Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?

Anton N. Marco

Copyright 1996-2006, Christian Leadership Ministries


Part IV:
Presupposition 2

For arguments in favor of same-sex "marriage" to be valid, the presupposition that gays are "just like everyone else, except for their desire for same-sex partners" must first be proved valid. Does this presupposition have a basis in truth? Has the "homosexualization of America" proceeded so far that there are indeed no essential remaining differences between the ways "gays and straights" conduct their lives and loves?

While in addressing these questions we will not describe particular gay sexual practices, we will examine the scientific literature and gays' and lesbians' own self-admissions with regard to dominant lifestyle patterns within gay and lesbian populations, since we believe these patterns do have great bearing on the same-sex "marriage" question. We will later compare our findings on gay/lesbian lifestyle patterns with evidence regarding lifestyle patterns in the general population.

In this analysis we will not discuss homosexuality as a "public health" issue. Aside from being a non-issue in suspect status matters,{117} gay mens' sexually transmitted disease rates have in fact fallen dramatically overall, in response to the threat of AIDS. Among many observers of this phenomenon, Robert Root-Bernstein reports:

There is no doubt that so-called "safer sex" practices combined with the fear of AIDS has had a profound and salutary effect on the health of homosexual men in general. The incidence of new cases of HIV, hepatitis B virus, gonorrhea, and syphilis, all other sexually-transmitted diseases, and AIDS has decreased dramatically in the gay community since 1985. This is due, in part, to an increased use of condoms, more care in choosing partners, decreased promiscuity, and an apparent decrease in the frequency of anal intercourse, fisting, and related forms of sex. For example, in Amsterdam, the yearly incidence of new HIV infections among homosexual men rose from 3.0 percent in 1981 to 8.8 percent in 1984 and then fell to 0.0 percent in 1987. Homosexual communities in London, San Francisco, and Denver, Colorado, had the same experience. In London the incidence of HIV infection also tailed off significantly after 1985, along with all other sexually-transmitted diseases, including hepatitis B virus and syphillus. In San Francisco the yearly rate of new HIV infections dropped from a high of 6.0 percent in 1985 to 0.7 percent in 1987 and has continued to fall. In Denver the incidence of HIV seropositivity reached a peak of 52 percent of homosexual male residents in 1984, and the yearly number of gonorrhea cases peaked at over 1,800 per year in the same group. The incidence of HIV seropositivity has actually dropped yearly since 1985, as have the number of gonorrhea cases. By 1989 only about 45 percent of homosexual men were HIV seropositive, suggesting that the number of newly infected men is extremely small. Just how small this number may be can be guessed at from gonorrhea cases, which fell a drastic 95 percent to a mere 90 cases per year.{118}

Recent reported "rises" in new rates of sexually-transmitted diseases and HIV-positivity among gays must be measured against these decreases, as also in light of gay activists' use of alarming "increase" figures to generate greater funding for AIDS research. While AIDS is still a serious health concern, most leading non-gay activist medical and sociological authorities now regard AIDS as a disease which has "peaked" in the United States (AIDS is no longer the nation�s most potent killer of men ages 25-44) and has little chance of "breaking out" into the general population (more to this point later):

"The number of Americans diagnosed with AIDS last year dropped 6 percent from the year before, the first decline in the history of the epidemic, federal health officials said yesterday....

"Newly diagnosed AIDS cases declined 12 percent in the West, 10 percent in the Midwest and 8 percent in the Northeast. They fell only 1 percent in the South, the [Centers for Disease Control] said....

"New AIDS cases declined 15 percent among white homosexual and bisexual men. However, the incidence of AIDS among heterosexuals rose in 1996, increasing 11 percent among men and 7 percent among women, the CDC said" ("Number of new AIDS cases drops for first time in U.S.," The Washington Times, September 19, 1997, p. A5).

Promiscuity, Relational Instability Dominant Features of Gay, Lesbian Lifestyles

A major "voice" among today's avowedly gay apologists for same-sex "marriage" is Andrew Sullivan, formerly editor of "The New Republic" (Sullivan resigned his editorship after being diagnosed with AIDS) and author of Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality,{119} a book-length treatise supporting same-sex "marriage" recognition.

Writing to a general, "non-gay" public, Sullivan deftly attempts in Virtually Normal to gloss over the kind of information we have been reviewing, so as to make the prospect of same-sex "marriage" seem as harmless and appealing as possible. For instance, Sullivan baldly asserts that "many" gay relationships are "virtual textbooks of monogamy." However, the available research on gay lifestyles doesn't support his claim.

Psycho-sociological studies and gay/lesbian self-admissions both reveal that the two factors most accurately characterizing gay and lesbian lifestyles are sexual promiscuity and relational instability. We'll explore these factors first through a brief review of the scientific literature, beginning with findings about gay male relational patterns.

AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical gay man interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a 20-year "lifetime." Gay men with AIDS studied averaged more than 1,100 "lifetime" partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. (A psychologist we interviewed personally told of counseling a gay clergyman who admitted to having had more than 900 sexual partners to date.)

From perhaps the most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles ever undertaken before 1980, we learned that:

A study of San Francisco gay men published in Psychology Today, February 1981, also reported that 28% of gay men surveyed had engaged in sex with more than 1,000 partners.

In a 1986-published gay tabloid, Dr. Will Handy, former co-chair of Wisconsin's Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues and an avowed homosexual, detailed his objections to "contact tracing" (i.e., requiring STD sufferers to name all their sexual partners, so health authorities can trace these down to stem the threat of further infection) of HIV-positive people as follows:

Contact tracing has not proved very effective among gay men, even for those diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea) which are, in a sense, "designed" for it. In the three weeks incubation period for syphilis, the average gay man will have three sexual partners to report. Wisconsin's HTLV-III contact tracing proposal calls for the tracing of partners back to 1980: that suggests quite a large pool of people to contact for each positive test given to a gay/bisexual man. But the reality is that many of those contacts would have been anonymous or so casual that memories of names, addresses, and dates would be long lost. The Division of Health can't trace my partners if I can't recall who they were.{121}

In one of medical literature's only studies reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," the number of annual sexual partners was nearly 100.{122}

Studies reported by Bell and Weinberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of gay men they surveyed had had fewer than 10 "lifetime" sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either "monogamous" or even "semi-monogamous."

Even "monogamy" seems to lack traditional meaning in gay male circles. Studies have indicated that "monogamy" for gay men tends to last from between 9 and 60 months.{123}

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco gay men{124} recommended that homosexuals limit their sexual expression to committed monogamy. McKusick reported responses to this suggestion he received from avowedly gay men:

...[T]he recommendation that gay men limit themselves to committed monogamy was discussed [among survey participants] and found to lack creativity... and to reflect the simple insensitivity of an outsider approaching the gay world. Although most of our subjects have expressed a desire for more primary partnering in response to AIDS, there has been no significant increase in these bonds during the [three year] period of our investigation.{125}

Weinberg and Williams (op. cit.) reported that two-thirds of 1,117 gay males they had surveyed answered "no" when asked whether they or their present sexual partner were currently "limiting your sexual relationships primarily to each other." Only a third of gay males surveyed claimed they had "ever" been involved in such a mutually exclusive relationship.

