After the Vows: What Same-Sex Proponents Need to Know
by James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD, Psy.D.
The same-sex marriage issue is currently the number one social topic today. The main plea from gays and lesbians to lawmakers is for them to legalize marriage between same genders. Gays and lesbians say they want to have the same matrimonial privileges that heterosexuals have. In leaps and bounds, they are getting through to lawmakers; a case in point is in Massachusetts, where recently samesex marriage was made “legal.” Lawmakers, however, need informed knowledge about homosexuality and need to weigh the scales on allowing same-sex marriage to occur within their jurisdictions. It may not be as simple as its proponents say it is. Lawmakers must be visionary, not reactionary. If lawmakers react, generations of citizens and future leaders will have to deal with the serious aftermath.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, being visionary is vital. Besides, it’s hard to expect lawmakers to enact laws that would change moral standards within the society. It’s just not that easy. Among many things, lawmakers should consider the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle when making their decisions about legalizing marriage. The aftermath, which will include legal and social consequences, will be inevitable, and lawmakers must ask themselves if it will be worth it. The heterosexual marriage arena is already cumbered; an over 50% divorce rate has had a grave impact on society. To add to an already overburdened institution will inevitably make matters worse, especially given the homosexual’s history, relational issues, and perpetuities towards violence:
HOMOSEXUAL HISTORY
Proponents should look at the history first. Homosexuality has always been considered by societies throughout the world as unacceptable. In the United States, before the 1970s, gays were “closeted” and they hung out in gay bars, baths, and in anonymous public places. Most encounters were brief, anonymous and almost always sexual in nature. One night in New York City, the police department forcefully raided a small bar named Stonewall after being tipped off that gay sex was occurring on the premise. After that raid, the gays got mad and they fought back. This became the start of the “gay revolution.” Gays had proven that the police had singled them out, and this “profiling” created a mass plea for rights and protection. It worked, and since then much sympathy has been given to gays, and many changes affecting gays rights have resulted. Hence, the same-sex marriage issue eventually evolved.
MENTAL HEALTH
On the mental health side, before 1973, homosexuality was considered pathological. Gays didn’t think that was fair either. So they formed a small alliance to plead with the mental health community to remove homosexuality as a disorder from their books. With a small committee of mental health professionals, largely relying on isolated study based on results of personality tests from gays1, homosexuality was removed from the books. In a single day, it was no longer seen as a psychological condition. A few members of the psychological community sought this removal, but society and the rest of the mental health arena were not asked their opinion. It happened very quickly, like a thief in the night. At any rate, it was merely political, albeit undemocratic, and not based on any clinical justification.2 While most mental health experts were enraged, none were able to retract the decision made by just a few.
PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
But what should lawmakers and gay proponents know? Over and over they are told that gays are not “sick” and that their relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships. Earlier I said that lawmakers should consider the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle when making their decisions. Do they know that despite the knowledge of AIDS risk, homosexuals continue, time after time, to indulge in unsafe sex practices? Moreover, that homosexuals represent the highest numbers of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) cases in the world?3 Likewise, the surgeon general determined that with or without protection, homosexual anal intercourse practice is just too dangerous and therefore not recommended.4 But, almost all gay men report involvement/fantasy in anal eroticism and other unconventional sexual behaviors.5
Like gay men, lesbians are at great risk for AIDS, STDs, and other health concerns as well, since their sexuality is characterized by rapid sexual fluidity. Lesbians generally do not seek conventional healthcare and therefore are a greater health risk.6 It’s no secret, though, that the sexuality of homosexuals differs greatly, along several lines, from heterosexuals. Lawmakers must protect public health. Clearly the health risks of homosexuality are just too immense.
There are many other things to consider as well. For example, over one third of homosexuals are substance abusers. Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from gender identify confusion. They are also more likely to have mental health conditions such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety. Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships. Gay relationships are not sexually exclusive, and therefore yield higher chances of being emotionally destructive.
