Monogamous?
For decades, we’ve been hearing a mantra from those who seek the church’s blessing of same-sex relationships. “They’re loving, committed, life-long, and monogamous, just like good heterosexual relationships, so we should bless the former just as we bless the latter.” For decades, those who know better have been saying that this is a fraud, that what gay rights advocates were talking about was a fundamentally different kind of relationship. When we did so, we were called bigots, homophobes, haters—you know the drill.
So behold as Noah Michelson pulls back the curtain in this piece at the Huffington Post:
Over the weekend several photos of Anderson Cooper’s boyfriend, Ben Maisani, kissing an unidentified man in a New York City park surfaced in the tabloids. Almost immediately my Facebook feed was filled with comments gushing sympathy for Cooper, who, it was assumed, must be locked away in his multimillion-dollar bedroom, alternately sobbing and stuffing his face with thousands of woe-is-me calories in an attempt to dull the pain of this awesome betrayal.
Most believed the CNN anchor was the victim of an incredibly public and callous infidelity—and just weeks after he had so bravely ventured out of the closet (and just weeks before he and Maisani were supposedly going to get hitched). Cooper deserves better than this, they asserted. And what was wrong with Maisani? If your boyfriend is Anderson Cooper, what more could you be looking for in a man?
But I wasn’t thinking about any of that. I was having fantasies about what a radical moment this could be for America. Just days after Mary Gonzalez came out as the United States’ first openly pansexual politician (and in Texas, no less!), we were suddenly being gifted with another chance to challenge how we think about sex, love, relationships, and what it means to be queer in this country.
Because, aside from the fact that we don’t know when these photos of Maisani were taken (or if they’re even real), we don’t have the faintest clue about the terms of his relationship with Cooper. There’s a very good chance that for Maisani, like many gay men in long-term, healthy, committed relationships, a make-out session in the park is not only acceptable but just another typical Saturday-afternoon activity.
It can be hard for some people—both straight and queer—to fathom that a non-monogamous relationship could not only function satisfactorily but be an ideal arrangement. But in the queer community, which has fewer hangups and restrictions on sex and less rigid parameters on with whom and how we love and lust, open relationships have long provided the stability of partnership with the excitement of being able to meet and sleep with other people.
Read it all, and thank Michelson for his honesty in confirming what we’ve said all along.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Sam Allberry - Is God Anti-Gay? [video]
- TEC Minnesota gives local option for same sex marriage
- Gay Marriage is to Govt. as is Study Hall to Academics
- Andrew Wilson and Rob Bell on Unbelievable
- Don’t Sign the Letter
- Methodist Minister Defies Church in “Deeply Personal Act” of Politics (UPDATED)
- Religions Not Accepting of Everybody
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
16 comments
Hey, I have this frog and I want to cook him for dinner. Anyone know how to boil the little fella?
[1] Posted by Jeffersonian on 8-15-2012 at 12:36 PM · [top]
For some in this group, the concept of “monogamous” (just like Scripture) has a different meaning. Some tolerate and/or advocate “open” relationships.
After all, in recreational sex, variety is the spice of life. Hence, the bath house culture.
This is nothing new.
For example, see here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/29247/comment-sf/#486912
[2] Posted by Ralph on 8-15-2012 at 01:02 PM · [top]
I asked my wife if it would be OK if I had a weekend “make out session” with another woman like these guys. The hospital bill was only $2,000 - and I can now see out of my right eye again, thanks for asking.
Somehow she doesn’t appear to have the same definition of “monogamous” as these folks do…
As I tell my children, you can be THE BEST husband of all time for 10 years, massaging your wife’s feet, listening to her every word, providing and protecting your family, then get drunk in Vegas and sleep with a hooker one time and it’s likely your marriage is over and your family done - FOREVER.
Because trust doesn’t come cheap. Nothing worthwhile does…
[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-15-2012 at 01:13 PM · [top]
Andrew Sullivan let this cat out of the bag in the mid-90s with his book Virtually Normal in which he argued that the exclusive monogamous model is unnatural. Gay people, he maintained, can teach straights something about more “healthy” relationships, that is, “open marriage.”