Gay activist marketing experts Kirk and Madsen admit in After the Ball (op cit., p. 330), "...[T]he cheating ratio of `married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%... Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an `open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples."

"Reparative therapist" Joseph Nicolosi writes:

The fact is, a committed, monogamous gay relationship is very rare. Sometimes good friends make a commitment to share a home and care for and support each other, but as gay literature itself tells us, these relationships characteristically include an understanding that there will be outside sexual relationships.

In The Male Couple, by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, the authors -- a gay couple themselves -- could find no gay relationship in which fidelity was maintained more than five years. In fact, the authors tell us, "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together."{126}

A 1984 study by the American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee, reported in USA Today (November 21, 1984), indicated that fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity rate from 70 different partners in 1982 to 50 partners per year by 1984. (Even at this "safer sex" rate, a gay male would still total over 600 sexual partners between ages 18-30.)

A University of Chicago study{127} concluded that the estimated number of lifetime sexual partners since age 18 for the U.S. population as a whole is 7.15 (only 8.67 for those who never marry).

Isolated studies of interviews conducted since 1987 suggest that gay men may have lowered the number of their sexual contacts to around 10 per year. Even a reduction of this magnitude would mean gay males, on average, have more sexual partners in one year than the average American male (and this estimate is probably raised somewhat by factoring in the partnering of promiscuous gay men) has in a lifetime. (Andrew Sullivan himself is reported to have quipped on a radio show that he probably had more sex on a weekend than a heterosexual man he was criticizing likely had in a year.)

Gay and Lesbian Self-Admissions Confirm Science's Findings

If evidence of gay male promiscuity and relational instability is common in the scientific literature, it is also common in self-admissions found in self-avowedly-gay-written publications. Many of the following cites are taken from books about gay and lesbian couples and how they may live together in intact relationships:

In American Couples (1983) -- "A major enlightening report on how Americans live their private lives," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer -- authors Philip Blumstein, Ph.D. and Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. state:

If a gay man is monogamous, he is such a rare phenomenon, he may have difficulty making himself believed.


Gay men can make non-monogamy part of everyday life. They have no trouble incorporating casual sex into their relationships. Since their partner is male, they are not called on to honor the female preference for monogamy...

According to David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D., authors of The Male Couple [op. cit.]:

Only seven couples [out of the 156 interviewed] have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men have all been together less than 5 years. Stated in another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. That translates into 5 percent monogamous, 95 percent non-monogamous.{128}

The experts are in agreement that a nonmonogamous arrangement brings with it potential problems. In American Couples, authors Blumstein and Schwartz note:

Sex outside the relationship is potentially very disruptive. It triggers people's insecurity and fears... Because gay men have so much casual sex, it is inevitable that some serious romance will intrude. Two strangers may have sex with every intention of keeping it impersonal, but they may be surprised to discover they like each other.... Although their relationships remain intact, they [the couple] are likely to make love to each other less often.

According to McWhirter and Mattison:

Although most of the [156] couples have some degree of sexual non-exclusivity, they have not reached these arrangements by the same routes, nor has it been easy for many of them. In fact, more than 85 percent of the couples report that their greatest relationship problems center on outside relationships, sexual and non-sexual.{129}

McWhirter and Mattison list "ground rules" for non-monogamous gay relationships compiled from interviews with their study subjects:

There are couples who make nonmonogamy work, but they make it work by spending considerable amounts of time talking about it, considering the type of arrangement that best suits them individually, and that gives them best chance of achieving a loving, sexual, long-term relationship together...

The following list of options for you to consider is a paraphrase of a list of ground rules for sex with others that McWhirter and Mattison gathered from the 156 couples in their study. Please note that this list was compiled prior to the AIDS crisis, and that when sex of any kind is discussed, you should follow safer sex guidelines...:

          1. Sex is allowed at such places as the bath[house]s where having a brief sexual interchange is a mutual and unspoken understanding.
          2. No sex with mutual friends.
          3. Sexual encounters must not interfere with the couple's customary or planned time together.
          4. Sex is permissible only when one partner is out of town.
          5. Sexual encounters are always verbally shared with each other.
          6. Talking about sex is expected, but at least forty-eight hours must pass following the sexual encounter before any discussion is permitted.
          7. Outside sex is allowed only with the advance agreement with one's lover.
          8. No emotional involvement with sex partners is allowed.
          9. Outside sex is allowed, but only in three-ways or groups where both partners are involved.
          10. Outside sex is allowed but it is never to be discussed.
          11. Outside sex is not permitted at home. If it is permitted at home, each must simultaneously be occupied with a sex partner of his own.
          12. Outside sex is permitted at home in the partner's absence, but not in certain places, such as in the couple's bedroom.
          13. Secondary emotional relationships with sexual friends are allowed, but the lover is not to be excluded.{130}

Though self-avowed "gay" authors and marketing experts Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk largely blame a "homohating" society for gay men's disfunctional behavior, they do admit: "There is more promiscuity among gays (or at least among gay men) than among straights."{131} Andrew Sullivan agrees, adding this explanation:

Most people are liable to meet emotional rejection by sheer force of circumstance; but for a homosexual, the odds are simply far, far higher. My own experience suggests that somewhere between two and five percent of the population have involuntarily strong emotional and sexual attractions to the same sex. Which means that the pool of possible partners starts at one in twenty to one in fifty. It's no wonder, perhaps, that male homosexual culture has developed an ethic more of anonymous or promiscuous sex than of committed relationships. It's as if the hard lessons of adolescence lower permanently -- by the sheer dint of the odds -- the aspiration for anything more.{132}

Psychiatrist Charles Socarides, however, explains gay male promiscuity as follows:

[A] male homosexual's imperative, but unconscious, needs drive him to seek out sex-in-itself, frequently, and with a good many partners. As studies have shown, being in a gay ["]marriage["] doesn't stem that need. In fact, so-called monogamous gay couples admit they still need to find sex partners outside the dyad. Often, that sex is anonymous sex.{133}

Drug and alcohol abuse is also common in the gay male world:

No matter how you look at the statistics and whatever the causes, drug and alcohol dependency among gay men is a major problem. Most experts suggest that one third or more of all gay men are drug- or alcohol-dependent.{134}

Lesbian Lifestyle Anomolies

Evidence also exists in the literature and in gay self-admissions that lesbians exhibit high levels of promiscuity relative to the general female population. Jay and Young's Gay Report{135} revealed that 38% of lesbians surveyed claimed to have had between 11 and more than 300 sexual partners lifetime. In Homosexualities (op. cit.), Bell and Weinberg reported that 41% of Caucasian lesbians admitted to having had between 10 and 500 sexual partners lifetime.

