approves! But I submit that someone who marries for access to sex — or has it in his or her unspoken top three reasons, as I strongly suspect any heterosexual human who reaches his or her early 20s as a virgin might — will find he or she has a weak pillar in the marriage after the first bloom of sexual activity wears off. And you know how humans are when it comes to sex. They’re all screwy for it. It makes them do things like have affairs and try to serve divorce papers on their wives in hospital recovery rooms and whatnot.
Now, take your gay couple. He and he (or she and she) don’t have the same hangups about sex and marriage, for the simple reason that gay people have never had the need or expectations regarding marriage and access to sex. They have ever had their sex independent of the marriage institution. So it would seem reasonable to suggest that if a gay couple decided to marry, the fevered idea of finally getting to have sex (and the irrationality such a desire can bring) would not be one of the major motivating factors. Instead the decision would be based on other more, shall we say, considered factors, like basic compatibility, shared life goals and expectations, and a genuine and well-regarded appreciation for the other, in the relationship and out of it.
At this point in time, I’d say this is true. It may change when the first generation of gay kids grows up assuming that they too can get married. Ending the denial of sex and all the delusion-inducing hysteria of romanticism are two of the worst foundations for a marriage. This generation of gays might be better able to resist them.
DERB’S MARRIAGE: On another ironic note, I see that John Derbyshire says the main reason his own wife can live in the United States at all is because he married her. Good for him. But he must surely realize that if he were gay, he would never have been able to live with his spouse in the U.S. He wouldn’t have been able to bring him here at all. Doesn’t he see that as a major piece of unfairness? I know several gay men who, like Derbyshire, fell in love with someone in a foreign country and have been separated by thousands of miles as a result. It’s a source of immense pain and misery. Other countries – most of the civilized world, in fact – allows for gay citizens to sponsor their partners. Not here. So Happy Thanksgiving to the new Americans in Derbyshire’s household. And sympathy for those shut out of America and the person they love because of laws Derbyshire enthusiastically supports.
The Dish 