RELATIONSHIPS
Let’s look at the gay relationship issue in more detail, short of what you’ll read in the popular media. Compared to heterosexual men, gay men report a shorter level of duration in their longest relationship. Fewer heterosexual men have “open” (when either one or both partners are sexually non-exclusive) relationships compared to their gay counterparts. Ultimately, gays have fewer monogamous relationships. Their partner’s sexual exclusivity is not an important factor in their relationships; in fact, the vast majority of gay relationships are characterized by “nonexclusiveness.”7
The famous study, The Male Couple, conducted by two homosexuals, one a psychologist and the other a psychiatrist, found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity.8 Those couples that had maintained a relationship for more then five years were unable to maintain sexual fidelity. Although the study found that close to a third of the sample lived together longer than ten years, they also found that “The majority of couples...and all the couples together longer then five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other.” On one hand, they bragged that they, “dispelled the myth that gay male relationships do not last” (p. 285), but when gay couples lived together for longer periods of time, their relationship eventually became “open.” An earlier study conducted during the 1970s found that 75% of gay men over age 40 experienced no relationship that lasted more than one year. Only 8% of the gay men studied ever had relationships that lasted more than three years.9
The Gay Report included findings from a large study of 5,000 gay men and women who frankly discussed details about themselves and their relationships in open and closed ended questioning. The study’s participants were recruited mostly from gay homophile organizations. The authors concluded that “...for gay men, the process of forming a couple and staying together is by no means the same as it is for a man and a women, married or not.” The research found that the average length of homosexual relationships was only about two years. The study also found similarities and differences between gays and lesbians. While lesbians outnumbered the gays in terms of an emotional involvement in their relationships, both are usually emotionally uninvolved during sex.10
Much like The Gay Report, the respondents surveyed in the Spada Report, were given the opportunity to reveal their sexuality and relationships. The survey was completed by over 1,000 gays represented from every state. Although more than half said that they had a “lover,” 74% of the men who had lovers stated that they, their lover, or both engaged in sex outside the relationship. One respondent stated, “If anything, having sex with others makes our love for each other stronger.” Another stated “Those who impose monogamy must be so terribly unsure of themselves as persons of value.”11
One researcher found that while 50% of gay couples said they were involved in a relationship at any given time when studied, it didn’t mean that they were committed or monogamous.12 Another researcher explained it like this: “Many gay couples who stay together for a long time become roommates bound chiefly by companionship and domestic ties, ceasing to be bed partners, and finding sex outside the relationship.”13
A study conducted in Los Angeles during the late 1980s found that homosexuals average over twenty sexual partners a year.14 This is a large percentage considering the already prevalent public health risk of just one homosexual act. Another study in Boston, also during the late 1980s, found that 77% of over 400 male subjects had had more then ten partners the previous five years before the study.15 The fact of the matter is that most gays do not even desire or want monogamy. This was the case with over half of the homosexuals in marginal tabulation of data collected by the Kinsey “sex” Institute for over 25 years.16
Homosexual males and females alternate roles during sexual activity. There are usually no strict ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles,” according to research.17 This merely shows that the homosexual identify is confused. This imbalance must be very confusing within the dyad, especially since the chances of being in sync are slim.
Lesbians experience more “fusion” or “embeddedness” within their primary relationships, which occurs more frequent, and in greater intensity the longer the relationship is. The researchers found that each lesbian partner has no solid sense of self.18 At the same time, there is a problem of competition in the lesbian relationship. The problem occurs when one partner begins to feel that she has become lost in her partner, again a demonstration of “embeddedness.”19
By these findings, it is clear that homosexual relationships are unstable and ambiguous. Even when a couple lives together for a long period of time, the relationship becomes “open.” Fidelity is not a value for homosexual couples. Individuals within the relationships are often confused about their personal role within the relationship. Finally, they are indeed unlike heterosexual relationships for many reasons.