There is also much evidence of lesbian relational instability. An article entitled "Embracing Changes," by Margaret Cruikshank indicates one reason why this may be so:

It may be that the shift in my lesbian identity is an unconscious reaction to my perception that, as I age, I will probably have to rely, perhaps to a great extent, on mainstream institutions for help and support. I do not foresee that the lesbian feminist or the gay movement will have either the cohesiveness or the resources to give its members the benefits that are offered, for example, to the Jewish old of San Francisco. Admittedly the comparison is a poor one in that our groups are newer and our roots less deep. Maybe someday lesbian culture will be as developed as Jewish culture is now. But it may be that gay or lesbian is not as sustaining an identity as Black, Jewish, or female.{136}

From another article, "Relating As Daughters, Relating as Mothers," by Joyce Warshow: "[M]ore than half the women [Warshow surveyed] spent more than 90% of their time with other gays and lesbians, but those with clear-cut lesbian identities were less likely to segregate themselves."{137}

Kath Weston explains a psychological phenomenon known as "mirror imaging" that precipitates diffulties in both lesbian and gay male relationships:

Among interview participants [the author surveyed], the longest same-sex relationships listed by lesbians had endured on average for more years than the longest same-sex relationships listed by gay men.... Many lesbians agreed that women are more emphatic and better prepared to keep the home fires burning, but asserted that they encountered a dilemma "opposite" to that facing gay men: the difficulty setting limits to circumvent dependency within relationships. Put two women or two men together, they argued, and a magnification of the gendered traits attributed to each must surely result.

For every instance of a gay man or lesbian following the cultural logic of the looking glass, another portrayal contradicted or inverted the terms. By comparing themselves to straight men, many gay men described themselves as more sensitive or nurturing; in certain contexts, lesbians tended to present self-sufficiency, strength, and independence as characteristically lesbian traits.{138}

The extensive elaboration of mirror imagery in psychoanalytic theory and the complex history of relations between gay people and mental health professionals have coincided in recent years with the popularization of theories about lovers who "merge." A lesbian couple who had entered couples therapy to "deal with emerging problems" explained merging as "losing ourselves in one another." Not only therapists but many gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area at large blamed merging for a variety of ills, including low-frequency sex, "over intimacy," and threats to individuality. By the last 1980s, taking steps to counter this tendency to merge was touted as a panacea to cure whatever ailed the committed couple.{139}

An article entitled "Maintaining Our Equilibrium in Couples -- Or Not," by Clare Coss, quotes a writer named Alison as saying:

"Somebody who has been in a long relationship is stranger in the gay life than people who've been in and out of them. And if and when they break up, some of these 26-year, 16-year relationships, then you hear all these stories as they complain about what their life was like. Somebody comes along and breaks them up and they're ready to break up and there's a catalyst and then you hear that they never had sex, they never got along, they never did this, they never did that. I always think the very long relationships have been: `Let's not risk what's out there. This is steady.' I think the longest one I ever had went on because we bought a house together.

"I met somebody the other day and she's been in and out of relationships as I have. She said, `You know, I'm so jaded now I think if I ever got into a relationship it would be about six weeks.' I said, `That long?'"{140}

(Throughout this book, the women speak about the rampant promiscuity of lesbian lifestyles, not, in their scheme of things, as a negative, but simply as a fact of the lifestyles themselves.)

There is also more lesbian sexual involvement with the opposite gender than most lesbian activists prefer to admit. A survey by Bradford and Ryan revealed that a large percentage of mid-life lesbians had been married, 9% had lived with a male unmarried lover, 71% of lesbians wanting children had moved to get them by having sex with a man, and mid-life lesbians showed a very low level of religious involvement in their lives.{141}

(In their book Lesbian Couples,{142} authors D. Merilee Clunis and G. Dorsey Green, themselves avowed lesbians, devote an entire chapter to how lesbian couples should deal with one member of the couple having an "outside" affair with a man.)

Of mid-life lesbians reported in this survey, 29% had been sexually attacked, 16% had experienced incest, 49% had experienced either sexual or physical abuse, and "high stress" was listed as a common "disabling factor" among these lesbians.{143} Furthermore,

Use of tobacco, alcohol and/or marijuana was reported by substantial proportions of the sample. Alcohol use was most prevalent; 82% reported at least occasional use, although 58% drank alcohol less than once a month. 15% were worried about the extent of their drinking. One-third of the respondents smoked daily and 67% of smokers were worried about their use. Marijuana was used by 29% of the sample but usually on an occasional basis. Well over half of those who reported use of marijuana (64%) said they used it less than once a month and only 8% were concerned about their use.{144}

Women in our sample had little to do with traditional social institutions but a lot to do with personal relationships, family life and alternative communities.

Social institutions of childhood have largely been set aside. With the exception of Jewish women, who retained an association with Judaism if not with a specific congregation, most women who were raised with a religious affiliation have simply left the church. Few women participate in community or neighborhood activities except for those specifically for gay people or for women. Only one in four are open about their lesbianism with all or most family members. Only a few are open with their co-workers....

Social time is spent primarily with other lesbians or in mixed gay activities, almost everyone attends lesbian-only activities and many attend such events quite frequently. Three-fourths of the sample live in communities where at least some lesbian activities or support groups are available. About a third participate regularly in groups devoted to lesbian and gay rights issues, and nearly a third belong to some sort of professional or occupational group.{145}

Although most women were engaged in a primary relationship at the time of the survey, almost all report a history of multiple relationships and of substantial distress with their partners. Having a primary relationship is clearly very significant to middle-aged lesbians but just as clearly involves ongoing stress. It is extremely difficult for gay people to maintain a committed partnership without the larger support of family and community available to heterosexual couples; mid-life lesbians in our sample are clearly not exempt from this reality.{146}

Everyone wants to know: How come lesbian relationships don't last long? They forget that these days, no relationships last long. We're in a fast-paced, fast-moving world. Things change all the time...

Today, everybody's moving all the time. Who even knows her neighbors? Relationships of all persuasions aren't lasting very long. Some lesbians have unreal expectations that because we're lesbians, our relationships are going to be better. They're going to be different. They're going to be stronger. They're going to last longer. All the while, somewhere inside of us, we don't believe that for an instant. We need only look at the relationships of our friends to see how flimsy that belief is.{147}

The authors spend considerable time writing about the instability and transitory nature of many lesbian relationships. Lesbian relationships are often entered into "on the Q.T.": "There are two possible outcomes of a lesbian date: Either the two women never date again, or they get [`]married.['] At least, that's how it usually goes. Now, lesbians could date without immediately getting [`]married.['] This is a possibility."{148} But there's a common joke among lesbians (told first to this writer by a now-heterosexually-married friend who had left a lesbian lifestyle): "What do lesbians bring to their second date? A six-pack and a U-Haul." Suzanne Slater comments on this jibe:

As women and as targets of homophobic oppression, lesbians have much reason to want to move quickly into partnered status and, as a group, seem particularly to abbreviate the initial period of couple formation.... While lesbians frequently say their awareness of their lesbian identity began with their first interest in a particular woman, few heterosexuals date their heterosexual identity to the moment of their first kiss. Many lesbians frequently blur two experiences into one: falling in love with another woman and falling in love with their newly accessible, authentic lesbian selves.{149}

