June 9, 2008

NYT: Gay marriages are just plain better than that other, more unequal, and all-around yuckier kind of marriage

Here's a classic article from the Health section of the New York Times tonight:

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage

By TARA PARKER-POPE

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved. ...

Personally, my motto is vive les deep-rooted biological differences between men and women.

And here's a stunning finding about same-sex "marriages:" partners who aren't of different sexes don't exhibit stereotypical sex differences!

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship.

Who knew?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

From the article:
"Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger..."

Uh...don't marry those people.

Lawful Neutral said...

anonymous,

How about I just don't marry, period. What would I possibly gain from it? Heterosexual marriage has been annihilated; gay marriage is a sideshow, no-fault divorce is the main event.

Rain And said...

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender


This statement contradicts itself. They define the behavior by gender, so how can it be the "same behavior". Do they mean the homosexuals take turns being the demander and the withdrawer? That the more femme partner demands, and the butch partner withdraws? Or that the dynamics of a dyad inherently turns one person into a demander and the other a withdrawer?

If this is the case we should see this with same sex roommates.

Anonymous said...

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

punnett square said...

Slightly off topic, back to Cochran's gay germ theory.

In the real world could parasites really alter a hosts behavior for their own benefit?

Yup. It happens every day.

From today's Science Daily

Parasitoid Turns Its Host Into A Bodyguard

beowulf said...

It is curious that a gay male's sexual identity is an immutable genetic orientation but a straight male's sexual identity is merely the result of growing up in a sexist culture and thus-- dare I say-- a preference.

Anonymous said...

Solomon, Rothblum, Levenson...

Even noticing the pattern will get you cast out of polite society.

When parsing an NYT article with as many embedded falsehoods as this one, I would recommend that you start assigning some labels to the group that does the labeling.

--foobarbaz

(waiting for testing99 to play his usual game in 3...2...1)

ReticentMan said...

Well, I was planning to marry a woman, but now I'm not so sure! Who has time for arguing and strife?

Plus we can adopt a few third world babies, and with AA I don't have to worry about them getting into the best private schools so they can become corporate executives and support us in old age.

Foolproof!

Anonymous said...

beowulf, I noticed that, too. For example, we have no "sensitivity training" for gays about the "specific needs" and "legitimate concerns" of ungay (or breeder?) people.

I first thought this was written by Onion News Network, but NYT is probably not buying any material from them. So it's... err, serious, right?

I now understand why liberals loathe conservatives for not being "curious" enough, that there's a whole world "out there" to be explored, etc. If this is your thinking mode, heck even your own desk in your study is infinitely surprising -- and keeps changing everyday. You need probably something like a dozen or so functioning brain cells to discern patterns in the world.

JD

Jim O'Sullivan said...

You know who don't seem that interested in the move to recognize gay marriage? Young gay men. Forty-plus gays who've sown a lot of wild oats like, uh, what's-his-name, can't shut up about it, but not gay guys of the average age for a first straight wedding. It's an army with a large officer corps, but few enlisted men marching behind them. Yeah, I know. There is an intuitive reason why that would be true. But nobody ever mentions it, which mildly annoys me.

Anonymous said...

"It is curious that a gay male's sexual identity is an immutable genetic orientation but a straight male's sexual identity is merely the result of growing up in a sexist culture and thus-- dare I say-- a preference."

Good point, beowulf.

To some extent all identity politics is a way of denaturing people and de-rooting them from organic communities. Medieval sexual morality was based on maintaining the proper relationships between people within the community and not the intrinsic or subjective experience of pleasure or titillation. Back then, "sensitive" boys either found a legitimate function as a priest (social mediator whose sensitivity was applied for the good of the whole) or just grew up to be sensitive men living a normal life.

The self-pleasure (masturbatory) approach to sex is a function of modern uprooted urban societies. That applies just as much to men who have sex with men as to men who leave their wives for pleasure sex with the secretary. It is all masturbatory sex which is all "gay" no matter the mental object, because it is all based on self-pleasure.

The modern life: sex is a pleasurable self-diversion for good worker bees. Just another form of consumption.

Gay identity politics brings this to a new level of action by organizing people around uprooted self-pleasure to attack what remains of the intact body politic.

Anonymous said...

What about adultery?

headache said...

NYT has this canny way of selling junk with a straight face. Journalist (Harvard Grad, topnotch) goes walking in the woods with a butterfly net and discovers...butterflies! Woa, there exist butterflies!

Of course NYT is not going to report on the 97% of homosexual relations that are unstable and basically last 2 weeks. They'll pick out the 3% "stable" ones and then use those to lecture to everyone else. That's what the NYT really loves to do. Find some arcane interlocked argument so they can give a hetero, non-jewish whitey another lecture.

Shouting Thomas said...

The kids started streaming into my workplace in the mid-90s, armed with this "Gay is better!" and "Hetero is boring and stupid!" indoctrination firmly in place.

This shit was pounded into them in college. Every last one of them collapsed before the indoctrination, and every one of them thought of himself as a "critical thinker." Surprisingly, all the critical thinkers thought exactly the same thing.

Proclaiming yourself gay proved to be a good career move in the corporate world of the 90s. Managers were rewarded with bonuses for promoting gays over straights.

In my business, multimedia, the gays tried to drive heteros out of their shops through a combination of age discrimination and ridicule. Straight men were supposed to be too stupid and uptight to be involved in any business that employed "design" in its job description.

The seriousness and moral values of a straight older man were held to be signs of "bigotry." Gays were allowed to publicly ridicule straight men in the office, and we were supposed to just accept that as good natured fun. Woe to any straight man who ridiculed a gay man! Cause for dismissal. Several of the gays displayed soft porn images on the walls of their offices. Once again, a hetero man who displayed a picture of his girlfriend in her bikini was begging to be fired.