[4] Posted by Katherine on 8-15-2012 at 01:52 PM · [top]
Looks like the Left’s campaign of hate is having an effect. The Family Research Council office in D.C. was attacked by a gunman today.
[5] Posted by Jeffersonian on 8-15-2012 at 02:21 PM · [top]
“Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/15/unconfirmed-reports-family-research-center-shooter-carrying-chick-fil-a-bag-posed-as-intern/
[6] Posted by Jeffersonian on 8-15-2012 at 03:24 PM · [top]
Then there was the night a gay couple invited me for dinner and Trivial Pursuit. I knew they were members of Dignity (Integrity for Catholics), so in my innocence, I thought they were monogamous. I got the strangest look when I began making end-of-the-evening-had-a-good-time noises and later learned that their MO is to invite a guy over and have a three-way. I learned a lesson that night.
There are, I’m sure, couples who are monogamous, but I suspect it’s because they are too old to get anyone else.
[7] Posted by Words Matter on 8-15-2012 at 04:20 PM · [top]
I came across this Dennis Prager article today, it seems very timely to post a link to it.
http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp22.html
“Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality” By Dennis Prager
From the article, “Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own. The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object . . . is not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of (male) desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of something to someone . . .”
I think we can surmise that many want us to return to such days. I also don’t understand why no one is willing to declare what is historical truth, that in cultures where homosexuality was considered superior or at least equal to heterosexuality the status of women was abysmal.
[8] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 8-15-2012 at 04:20 PM · [top]
#7, it’s true that words matter. However, it sounds like the pursuit wasn’t at all trivial. Some guys would have assumed you were playing hard to get, and would have tied you up.
When sexual activity is based on recreational aspirations, it gets stale and boring after a while. Hence, the need to liven it up with something new, different, more exciting and thrilling.
I believe that’s how Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer got started.
On a smaller scale, that’s how the Vegas prostitute scenario (#3) can, and does, happen.
[9] Posted by Ralph on 8-15-2012 at 06:00 PM · [top]
I have a mixed reaction to articles like this. It is very easy to insert a heterosexual married couple into this story, including some prominent Christians. If only we were so concerned with concerned with our own houses and took marriage as a visible symbol of Christ and his church. The culture is watching and sadly we’ve elected to look like the culture rather than transforming the culture.
[10] Posted by iamaworm on 8-16-2012 at 07:37 AM · [top]
Festivus: I agree with you wholeheartedly that all too many heterosexual couples have dishonored or degraded marriage as it is meant to be. The difference is that the vast majority of heterosexuals, and the world at large, views their activities as deviant from the norm. Michelson (and others, as previously commenters note) views “non-monogamous monogamy” as the norm, not a deviation, for homosexuals. That’s a crucial distinction, and one of the reasons why “gay marriage” is an oxymoron.
[11] Posted by David Fischler on 8-16-2012 at 07:53 AM · [top]
David - agree. It’s no shock (or shouldn’t be) that the culture is deviant and is confused. But we need to get our house in order to transform the culture with the truth of Christ and the Scriptures. We can no longer preach one thing and do another. As such, it speaks to the fact that we have a very low view of Scripture as truth.
[12] Posted by iamaworm on 8-16-2012 at 08:04 AM · [top]
BTW - another hookup article:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/story/2012-08-02/Lochte-favors-partying-hookups-at-Games/56687696/1?csp=obnetwork
[13] Posted by iamaworm on 8-16-2012 at 09:27 AM · [top]
At one time, I had heard, the Roman Catholic organization “Dignity” was a support group for those with same-sex attraction to help them live chastely. Maybe I heard wrong; maybe the group transmogrified into a version of “Integrity.”
[14] Posted by AnglicanXn on 8-22-2012 at 08:39 PM · [top]
14. I believe you may be thinking of “Courage”, which is the support group recognized by the Catholic Church. See http://couragerc.net/
[15] Posted by Already Gone on 8-22-2012 at 08:59 PM · [top]
Courage is indeed a ministry to and by persons afflicted with same-sex attractions. The goal is to provide support for same-sex attracted persons to live chaste, holy lives in accordance with Christ’s teaching.
Dignity (which is not an official Catholic activity) is a lobby group akin to Integrity.
[16] Posted by Words Matter on 8-23-2012 at 07:51 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.