As a group, lesbian couples have little basis for shared identity. Coming from particularly diverse backgrounds, their most obvious commonality lies in who they are not, as achieving lesbian identity requires a dangerous social disobedience in the refusal of a heterosexual identity. As for who lesbian partners actually are, few other groups are composed of individuals who take such active roles choosing their own personal identities.{150}

From Loulan's and Nelson's survey of lesbians (note op.cit.: Loulan "came out in reverse" to a heterosexual relationship not long ago): "Thirty percent of the lesbians considered themselves to be in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. This does not include lesbians who are recovering from food addiction, people addiction, sex addiction, or other addictions. A recent Los Angeles survey found that 30% of lesbians are currently addicted to alcohol or drugs [vs. a 7%-9% national average]."{151}

Survey: "Of the [lesbian] women... who were raised in alcoholic homes, 50% were sexually abused as children. Fifty percent! That's a staggering statistic... Women who were raised in alcoholic homes frequently become alcoholics themselves; so quite often, women in recovery are also dealing with first-time memories of sexual abuse."{152}

Again: "In my survey of 1,566 lesbians, 38% said they had experienced childhood sexual abuse, either from a family member or a stranger before the age of 18."{153}

Survey: 25% of the women had been lesbians for less than 5 years, and another 31% had been lesbians from between 5-10 years. Only 13% had been lesbians for over 20 years. Many lesbians see organized religion as oppressive, and 63% report religion as having had little to average influence on their upbringing. Only 31% say it was a very strong influence.{154}

Survey: 37% of lesbians say they were raised in an alcoholic family, and another 11% said they were unsure: "My study shows a higher level of alcoholism among the respondents' families than in the population as a whole."{155}

Survey: Many lesbians (69%) who'd been couples had been couples for fewer than three years. Only 7% had been couples for 9 or more years.{156}

When thinking about [sexual] satisfaction it's important to remember that most of the lesbians in this survey had been in their current situations (single, casually involved, coupled) for fewer than three years... No matter how many questionnaires were analyzed, the statistics did not change significantly, so it seems likely that lesbians generally do not stay in their situations for long.{157}

Three percent of those women in the survey self-identifying as lesbians do have sex with men, and 2% have group sex with a number of women. (ref. p. 206) Also, respondents believed their partners were less monogamous than they were. Evidently, much personal and relational insecurity characterizes the lesbian world, with the quality of the lifestyles themselves providing many reasons for anxiety.

Another survey of mid-life lesbians, reported in an article called "Moving Toward Balance and Integration," by Barbara E. Sang, also reports that mid-life lesbians are highly educated, 50% have been married, and 25% "came out" at mid-life.{158} (A curiosity indeed: Why, if "sexual orientation" is innate, as gay activists sometimes claim (and sometimes don�t!) do so many lesbians not discover their "orientations" until mid-life?)

Lesbian activist Suzanne Slater describes two "pathways" to lesbian identity: one, early sexual feelings for the same gender, and the feeling of growing up without having any choice. Two, no early awareness, but some life-altering experience, usually seduction of some kind, leads women to adopt a lesbian self-identity. She mentions that the women's movement and participation in it has often provided this "awakening" for many women: "A number of the architects of previous models of lesbian identity development now point to feminist involvement as specifically relevant to many women's arrival at a lesbian self-concept."{159}

(Slater�s observation about lesbianism sometimes growing out of feminist involvement corroborates this writer�s own knowledge from association with leading members of the late 1960s-early �70s American feminist "movement." Several women reported to me that experience with lesbianism was a virtually mandatory part of a "consciousness-raising" process that was required prior to assuming "movement" leadership.) Slater continues:

Homophobia further challenges lesbian couples' faith in their mutual bonds by infiltrating the partners' private images of each other. This especially insidious manifestation of homophobia may operate on a primarily unconscious level, planting doubt in one or both partners about the actual health and sanctity of their relationship. These doubts become especially pernicious at moments of trouble, when the partners must generate additional belief in a relationship.{160}

One may appropriately ask: Which of the two paths the author describes results in the evolution of "real lesbians"? According to Slater, it seems to take a great deal of psychotherapy for many gays to adjust to being gay. Is "internalized homophobia" the only reason?

Gay Activists Try to Make Their Relational Instability "Work for Them"

Faced with revelations about their lifestyles' dysfunctions, gay activists have attempted to compare instabilities exhibited by truly "oppressed" groups, exacerbated by real poverty, cultural deprivation, political powerlessness and lack of education, with their own. "You see," gay activists say, "bigotry against us, and its effects, have made us behave the way other suspect classes do." In this vein, lesbian activist Robin Miller has written: "Anyone claiming that blacks are `bad' because [they exhibit] this [kind of dysfunction] would be rightfully censured for racist prejudice..."{161}

But Ms. Miller's comparison of "blackness" and "gayness" is false. The mere self-alleged sexual fantasies of African American people do not define their claim to suspect status. An African American person is generally identifiable from birth as such, before he or she ever manifests good or bad behavior or shares any "sexual fantasy ideation content." Today, "sexual orientation" is "defined," by Ms. Miller's own admission, not even by anything as tangible as behavior, but solely by "orientation" -- as we have seen, a virtually unidentifiable, self-alleged quality of thought supposedly going on only in people�s heads. Gays, as we have seen, are neither a racial nor an ethnic group, and as an entire "averaged" class are neither disadvantaged, readily identifiable nor politically powerless � and in our opinion, they need not be treated as if they were.

As former two-time Colorado Civil Rights Commission Chair John Franklin and others have observed, if claiming to crave gay sex becomes all that is required to be considered "ethnic"-equivalent, with full suspect status and privileges, the very concepts of ethnicity and suspect status will soon lose all traces of Civil Rights meaning and value.

Legitimate suspect classes' special minority protections weren't won based on how these groups claimed to want to enjoy themselves, nor on well-heeled propaganda campaigns aimed at proving these groups were something they are not, in terms of income, education, political clout and cultural privilege.

In light of the promiscuity of gay and lesbian lifestyles, it seems nearly ludicrous that gay activists should now be pressing so eagerly to involve themselves in the institution of marriage, an institution that has traditionally been sexually restrictive in partnership. Gay lifestyles researcher Peter LaBarbera has observed:

There was a time when most homosexual activists disdained marriage as a "heterosexist" institution antithetical to the sexual freedom obtained by "gay liberation." Such sentiments persist today, but with the urgency created by Hawaii, gay activist groups from the ideological left to right have coalesced around the "marriage" banner.

