Well said. I had one of those contracts of limitation and possession, and look what it got me? Nothing: I was dumped. :) Why is it so hard to convince romantic interests that perhaps it's better to love unconditionally with commitment and yes, pride that we can love many as long as we respect and protect each other? Insecurity, I suspect, bred into us by parents and teachers and "experts" who have said we can't sustain relationships. Well, I can and wish to impose no limits on anyone else to try as often and meaningfully as he dares. As long as he of course can do it without dumping me. :o
Certainly much to consider. But consider this: how many of those shirtless men at the dance actually attended even a 1/2 hour of the parade? How many of them slept in, went to brunch with three of their "must be pretty" friends, scoffed at the "freaks out on the street today," took another nap, some drugs, and then met up at the dance? I doubt that this is one of the rituals you are hoping our community clings to, but which very likely represents a good portion of those in attendance at the Pier Dance.
Well, you know already that I have some thoughts on monogamy. But let me start by saying you sound almost Presbyterian when you endorse tradition. Huh! I didn’t expect that, but you continue to surprise me.
Tradition is a two-edged sword: it provides a framework into which we grow, following a cultural norm and building memories which give us identity and comfort; but it can also be a means by which we might establish rigid boundaries beyond which we stop growing. There is a danger that increases with time that, as we gain input and discard those ideas that we determine are faulty for whatever reason, we hold ever more tightly to our conclusions, resisting change. This holds true for individuals and communities.
As the LGBT community faces change, it also faces a challenge to tradition. It is incumbent to the elders of a community to guide the newcomers in the ways of tradition; but it is the nature of newcomers to bring change with them. Change for the good is what you seek: the right to be a citizen with the full rights bestowed to any citizen.
Is it really a threat to the identity of the LGBT community to endorse monogamy and marriage as well as open relationships? I would challenge you to allow that marriage by no means equals monogamy, in straight or gay couples. Marriage is defined by those who inhabit the relationship, and each marriage that succeeds does so by allowing each partner’s needs to be fulfilled. I would consider your longterm relationship with C to be a marriage by all definitions but legal, and it succeeds because the two of you have defined and consented to your needs.
You state that monogamy is an “unnatural state” and “contract of restriction.” That’s a valid opinion. In your relationship, it works beautifully to have an open relationship. But allow that there are those in your community for which an open relationship is equally unnatural. There is nothing assimilative in the belief that monogamy is reasonable and desirable.
Live and let live, Father T. I don’t think there is any danger of the gay community losing its “gayishness” so long as there is pride and ownership of identity every day of the year in whatever form its members wish to celebrate.
9 comments:
Lovely food for thought.
Great video Tony. Was nice to see you and Chris that afternoon.
Well said. I had one of those contracts of limitation and possession, and look what it got me? Nothing: I was dumped. :) Why is it so hard to convince romantic interests that perhaps it's better to love unconditionally with commitment and yes, pride that we can love many as long as we respect and protect each other? Insecurity, I suspect, bred into us by parents and teachers and "experts" who have said we can't sustain relationships. Well, I can and wish to impose no limits on anyone else to try as often and meaningfully as he dares. As long as he of course can do it without dumping me. :o
as always, interesting perspective.
i don't agree with some of it, but isn't that what makes us all individuals? we can be gay men, but we don't all have to be the *same* gay men.
diversity. ya gotta love it!
Certainly much to consider. But consider this: how many of those shirtless men at the dance actually attended even a 1/2 hour of the parade? How many of them slept in, went to brunch with three of their "must be pretty" friends, scoffed at the "freaks out on the street today," took another nap, some drugs, and then met up at the dance? I doubt that this is one of the rituals you are hoping our community clings to, but which very likely represents a good portion of those in attendance at the Pier Dance.
I'll take the parade over the dance any year.
I wish you would get a TV show. I could listen to you talk and comment on anything and be both entertained and challenged at the same time.
Are you the new Paul Harvey?
Well, you know already that I have some thoughts on monogamy. But let me start by saying you sound almost Presbyterian when you endorse tradition. Huh! I didn’t expect that, but you continue to surprise me.
Tradition is a two-edged sword: it provides a framework into which we grow, following a cultural norm and building memories which give us identity and comfort; but it can also be a means by which we might establish rigid boundaries beyond which we stop growing. There is a danger that increases with time that, as we gain input and discard those ideas that we determine are faulty for whatever reason, we hold ever more tightly to our conclusions, resisting change. This holds true for individuals and communities.
As the LGBT community faces change, it also faces a challenge to tradition. It is incumbent to the elders of a community to guide the newcomers in the ways of tradition; but it is the nature of newcomers to bring change with them. Change for the good is what you seek: the right to be a citizen with the full rights bestowed to any citizen.
Is it really a threat to the identity of the LGBT community to endorse monogamy and marriage as well as open relationships? I would challenge you to allow that marriage by no means equals monogamy, in straight or gay couples. Marriage is defined by those who inhabit the relationship, and each marriage that succeeds does so by allowing each partner’s needs to be fulfilled. I would consider your longterm relationship with C to be a marriage by all definitions but legal, and it succeeds because the two of you have defined and consented to your needs.
You state that monogamy is an “unnatural state” and “contract of restriction.” That’s a valid opinion. In your relationship, it works beautifully to have an open relationship. But allow that there are those in your community for which an open relationship is equally unnatural. There is nothing assimilative in the belief that monogamy is reasonable and desirable.
Live and let live, Father T. I don’t think there is any danger of the gay community losing its “gayishness” so long as there is pride and ownership of identity every day of the year in whatever form its members wish to celebrate.
loved it all except the irish comment.
I'm waiting for the book Father Tony...
Post a Comment