|
from Theological Issues
Gay Marriage and Human Sexual Nature
by Christopher H. Rosik
"Women's complimentary sexual nature...is uniquely suited for the task of constraining men's natural proclivity for sexual diversity"
Proponents of homosexual marriage have to be heartened by recent judicial and
church decisions that may be harbingers of the complete governmental sanctioning
of such matrimony. Before this becomes a reality, I want to make a few
observations that I hope will be considered in the discussions of this important
social issue.
As a starting point, a highly respected national survey in the mid 1990's
reported 42.8 lifetime sexual partners among gay/bisexual men (Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael, & Michaels, 1994). This compared to 16.5 partners for heterosexual
men. Women of either orientation reported far fewer sexual partners than their
male counterparts.
Proponents often argue that allowing homosexual marriage will help stabilize
these relationships and thus should be affirmed by anyone who speaks in terms of
wanting to promote fidelity and commitment. However, if differences in the
rates of sexual partners were simply due to social discrimination against gays
and their inability to legally marry, then one would expect to find similar
lifetime numbers of sexual partners among gay men and lesbians, as well as among
heterosexual men and women. Clearly, this is not the case, and other factors
must be influencing these statistics.
While some gay men do sustain sexually monogamous partnerships-- and plenty of
heterosexual men have difficulty maintaining monogamous relationships-- the
general trend moves in the opposite direction and begs for an explanation.
A recent study published in the July, 2003, issue of the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology may provide an answer. Psychologist David Schmitt and
colleagues surveyed 16,288 people across 10 culturally distinct regions of the
world and found support for a universal theme: men tend to seek sexual variety,
while women tend to seek long-term sexual relationships (Schmitt, 2003).
Consider the number of subjects who reported wanting more than one sexual
partner in the next month. The study found that 25.4% of heterosexual men and
29.1% of homosexual men endorsed this desire. By contrast, only 4.4% of
heterosexual women and 5.5% of lesbians wanted multiple sexual partners in the
next month. Notice how these statistics divide along gender lines rather than
sexual orientation. This suggests that the real social challenge is how to
civilize male sexuality as a whole, rather than homosexual practice per se.
The study also examined differences in desire for more than one sexual partner
based on relationship status. The desire for additional partners among men grew
progressively as the level of commitment decreased: starting at 12.8% of married
men, moving up to 18.2% for cohabiting men, then 19% for exclusively dating men,
and a full 28.6% of men without an exclusive attachment expressed an interest in
having more sexual partners in the next month.
Yet the desire for multiple partners in the next month among women remained
essentially flat, from 3.5% of married women to 6.2% of women who were
unattached. Note the quite striking gender differences, in addition to the
above-cited trend for men to desire additional sexual liaisons as the strength
of their relational commitment decreases.
Whether understood in evolutionary or religious terms, these findings suggest
that the women's complimentary sexual nature, when aided by a strict marriage
bond, is uniquely suited for the task of constraining men's natural proclivity
for sexual diversity.
Undoubtedly, heterosexuals have done more than their fair share to undermine
this bond and have a lot of soul searching to do. However, despite the socially
destructive rates of marital dissolution, the social ideal of traditional
marriage has never been seriously questioned. Homosexual marriage challenges
the foundation of this union as a life long, sexually exclusive and heterosexual
ideal, replacing it with the broader and more flexible vision of marriage as
grounded in consent between adults.
The question at hand is whether the sanctioning of homosexual marriage will by
itself extensively alter the pursuit of sexual variety among gay men in the
absence of the constraining influence of female sexuality? Some data suggest
this might not be the case. One study reported that 79% of closed-coupled gay
men acknowledged at least one incident of nonmonogamy in the previous year
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990). This compared to prevalence rates of 19% among
lesbians, 10% among married heterosexuals, and 23% among cohabiting
heterosexuals.
Alternatively, then, one may ask whether the legal recognition of gay marriage
might instead serve to further loosen the constraining influence of marriage for
heterosexual men? If this latter thesis proves to be true, then those who stand
to lose the most with the acceptance of homosexual marriage may be heterosexual
women and their children. Indeed, one study that analyzed census data found the
unraveling of the marital pair-bond template was associated with a host of
serious social dysfunctions, including increased rates of infant mortality,
out-of-wedlock births, and violent crime (Immerman & Mackey, 1999).
An additional factor that may impact the manifestation of male sexual nature is
another apparently universal gender difference: men are far more likely to be
risk takers than women (Stark, 2002). It also appears plausible that the
complimentary nature of men and women may characteristically enable monogamous,
heterosexual marriage to promote a constraining influence on the risk taking
impulses of some men. This may also help explain the relatively higher
prevalence of risky sexual behavior such as barebacking (deliberate unprotected
anal intercourse) and sex in public settings found among gay men in comparison
to heterosexual men (Eisenberg, 2001; Flowers, Hart & Marriott, 1999; Halkitis,
Parsons & Wilton, 2003; Yep, Lovaas & Pagonis, 2002).
These are difficult things to say publicly, because many of us have gay or
lesbian children, relatives, friends or colleagues who are wonderful people and
we would wish them no harm. We instead want them to achieve satisfying
relationships, and our feelings may be pulled to endorse homosexual marriage as
a means to that end.
Yet an action that appears compassionate for an individual does not always
translate into compassionate results for a society. Given the sexual nature of
men irrespective of orientation, the approval of homosexual marriage could well
operate in a different manner culture-wide than it may appear to function with
any single gay or lesbian couple.
By suggesting such a complete overhaul of the social ideal, well-meaning
advocates of homosexual marriage may in fact be further weakening the most
important institution in any society to effectively civilize male sexual nature.
The author of this essay may be contacted at christopherrosik@linkcare.org.
References
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). "Intimate relationships and the creation
of sexuality" (pp. 307-320). In Sanders, S., & Reinisch, J. M. (Eds.),
Homosexuality/ Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, M. (2001). Differences in sexual risk behaviors between college
students with same-sex and opposite-sex experiences: Results from a national
survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 575-589.
Flowers, P., Hart, G., & Marriott, C. (1999). Constructing sexual health: Gay
men and "risk" in the context of a public sex environment. Journal of Health
Psychology, 4, 483-495.
Halkitis, P. N., Parsons, J. T., & Wilton, L. (2003). Barebacking among gay and
bisexual men in New York City: Explanations for the emergence of intentional
unsafe behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 351-357.
Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The societal dilemma of multiple sexual
partners: The costs of the loss of pair-bonding. Marriage & Family Review, 29,
3-19.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social
Organization of Sexuality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual
variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85-104.
Stark, R. (2002). Physiology and faith: Addressing the "universal" gender
differences in religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 41, 495-507.
Yep, G. A., Lovaas, K. E., & Pagonis, A. V. (2002). The case of "riding
bareback": Sexual practices and the paradoxes of identity in the era of AIDS.
Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1-14.
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