On the left, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has produced a manual for its grassroots activists on how to lobby for "gay marriage" and head off conservative attempts to preempt it. On the right, Log Cabin Federation of homosexual Republicans is arguing that it is hypocritical for conservatives to criticize homosexual promiscuity while at the same time opposing the stability of gay marriage.{162}

If gay activists have only recently become devotees of marriage, it may be only because they now realize that their suspect/minority class status claims have been successfully refuted. Casting about for a "peg" to hang "gay rights" on, they have decided to reach for same-sex "marriage" recognition -- which they had wanted to be their next move only after first securing federal suspect minority status. Their hope has been that opponents won't realize that their claim that their relationships should be recognized in civil marriage rests mainly on the presumption that gays are an "oppressed minority" -- though fundamentally "like everyone else" except for attraction to sexual partners.

And they may, they claim, have to be conceded this point: What proof exists that "gayness" is not just like all other "sexual orientations" -- and that gays are not "just like everyone else?" Has the "homosexualization of America" proceeded as far as gay activists like Dennis Altman would have us believe? Are average Americans indeed as sexually preoccupied, as promiscuous and as relationally unstable as psychological studies and gay/lesbian self-admissions have shown the gay world to be?

How Well Has the "Homosexualization of America" Succeeded?

Attempting to shore up their claim to be "just like everyone else," homosexual activists argue that (1) wildly promiscuous heterosexuals also exist, and (2) the scope of "normality" is vast. Do these claims have real substance?

Sex In America, conducted by Michael, Gagnon, Laumann and Kolata, published in 1994, and claiming to be the most comprehensive report ever conducted of American sexual life and habits,{163} calls these claims and the entire "homosexualization of America" concept into serious question. According to Michael, et al.:

America has a message about sex, and that message is none too subtle. Anyone who watches a movie, reads a magazine, or turns on the television has seen it. It says that almost everyone but you is having endless, fascinating, varied sex.

But, we have found, the public image of sex in America bears virtually no relationship to the truth. The public image consists of myths, and they are not harmless, for they elicit at best unrealistic and at worst dangerous misconceptions of what people do sexually. The resulting false expectations can badly affect self-esteem, marriages, relationships, even physical health.{164}

Our study, called the National Health and Social Life Survey, or NHSLS, has findings that often directly contradict what has become the conventional wisdom about sex. They are counterrevolutionary findings, showing a country with very diverse sexual practices but one that, on the whole, is much less sexually active than we have come to believe.{165}

For instance, the survey revealed that 67.6% of men and 75.5% of women surveyed had had only one sex partner in the past year. The survey found that only 2.6% of men and only 1.2% of women had only same-sex partner(s) during the past year.{166}

The survey also revealed that Americans tend to establish long-term relationships in marriage with people much like themselves, i.e., people largely choose marriage partners and "significant others" from the same socioeconomic and educational strata they themselves "fall into." And people tend to have little sex while establishing those relationships. Obviously, for most Americans, other factors than sheer sexual attraction play a major role in the making of long-term, committed relationships.

Contrary to some expectations, the survey found very little incidence of adultery in traditional marriage. And, according the survey, in 1992, more than half of men and women in America between the ages of 18-26 had had just one sex partner in the past year, and another 11% had none. The same kinds of results are reported in British and European sex surveys. Michael, et al., find that...

...nearly all Americans have a very modest number of partners, whether we ask them to enumerate their partners over their adult lifetime or in the past year. The number of partners varies little with education, race, or religion. Instead, it is determined by marital status or by whether a couple is living together. Once married, people tend to have one and only one partner, and those who are unmarried and living together are almost as likely to be faithful.{167}

The survey's findings...

give no support to the idea of a promiscuous society or of a dramatic Sexual Revolution reflected in huge numbers of people with multiple casual sex partners. The finding on which our data give quite strong and amazing evidence is not that most people do, in fact, form a partnership, or that most people do, in fact, ultimately get married. That fact was also well documented in many previous studies. Nor is it news that more recent marriages are much less stable than marriages that began 30 years ago. That fact, too, was reported by others before us. But we add a new fact, one that is not only important but is striking.

Our study shows clearly that no matter how sexually active people are before or between marriages, no matter whether they lived with their sexual partners before marriage or whether they were virgins on their wedding day, marriage is such a powerful social institution that, essentially married people are nearly all alike -- they are faithful to their partners as long as the marriage is intact.... Once married, the vast majority have no other sexual partners; their past is essentially erased. Marriage remains the great leveler.{168}

The old standards of sexual behavior are not so much gone as made more fuzzy, more diffuse, in the time before and between marriages. But there are definitely standards of behavior. And if society's goal is to get people safely married and procreating and faithful to their spouses, the standards have been a roaring success.{169}

The survey revealed that overall, married people are those most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied with the sex they're having. The lowest rates of satisfaction are among the unmarried or those who aren't living with someone. Interestingly, satisfaction declines when people have more than one sex partner. The least satisfied are the unmarried or non-cohabiting who have two or more sex partners at any one time. More interestingly, the survey revealed that conservative, Protestant married women claimed the highest rate of orgasms during sexual relations. The sexually-active unmarried and the non-religious, non-cohabiting, reported the lowest incidence of orgasms.

Not surprisingly, most people in the survey who identify themselves as faithful partners or mates also have faithful partners or mates. It also showed that only 4.1% of men and 1.6% of women had five or more sexual partners during the last 12 months. And only 15.1% of men and 2.7% of women had 5 or more partners lifetime.{170} Very few Americans had five or more sex partners in the past year of the survey, and these Americans were mostly young, mostly male, and we may be safe in assuming, mostly gay.

When the survey inquired about the kinds of sex practices engaged in by Americans, heterosexuals showed very little interest in "kinky" or unusual sexual behaviors, like sado-masochism. Also, heterosexuals report very little drug or alcohol use before sex. (Interestingly, the survey found that the people who have the most sex with their partners also masturbate the most. The authors posit that the more sex of any kind one has, the more one thinks about sex, therefore the more one masturbates, too. In any event, having a great deal of sex, with partners or self, does not seem to deplete sexual appetite in those who indulge it most.)

The survey revealed that very sexually active people, those most at risk of AIDS/HIV infection, don't seem to be slowed by the fear of AIDS. However, according to the survey, AIDS is highly unlikely to "break out" into the general population: "AIDS is, and is likely to remain, confined to exactly the risk groups where it began: gay men and intravenous drug users and their sexual partners. We are convinced that there is not and very unlikely ever will be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in this country."{171}

[Gays] who became [AIDS-]infected tended to be those who participated in the life of sexual bathhouses and casual sex. Other gay men living quietly and having sex with only one or few partners escaped infection. Still others who lived outside the largest gay communities escaped infection, even though they had sex with many partners. For example, the National Research Council report told of fifty-seven Black men living in Harlem and having sex with one another. None was infected with HIV although they did not use condoms. The reason was that they had no sexual partners outside their group. So even though AIDS has devastated the gay community in the largest cities not all gay men and not all gay communities were affected. Whether a man was at risk depended in large part on his social network.{172}

According to the survey, except for religious liberals and libertarians, Americans overwhelmingly think same-gender sex is always wrong.