From these findings and others, it is clear to see that homosexuals are the diametrically opposite of heterosexuals overall. Lesbians have no solidity or stability in their relationships. Gay man cannot commit to monogamy, and this will be an inevitable problem in the marriage arena. After the “honeymoon period,” they will divert to an “open relationship” or tire of that, and seek divorce or just multiply lovers. Lawyers will have their hands full with tides of these issues.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
For lesbians, domestic violence will be the highlight within the marriage. The biggest aftermath from married lesbians will undoubtedly be domestic violence. An already overburdened police force dealing with domestic violence will get more than they can handle.
Aggressive behavior is legendary in homosexuality.20 Earlier research has shown a correlation between violence and homosexuality.21 Lesbians are especially violent against others, particularly in their primary relationships. In a sample of 279 female college students, lesbians were generally more criminal and violent compared to heterosexual females.22 Consistent with earlier findings, The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that same-sex relational battering occurs in as many as one in three relationships.23
One study compared 75 self-identified heterosexual women with 55 self-identified lesbians who were demographically similar. Twenty-seven percent of heterosexual women reported abuse by their male partners, while 25% of lesbians reported abuse by their female partners.24 Statistically this is not significant; however, there is a difference between heterosexual women and homosexual women in how frequent their committed partner physically abused them. As the study showed, the level of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is as high as it is in heterosexual relationships (statistically), but this doesn’t reveal the real factors involved, one being that when it comes to domestic violence, men are overall more violent than women. Therefore, given the gender factor, the statistics should be a lot lower for female dyads compared to heterosexual ones, but as the study showed, they were not. Thus, the logical conclusion is that lesbian dyads are more violent than heterosexual dyads.
Another research project found that violence in lesbian dyads appeared to occur at about the same frequency as violence in heterosexual dyads, but the factors that gave rise to the abuse in lesbian dyads was significantly different. Interestingly, the lesbians who battered appeared to be intensely dependent on their victimized partners (usually the opposite is true in heterosexual dyads). In this study, once the batterer grew more dependent, the partner exercised more independence. “This in turn, posed a threat to the batterer, who would subsequently try to tighten her hold on her partner, often by violent means. The greater the batterer’s dependency, the more frequent and severe the abuse she inflicted on her partner.”25 Clearly this shows a unique pathology of lesbian coupling.
In a study of lesbian victims, it was found that physical violence, emotional abuse, and acts of intimidation do occur with sufficient frequency within lesbian relationships. One psychotherapist personally found lesbians to be terrorized in their relationships. Patterns of violent incidents were commonplace in the lesbian relationship. It was also found that “the battered lesbian may report that the emotional abuse and consequent diminishment of her sense of self is ultimately more damaging than her physical injuries.”26
One survey of over 100 self-identified lesbians found that 9 out of 10 of them reported either having observed or having been the recipient of some form of aggression, whether physical, verbal, or sexual, in their families of origin. As adults, nearly three-quarters of these woman reported experiencing aggressive acts, and over half reported their past relationships as “aggressive.” Nearly 45% reported physical aggression, 64.5% reported verbal/ emotional aggression and 57% reported sexual aggression. Of those surveyed, 68% perpetrated aggression in their lesbian relationship. Approximately one-third of those reported the aggression as self-defensive measures, one-third as mutual aggression, and another one-third as both mutual and self-defensive.27
A study of 100 lesbians found that nearly two-thirds of their relationships, lasting between one to five years, were abusive. Twenty-five percent of the lesbians were involved in an abusive relationship for less than a year and 14% remained involved in an abusive relationship for more then five years. Experience of the abuse was early in the relationship; 77% of the participants experienced their first abuse less then six months into the relationship. In those relationships that lasted for 23 months or more, almost all were abusive.28
In another study, questionnaires were completed by 284 lesbians about the nature of their intimate relationships, which confirmed that lesbian violence is not rare. Ninety percent reported one or more acts of verbal abuse. Although the type of abuse usually took on more of a nonphysical form, physical abuse, including severe forms, was employed as the primary method of resolving disputes. However, close to one third of the lesbians reported one or more incidents of physical abuse. The physical abuse was reported to erupt around issues of power imbalance and/or a struggle for varying levels of interdependency and autonomy within the relationship.29 Prisoners are thought to be more violent then the general population but when matched groups of heterosexual and homosexual female prisoners were studied, serious violent crimes against persons were more characteristic of the female homosexual prisoner.30 As with all domestic violence, murder is not uncommon. Incidentally, the lesbian murder rate is much higher than compared to non-lesbians.31
CONCLUSIONS
Given their history, gay men will not stay in monogamous relationships and therefore are not good candidates for marriage. Lesbians, on the other hand, who may tend to hold on to relationships, will not stop the cycle of violence, which, according to the research, is embedded within them. Therefore, they too are not candidates for marriage. Lawmakers and proponents need to consider these factors when proposing to legalize these marriages. The aftermath will be immense. The courts will be overwhelmed with cases of domestic violence and infidelity. Employers will have to fork out millions of dollars in healthcare costs and other spousal benefits.
