The Gay Bourgeoisie

Because the bourgeoisie is all about conformity.

Stopped by GayPatriot today, and after wading through the standard whining about how bigoted the gay left is (leavened by a couple of comments demonstrating how wonderful conservatives are because they treat gay men just like real people), got to this post by GayPatriotWest:

I wonder sometimes if advocates of gay marriage realize what a huge social change state recognition of gay marriage would bring. The very discussion itself has already caused many in our own community, particularly gay men, to reevaluate their attitudes toward relationships.

Given that the consciousness of our community first developed during the Sexual Revolution, with many understanding freedom for gays not only as the freedom to live openly, but also as mandating that gay people free themselves from the sexual mores, including lifelong relationships, commonplace in American society up until that time.

I wonder sometimes if all gay activists are comfortable with a community that increasingly celebrates its couples and promotes a lifestyle different only from our straight peers in the gender of our life-partners.

First of all, I dispute one of his basic assumptions (big surprise, that): I think the comment about lifelong relationships is a straw man, in line with previous expressions by GayPatriotWest about marriage: to take the young, newly-out club culture as "gay culture" (as does Andrew Sullivan) is missing the boat completely, and the assumption that gay men are not interested in lifelong relationships is just that: an assumption.

I have known very few gay men who were not interested in stable, long-term relationships, and I'm going back to the seventies on this. I don't see much evidence that "gay" equals "lack of commitment." For one thing, the examples held up as "gay culture" by GayPatriot and Sullivan seem to revolve around the party scene (which, granted, some people never grow out of, but that's by no means the entire gay population, or even a significant portion of it -- just the most highly publicized). OK -- this is a group of people who are out to meet people. Some of them want to meet people for sex. Almost all of them are hoping for more than sex, but until the last few years, there weren't that many places where you could meet people. It was pretty much the bars, where you have this heady mix of alcohol and testosterone. All too often, the bright dreams of love and eternity turned into a one-night stand, which may have been fun, but usually left a residue of disappointment.

I also have to point out that our courtship rituals have been different. We didn't have a dating scene. Our courtships were, indeed, fueled by alcohol and testosterone, and our relationship-building seemed more often to be based on how the morning after went than what actually led to the night before. I personally think it has something to do with men and intimacy -- it's much easier to be open with someone when you wake up in his arms. We are raised with too many damned defenses against other men.

(Sidebar: I have absolutely nothing against recreational sex between consenting adults. I'd just like to see more honesty about it.)

This is something that happens with young people, gay and straight, especially in the last fifty years: they don't know how to maintain relationships. They not only have no experience, they have few models. This might be both a result of and a cause of the notorious 50% divorce rate. There are even fewer models for young gay men than for young straight men, and if they are also in the process of defining themseles as someone "not straight," they don't have much to fall back on. It's like trying to find your way in the dark with no map, no signs, and no flashlight. Those who can marry already have a leg up: everyone is going to support them as a couple. Which leads to:

Second point: marriage has been an option for gay couples for less than ten years. In the United States, it's been two years. If two men managed to maintain a relationship over any period of time, it was in spite of everything, including the expectation by straight society that our relationships would be ephemeral. (There is solid evidence that lowered expectations lead to lowered performance -- ask any educator.) Let's face it, straights have trouble doing it with a huge amount of social and legal support; to blame us because we can't do it in spite of everything working against us -- social ostracism, lowered expectations, lack of role models, and the aforementioned lack of state recognition -- is pretty asinine.

I don't see that state recognition of same-sex marriage is going to usher in such a huge social change as the right claims. Nothing's being redefined, nothing's being reformulated, nothing's being altered in any significant way. It's just part of the American process of widening the social network.

(Check out the comments on this post, by the way -- there are some interesting perspectives, particularly in the vein of "let people make their own decisions as to how they want to live," something that GayPatriot is generally short on.)