Significantly, the National Health and Social Life survey did not find gays numbering anywhere near the 10% of the general population figure usually cited by gay activists. In fact, the researchers found very small percentages of both men and women who have had exclusively gay sex and lesbian relationships and even a much smaller percentage of people who've been involved in bisexual relationships. Only 1.4% of women and 2.8% of men identified themselves as homo- or bisexual:

No matter how we define homosexuality, we come up with small percentages of people who are currently gay or lesbian. These numbers, in fact, may sound astonishingly low, especially to residents of cities like New York or San Francisco, where there are large lesbian and gay communities. But, we found, gays and lesbians are not evenly distributed across the country. They tend to live in large cities and to avoid or leave small towns and rural areas...{173}

Speaking of the "10%"-gay figure, the authors say that wherever that figure came from it's clearly much higher than any figure from any recent studies; they say it's even higher than Kinsey himself actually claimed. The survey also revealed that 40% of men who had at some time have had sex with another man had it before age 18 and did not have it after that age.

Kinsey-"Derived" "10%" Figure for Gays Dubious

Because gay activists have labored so hard to instill the idea that gays represent "10% of America's population" (thus representing a sizeable "minority" in society), we will spend a few moments further scrutinizing this claim.

Numerous recent studies call into serious question the 1948 Kinsey research figures often quoted by homosexual activists to support their "10%" claim. In their book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,{174} Reisman and Eichel point out a serious "skewing," for example, of Kinsey's data base by his choice to include a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. (Convicted criminals comprised a full 25% of Kinsey's male sample.) Both practice homosexual behavior much more frequently than do individuals in the general population.

Tom W. Smith's study, Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Numbers of Partners, Frequency and Risk (op. cit.), conducted among a full probability sample of the adult U.S. household population, reported that "Overall... less than 1% [of the study population] has been exclusively homosexual." Jeffrey Vitale, President of Overlooked Opinions (op. cit.), which "is compiling the results of an ongoing national survey of a panel of about 20,000 homosexuals" estimates that "even in California and New York, two well-known [gay] havens, the gay population is less than 8 percent."{175}

National surveys of about 10,000 subjects conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report less than 3% of men as saying they have had sex with another man "at some time since 1977, even one time."{176}

The September 2, 1992, Dallas Morning Times (pg. 4C) reported on a "University of Chicago study aimed to be the most significant study [on American sexuality] since Mr. Kinsey's" and a related study by the National Opinion Research Center. The findings: "...An estimated 3 percent of the population claimed at least one act of homosexual sex during 1991. Over the respondents' lifetime, 4.5 percent claim some such sex... The final conclusions from the University of Chicago's study may confirm a figure far lower than Mr. Kinsey's. They may also show that American sexual behavior is quite conservative. The mean number of sexual partners over an individual's lifetime is probably around six or seven".{177}

The same University of Chicago study also reported little-publicized results that call into serious question the "innateness" theory of homosexuality's origins:

[If] homosexuality [were] randomly (and uniformly) distributed in the population [this finding] would fit with certain analogies to certain biologically-based traits such as left-handedness or intelligence. However, that is exactly what we did not find. Homosexuality... is clearly distributed differentially within categories of the social and demographic variables...

For example, the study results showed that Jewish individuals were more likely to be homosexual (7.7% of Jews claimed to be gay, 3.4% lesbian, vs. 0.7% gay and 0.3% lesbian "conservative Protestants.") The study also found much higher rates of incidence of homosexuality among individuals raised in large urban environments.{178}

Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, reported findings of a French study that only 4.1% of Frenchmen and 2.6% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse at least once in their lives. Only 1.1% of men and 0.3% of women said they'd had homosexual intercourse in the past 12 months.{179} Even more recently,

The London Daily Mail released last week what it calls "the most exhaustive survey ever conducted into British sexual habits." The most stunning finding was that only 1.1 percent of British men said they were active homosexuals, a figure similar to the most recent American polls.{180}

It should be evident by now that it's highly likely gay activists repeat the "10%" figure with broken-record frequency because they know it is key to their efforts to advance their "minority status" claims. Activist Bruce Voeller has candidly admitted:

I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the Kinsey-based [10%] finding that "We are everywhere." This slogan became a National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, educational and legislative programs during my years at New York's Gay Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force. And after years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted "fact." While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it so -- incredible as the notion was to the world when the Kinsey group first put forth its data or decades later when the Gay Movement pressed that data into public consciousness.{181}

In 1993, The New American reported: "Ever since the Alfred Kinsey study, homosexual activists have been insisting that they represent about ten percent of the the total population. This notion, based on faulty science, has been generally accepted as fact by the popular culture. Even Newsweek discovered this discrepancy in a recent issue, reporting that `ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In the nearly half century since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplicating his findings,' Patrick Rogers wrote in the February 15th issue. `Most recent studies place gays and lesbians at somewhere between 1 and 6 percent of the population.' The story also reported that some homosexual activists now admit that they exploited the inflated Kinsey figures for political reasons. `We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness,' says Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund [a sort of gay ACLU]."{182}

Another recent major national survey of male sexual behavior concluded that "Nearly one-fourth of American men under 40 have had 20 or more sexual partners during their lifetimes, and only 2 percent ever engaged in homosexual behavior..." A team of researchers from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle published a series of reports on their study in the March-April, 1993 issue of Family Planning Perspective, the magazine of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, scarcely a conservative bastion regarding sexual issues.

...Only 2.3 percent of the men reported any homosexual activity in the past 10 years, and just 1.1 percent said they had engaged in exclusively homosexual sex. That is far less than the 10 percent figure attributed to the landmark Kinsey report from 1948.{183}

Time and Newsweek magazines (both in April 26, 1993 issues) reported on the same Alan Guttmacher Institute sexual survey results. Said Newsweek: "Of the [3,321 American] men surveyed, only 2.3 percent reported any homosexual contacts in the last 10 years, and only half of those -- or just over 1 percent of the total -- said they were exclusively gay in that period."{184} Time, calling the study "one of the most thorough reports on male sexual behavior ever," commented:

...[I]ts scientific verdict (men are having too much unprotected sex) was overwhelmed by a political one. "It shows politicians they don't need to be worried about 1% of the population," says conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly... Some gay activists are concerned that she may actually be right. "Bill Clinton and Jesse Helms worry about 10% of the population," says ACT UP co-founder Larry Kramer. "They don't worry about 1%. This will give Bill Clinton a chance to welch [sic] on promises."{185}

Kramer's fears may be justified. President Clinton has indeed "welched" on several promises to gay activists, including pursuing legal moves to grant traditional family privileges to homosexual couples:

The White House on May 14 [1996] signaled its support for an election-year proposal to allow states not to recognize other states' same-sex "marriages," reversing recent pledges to homosexuals to fight the issue.

President Clinton's "evaluation of the bill would be consistent with his personally stated view that he opposes same-sex `marriage,'" White House spokesman Michael McCurry said.

..."The president believes that marriage as an institution ought to be reserved for a union between one man and one woman," Mr. McCurry said.