Stephen Boissoin, the Canadian minister recently convicted in a witch hunt by a human rights kangaroo court was quite right. Institutional America, as well as Canada, promotes and exalts homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

Consider the opera "La Traiata". At the time - incredibly at it now seems - no one knew that TB was infectious. Hence the tenor and the soprano kiss passionately in the show.

A modern man - after about 1880 - just can't kiss an active tubercular. He knows about the bacillus.

Yet the people of the 1830s were not fools. They were as smart as we are today but they did not understand the underlying science.

Today we do not understand homosexuality. Cochran may be completely correct or he may be only partially correct. We have to wait it seems.

When the truth is known the debate over gay marriage will change drammatically.

My guess is that male homosexuality will simply be eliminated over a number of generations. The idea of gay marriage as an valid alternative to hetrosexual marriage will seem bizarre to future generations.

However gay marriage may not be just allowed, it may be required as a public health measure.

One of the problems with gay sexuality is extreme promiscuity. Gay marriage helps reduced promiscuity. While our progeny gradually eliminate male homosexuality they are likely to promote or even require the remaining homosexuals marry.

Mark said...

NYT has decided carrying homosexual propaganda on its pages will do wonders for its falling sales.

Anonymous said...

I went to the trouble of looking up pictures of the professors mentioned in the story to see if my suspicions were correct...let's just say that I wasn't even close to being ready for what I found on Ms. Solomon's faculty page.

punnett square said...

Sondra Solomon from the NYT piece.

i have no comment

testing99 said...

Anon -- you mean GERMANS? Well yes there's quite a few.

But the real pushers of gay marriage are women. Oprah, understandably Rosie and Ellen, but also Babs, and the other harridans er ladies on the View.

Women lurve their gays, and gay marriage. It's women who push gay marriage, who find it not just acceptable but a social requirement to be considered part of "good standing" or whatever they call it, to endorse gay marriage completely.

Why?

For whatever reason, women love the idea of gay marriage, support it consistently over men by wide margins, and have critical elements in the infotainment sector whole-heartedly applauding gay marriage.

But then I never understood why women thought gay men were the ones to show them what is "fashionable" in dress or whatever.

Andrew Ryan said...

New Jersey has 8.7 million residents Using a conservative estimate of 3% prevalence of homosexuality we wind up with 261,000 gays in NJ forming potentially 130,500 partnerships.

1,358 couples entered civil unions in the first 6 months after they became legal in NJ. So basically 1% of gay couples in NJ decided to get partnered. I think these numbers speak volumes of the popularity of committed relationships among gays.

(I know the math is rough but I think the point remains even if homosexual prevalence is a bit off or varies from state to state).

Svigor said...

Andrew Ryan, I think 3% is hardly a conservative estimate.

But why be conservative? You're sticking it to liberals with their own "data," so why not use 5%?

***

Sure, we're talking about homosexual men, but they're still men. Libs must've gone daft when they decided to try and get all "family values" on behalf of relationships in which there are (at least) two men and no women. Huh?

Svigor said...

i have no comment

Holy Crap!

Anonymous said...

I haven't been able to find the percentages, but lesbian couples have married here in MA at a much higher rate than gay men.

Why? Because gay men are still men, and gay women are still women. Men want to run around and have lots of partners, and women want to nest with one.

A lesbian couple I see regularly at the local Starbucks is instructive. They look to be in their 40's, and both are 6' or better (maybe they met playing basketball in college).
One is white, the other is black. When they walk in to the coffee shop, the white woman surveys the area and chooses a seat, opening the paper and settling in. Her partner waits in line, gets the coffee and pastries, puts the cream and sugar in both, and serves her partner, who accepts the delivery with a coolness the equal of any distracted husband! They both have rings on their fingers, and there's no question who is Ozzie and who is Harriet.

I have a gay male friend in a long-term (8 years) relationship. He and his partner have no plans to marry; they go to gay pride events looking for guys interested in threesomes!!! As has been pointed out, though, the common ruck of gays are not of the "We're Here and We're Queer", in-your-face variety, but just people wanting to get on with their lives. What hasn't penetrated the thick skulls of these "researchers" is gay couple, men and women, usually break down just like heteros, with a husband and wife, or top and bottom in gay parlance.

In case you didn't know, the lesbian couple responsible for gay marriage here have already filed for divorce!

Brutus

hicks said...

i have no comment

The college website must have been hacked and the image photoshopped as part of a malicious student prank. That can be the only explanation.

punnett square said...

Brutus,

My first instinct is to agree with you. Gay men are more promiscuous because they are men.

However a 2007 brain scan study by Michael Bailey suggests that gay men are more excited by sexual imagery than we are.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be MORE excited by sexual imagery than straight guys.

Martin said...

"Shouting Thomas said...

The kids started streaming into my workplace in the mid-90s, armed with this "Gay is better!" and "Hetero is boring and stupid!" indoctrination firmly in place."

Well said. Someday we will point back to the 1990's (the gay 90's) when "The love that dare not speak it's name" became "The love that just won't shut up".

hicks said...

A couple of days ago in the UK (on C4 at 9pm) there was a documentary on Sir Richard Burton the Victorian traveller presented by... Rupert Everett. Just before the first commercial break Rupert intoned "... and who could resist a well-lubricated bum-hole". No agenda here then.

David said...

headache said

Find some arcane interlocked argument so they can give a hetero, non-jewish whitey another lecture.

Bingo.

But you forgot to add: "from their moral high perch." "We ARE the culture; you're a turd."

I am surprised that no one here has referenced Steve's old zinger re. gay men marrying. To the effect that they're more into weddings than marriage.