When gay marriage made legal gains, the gays, lesbians and proponents rejoiced, but what next? The odds are against them, the research already clearly shows this; but more sadly, the odds are against society as a whole. The latter will pay a steep price.
And then what? Besides the relationship issues of infi- delity and instability, some proponents are even advocating for “three-way marriages” or “monogamous triads.” Dr. Jack Drescher, a medical doctor who is a gay activist in the American Psychiatric Association and who co-chairs the New York chapter of the Committee on Gay and Lesbian Issues, provided a rationale for these relationships: “Our culture tells us that we’re suppose to find satisfaction in one person. But, not everyone can find everything they need in one man.” Larry Ringer in an interview to Genre, a gay magazine, is reported as saying, “Face it, we’re sluts....we can’t copy straight marriages and make it work, so we go the opposite direction and make a mockery of the whole concept.”32 Finally, I would like the reader to think about what serious aftermath same-sex marriage could bring on. While doing so, its important to consider the comments and question raised in a recent article in Social Justice Review, by Robert Valente who writes,
The comparison between same-sex marriage and bisexual polygamous marriage is strikingly cogent. The person, who claims legitimacy for same-sex marriage, if he or she is to remain consistent, must also claim legitimacy for bisexual polygamous marriage— thus exposing the fact that the basis of their position is not an affirmation of civil rights, but a nihilistic indifference toward fundamental values. Same-sex marriage proponents are aware of the attendant flood of culturally perverse legal challenges that recognizing same-sex marriage invites. On what credibly remaining basis will the Court strike them down?”33
Is this what society needs—a flood of perverse marriage mergence? Now is the time to stop the ideology which suggest breaking past conventional marriage, between one man and one woman, and bring forth justice—saving society from a horrific aftermath!
ON THE WEB: Defense of Marriage Coalition
NOTES, PHELAN
1. Hooker, E., “The adjustment of the male overt homosexual,” Journal of Projective Techniques, 21 (1957) 18-31.
2. Socarides, C.W., “Sexual politics and scientific logic: The issue of homosexuality,” The Journal of Psychohistory, 10 (1992) 307-329.
3. Phelan, J.E., “AIDS: An inveterate epidemic among homosexuals,” S ocial Justice Review, 90, 9-10 (1999) 141-146.
4. Health and Human Services Department, Publication under The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) #990-4239: Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases... especially AIDS (Washington, DC: FDA, 1990).
5. Michael, R.T., Sex in America: A definitive survey (Boston: Little, Brown, 1994).
6. Kenyon, F.E., “Physique and physical health of female homosexuals,” Journal of Neurological Neurosurgical Psychiatry, 31 (1968) 487-489.
7. Harry, J., Gay Couples (New York: Praeger, 1984).
8. McWhirter, D.P.,& Mattison, A.M., The male couple: How relationships develop (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984).