...The administration's shift on the issue comes as the White House is trying to shore up support among Catholics angered by the veto of a ban on partial-birth abortion despite his "personal" opposition to the procedure.

The shift angered homosexual groups, which have seen the president abandon them on other issues, notably his 1992 campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military.{186}

More recently, the president reaffirmed his position:

Threatened with protests in San Francisco, President Clinton said Friday he's done more for gays than any other president but won't relax his opposition to homosexual marriages.

"I can't change that position," Clinton said. "I have no intention of changing it."

Clinton's stand on same-sex marriages has riled many in San Francisco's gay community, prompting Mayor Willie Brown to suggest Clinton cancel a visit Sunday to avoid possible demonstrations....

Clinton said he would not change his travel plans.

"I don't think any president has ever been more sensitive to the fundamental human concerns or the legitimate interests of gay Americans than I have. And I have been roundly criticized for it in many quarters," he said.

Indeed, press secretary Mike McCurry was confronted with questions about whether the White House was trying to stir up gay protests -- or had encouraged Brown to make his public warning -- to show Clinton in a more centrist position.

"Absolutely not," McCurry responded. Gay men and lesbians were an important constituency for Clinton in the 1992 race, voting overwhelmingly for him and contributing $3.5 million to his campaign.{187}

So, of the accuracy of gay activist-cited "gay population" numbers, as of those of gay activist "poverty and oppression" and "political powerlessness claims, we remain highly skeptical.

Gay-Expressed "Partnering" Wishes Starkly Contrast Those of Single "Straights"

Still other recent survey findings combine with those of the National Health and Social Life Survey to cast doubt on the idea of the thoroughness of "America�s `homosexualization.�" Syndicated columnist Linda Chavez reported:

Sex sells. Hollywood is simply giving Americans what they want. That's the explanation entertainment executives and media critics have been giving for years to explain why sex saturates movies and TV.

But a new public opinion survey by U.S. News and World Report suggests they're wrong....

The magazine surveyed a random sample of 1,000 adults in March [1996] and reported the results in the April 15 issue. Overwhelmingly, respondents reported that they disapproved of what they see on TV.

More than 80 percent expressed concern about verbal references to sex, nudity, and premarital and extramarital sex on TV. And 75 percent were worried about portrayals of homosexual activity.

...Are Americans overreacting? Or is TV really raunchier these days?

The magazine actually surveyed prime-time shows on the four major broadcast networks for one week. It found that half of all shows contained sexual acts or references to sex.

...According to the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual behavior ever done, the National Health and Social Life Survey conducted in the early '90s, 67 percent of men [in their mid-40's] actually married their first sexual partner, and more than 65 percent of males remain faithful to their spouses while they are married.

But TV reflects neither reality nor viewers' preferences. What it does reflect is the values of its creators.

Although U.S. News didn't conduct a scientific survey of entertainment executives, it did mail out a questionnaire to more than 6,000 Hollywood leaders, about 10 percent whom responded.

And the gap in attitudes between the TV executives and the public was huge.

In virtually every category, only a minority of the Hollywood elite who responded showed concern about actual sexual activities on TV.

Less than one-third expressed concern about homosexual activity, compared with three-quarters of the public, for example, and half as many industry executives as the general public were upset by TV nudity or seminudity.

...Hollywood isn't a society unto itself, and the values it helps create shape the world in which all of us live. It's hard to imagine even Hollywood executives wanting their own children to behave as promiscuously as the characters they create in prime time.{188}

Certainly, Sex In America's sexual and relational portrait of the married and cohabiting general American population presents a striking contrast, in sexual/relational fidelity, to the "open" nature of gay relationships, even those characterized as "monogamous."

But perhaps, some may say, comparing single gays' and lesbians' relationships with those of a general American population consisting of single and married people is unfair. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be one of single "straights" with single "gays" of comparable income, educational achievement and social standing. The findings that follow represent such a comparison.

Some years ago, sociologist/media analyst Judith Reisman, Ph.D., co-author of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (op. cit.), undertook, together with Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., a detailed "five-year comparison study of homosexual & heterosexual personal classified advertisements [ranging over the years 1988-1992] in The Advocate [a magazine with a mostly gay male readership] and Washingtonian [read by primarily by heterosexuals]."{189} Though not yet published, the study itself has been successfully peer-reviewed. The authors begin an abstract of the study by describing their data set, methodology and the nature of their findings in an Executive Summary:

The data set is drawn from five years (1988-1992) of two prominent publications: The Advocate{190} and the Washingtonian (a regional mainstream publication for heterosexuals with very similar socioeconomic male readership characteristics). Both publications allot portions of each issue for paid partner "In Search Of" (ISO) advertisements. Even though the data concerning circulation, readership characteristics, articles, advertisements and cover stories within the two samples is an enlightening part of the data set, it is the nearly 11,000 partner ISO advertisements [that] provide 90% of analysis foundation. Using standard content analysis techniques the data set was coded, grouped, analyzed and statistically treated to reveal the similarity and variance between the two groups. The data set is a matter of public record and can be duplicated at any time. In addition, the analysis can be duplicated within the report or independent of the report.

What this data set says in total, and the 11,000 paid advertisements say specifically, it says clearly and directly. One would not pay to solicit a partner with detailed characteristics, if in reality, the opposite characteristics were sought or deemed desirable. In addition, an advertiser does not pay to specify the purposes or the goal of a relationship if an opposite goal is really sought. In this important sense, that being intent or orientation, the data set is scientifically pure (more pure than sex survey or interview data) in what it is specifically designed to do: describe the specific characteristics sought in a partner and outcomes hoped for in that potential relationship.

...The study reveals what homosexual male [ISO advertisers] seek in partners and what relationship outcomes are characteristic of that group. These were then compared to the characteristics sought by the Washingtonian heterosexual male ISO advertisers. This study reveals the similarity and difference between male homosexual and heterosexual partner solicitation language: what it says and what it means.{191}

The authors further describe the data set characteristics:

The data set represents a statistically significant random sample of "In-Search-Of" advertisements within two mainstream monthly publications: The Advocate and the Washingtonian. The Advocate has been described as the homosexual equivalent of Newsweek, reaching over 50% of the adult male homosexuals in America. Although the Washingtonian does not have the circulation that The Advocate affords, it does possess a very similar socio-economic readership, upscale, wealthy, cosmopolitan and liberal.{192} The Washingtonian, like The Advocate, has a dedicated "In-Search-Of" section within each issue, only in this case, the solicitation and readership was nearly exclusively heterosexual in nature.{193}

...Even though in general, the type of paid advertisements routinely found in magazines reflects its readership, it is nonetheless inaccurate to state that those who pay for "In-Search-Of" advertisements represent the entire readership of the magazine. They simply do not, by definition. One could hypothesize three categories of readership... those who at one time or another place an "In-Search-Of" advertisement and are likely to monitor these advertisement pages routinely.... those who never placed an "In-Search-Of" advertisement, but yet find that section of the magazine interesting or entertaining and therefore tacitly monitor it routinely, possibly even answering an ad.... those who never have placed an "In-Search-Of" advertisement and who have no interest at all in these pages of the magazine. Given these general groups, it can be said that the data represents the first group directly. It can also be argued that the data set could be representative of the second group as well....