9. Saghir, M.T. & Robins, E., Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation (Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins, 1973).
10. Jay, K. & Young, A., The Gay Report: Lesbians and gay men speak out on sexual experiences and lifestyles (New York: Summit Books, 1979).
11. Spada, J. The Spada Report: The newest survey of gay male sexuality (New York: Signet, 1979).
12. Harry, J., Gay Couples (New York: Praeger, 1984).
13. Henslin, J. M., & Sagarin, E. (eds), The sociology of sex (New York: Schocken Books, 1978).
14. Linn, L.S., Spiegel, J.S., Mathews, W.C., Leake, B., Lien, R., & Brooks, S., “Recent sexual behaviors among homosexual men seeking primary medical care,” Archives of Medicine, 149 (1989) 2685-2690.
15. Seage, G.R. III, “The relation between nitrite inhalants, unprotected anal intercourse and the risk of immunodeficiency virus infection,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 135 (1992) 5.
16. Gebhard, P.H., & Johnson, A.B., The Kinsey data: Marginal tabulations of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the institute for sex research (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1979).
17. Saghir, M.T., & Robins, E., “Male and female homosexuality: Natural history,” Comprehensive Psychiatry, 12 (1971) 503-510.
18. Kerstan, J., & Bepko, C.S., “The problem of fusion in lesbian relationships,” in W. R. Dynes (ed.) Lesbianism (New York: Garland, 1992).
19. Lindenbaum, J.P., “The shattering of an illusion: The problem of competition in lesbian relationships,” in W. R. Dynes (ed.) Lesbianism (New York: Garland, 1992).
20. Freud, S., “Some neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and homosexuality,” Standard Edition, 18 (1922).
21. Kremer, M., & Rifkin, A., “The early development of homosexuality: A study of adolescent lesbians” American Journal of Psychiatry, 126 (1969) 91-96. Social Justice Review 77 May/June 2004
22. Ellis, L., Hoffman, H., & Burke,D.M., “Sex, sexual orientation and criminal and violent behavior,” Personal Individual Differences, 11 (1990) 1207-1212.
23. Berry, D.B., The domestic violence sourcebook: Everything you need to know (Los Angeles: Lowell House, 1994).
24. Brand, P.A., & Kidd, A.H. “Frequency of physical aggression in heterosexual and female homosexual dyads,” Psychological Reports, 59 (1986) 1307-1313.
25. Renzetti, C.M., Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1992).
26. Hammond, N., “Lesbian victims of relationship violence,” Women and Therapy, 8 (1989) 89-105.
27. Lie, G.Y., “Lesbians in current aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships?” Violence and Victims, 6 (1991) 1-50.
28. Renzetti, C.M., Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1992).
29. Lockhart, L.L., White, B. W., & Causby,V., “Letting out the secret:Violence in lesbian relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9 (1994) 469-492.
30. Climent, C.E., Ervin, F.R., Rollins, A., Plutchik, R., and Batinelli, C.J., “Epidemiological studies of female prisoners,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 164 (1977) 25-29.
31. Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Proctor, K., “Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order,” Psychological Reports, 64 (1989) 1167-1179.
32. Lambda Report, July 1995, p. 3.
33. Valente, R., “Same-sex marriage in perspective,” Social Justice Review, 95 1-2 (2004) 5-6.
FACT SHEET
U.S State’s status on same-sex marriage as of Dec 1, 2003*:
Outlaws same-sex marriage:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Total: 27
Added a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage in the 2004 election:
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio Michigan
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah
Total: 12
No law or amendments:
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Maryland
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total: 9
Allows civil unions:
Vermont
Total: 1
Allows same-sex marriage:
Massachusetts
Total: 1
* Source: USA Today, 30 Nov 04 citing the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
DR. PHELAN is an authority on the nature and consequences of homosexual activity. He resides in New Egypt, NJ.
This item 6902 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