In general, it can be said that the data is limited in its capacity to be extrapolated to the population as a whole. Its characteristics do not permit that interpretive license. However, what the data does say, "it says clearly," and with little doubt as to its motive. The purity of process and intent are its most valuable characteristics to increased research validity.{194}

A composite self-description of the Washingtonian sample would be of a healthy male, in his 30-40's, holding a professional job, who describes his hobbies and his general entertainment interests. He is primarily looking for a bonding relationship with one woman. A composite self-description of The Advocate sample would be a man in late 20's or early 30's, who describes himself as athletic and primarily interested in a short-term sexual relationship with a younger man in his 20's.{195}

The researchers then undertook detailed analysis of "partner characteristics sought" by the two samples:

A composite picture of the Washingtonian sample shows men seeking an "attractive" female companion in her 30's (or 20's). Most frequently requested Washingtonian qualities in a partner are sensitive, intelligent, professional, fun, sense of humor. The emotional quality of "commitment" was also a characterizing theme.{196}

None of the 2885 male [Washingtonian] solicitors self-described "personal" body parts to potential Washingtonian partners. Of 2885, 15 sought a "buxom" or "Rubenesque" woman.{197}

A composite picture of The Advocate sample would be a male seeking to meet with a "masculine looking" male who is under 20 years old (or teenager). Types of qualities sought most are "macho"-acting, aggressive, and soft-skinned. A recurring theme characteristic is specification of body parts [sought] [including] sizes and shapes...{198}

At least 15% of Advocate partner solicitors self-described "personal" body parts to prospective partners.{199}

Outcomes sought, or objectives of the relationships, between the two samples also differed significantly and fundamentally. The Washingtonian solicitor generally sought semi-permanent (Friend/Friendship over time) to permanent (marriage) companionship in their advertisements.{200}

86% of Washingtonian solicitors sought to "bond" with prospective partners; only 13% sought short-term sex.{201} Contrastingly, only 2% of Advocate solicitors expressed any desire to "bond" with prospective partners. 98.5% of Advocate solicitors, whether seeking "bonding" or not, sought short-term sex with prospective partners.{202}

What is characteristic when comparing the two samples is that the two groups are basically dissimilar on all major counts. The data reveals no basic similarity in the characteristics requested, sought in respective partners, or in the outcomes expected of the relationship. The Washingtonian solicitor may be characterized overall as "searching for a female companion to bond with, over time." The Advocate solicitor... may be characterized as singularly focused on "immediate sex with a young(er) male."{203}

By far the largest percentage of Advocate ISOs (46.3%) sought "youthful/age 18+" partners (23.3% sought "age 20+" partners, 16.9% sought "30+" partners.{204}

Contrastingly, only .008% of Washingtonian solicitors sought "youthful/age 18+" partners; 43.5% sought "20+" partners; 38.1% sought "30+" partners.

Andrew Sullivan{205} blames the excesses of gay lifestyles on the thesis that gay individuals and couples don't get support for their relationships from society.

But society in general does not smile warmly on cohabiting heterosexual singles either; yet as we have seen, few heterosexual singles respond with the kinds of lifestyle excesses we see in gays. If gay cohabitations were by and large truly monogamous, it might be arguable they should be as quickly legitimized by marriage as heterosexuals�. But the research shows clearly that in the main, gay relationships are anything but monogamous.

Conclusion: Gays Are Not "Just Like Everyone Else" in Relational Stability, Desire for Same

Altogether, the preceding evidence clearly indicates that, in terms of relational stability, even "married/monogamous" gay activists can no more validly claim that gays are "just like everyone else except for the character of their sexual fantasies" than they can validly claim suspect minority class status for "sexual orientation" based on gays meeting U.S. Supreme Court criteria.

Gay lifestyles appear to be much more promiscuous than "straights'." Marked transitoriness appears to characterize both gay and lesbian relational patterns, together with a great deal more sheer sexual preoccupation than in the "straight" world. Most Americans do not personally identify themselves solely by the particular form of sex they claim to fantasize about, nor do they appear to base attempts at committed relationships on predominantly sexual factors. Even "straight" singles do not, on average, comport themselves sexually with either the frequency or abandon of gays and lesbians.

Lest it be said that same-sex "marriages" would prove no more unstable than the marriages of other "oppressed minorities," recent surveys and studies reveal intact, traditionally-structured "minority" families (i.e., made up of husband, wife and children, all living in the same household) to be, if anything more conservative in adherence to "social issues" than intact Caucasian families.{206}

Self-avowedly "gay" activist leaders themselves admit the deficiencies of gay life. Kirk and Madsen say: "In short, the gay lifestyle -- if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle -- just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social frameworks evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs."{207}

If gays are not "just like everyone else," then gay activists' third major "unspoken" presupposition -- that gay activists will desire the same kinds of marriages as "everyone else," and that the legalization of same-sex "marriage" will have minimal effects on society at large -- must be examined carefully before America proceeds to make public policy decisions we may deeply regret.


{117}Cf. Tony Marco, Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A Question of "Orientation" and Consequences, 1994, position paper on "gay rights" issues.

{118}Robert Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS (New York: The Free Press, 1992), p. 366.

{119}Op. cit.

{120}Cf. op. cit., Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), p. 308-309.

{121}Source: InStep, May 28, 1986.

{122}Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual transmission of hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 302, pp. 435-438.

{123}Gebhard, P.H. and Johnson, A.B., The Kinsey Data (Sanders, 1979); Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference, op. cit.

{124}"AIDS amd sexial behavior reported by gay men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75, pp. 493-496.

{125}Letters to the Editor, American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75, pp. 1449, 1450.

{126}Joseph Nicolosi, "Let's Be Straight: A Cure Is Possible," Insight, December 6, 1993, p. 24.

{127}Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and Risk, presented February 1990 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of Chicago.

{128}Eric Marcus, The Male Couple's Guide to Living Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 26-27.

{129}Ibid. p. 28.

{130}Ibid. p. 41.

{131}Op. cit., After the Ball, p. 47.

{132}Op. cit., Sullivan, Virtually Normal, p. 13.

{133}Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Phoenix: Adam Margrave Books, 1995), quoted in "Longtime Foe of Normalizing Homosexuality Shines in `A Freedom Too Far,'" Lambda Report on Homosexuality, January 1996, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 18.

{134}Ibid. Marcus, p. 217.

{135}Summit Books, 1979, a survey by avowedly gay researchers.

{136}Op. cit., Sang, Warshow and Smith, Lesbians at Midlife: The Creative Transition, p. 33.

{137}Ibid. p. 83.

{138}Op. cit. Weston, Families We Choose, pp. 142, 143.

{139}Ibid. p. 150.

{140}Op. cit., Lesbians at Midlife, p. 134.

{141}Ibid. p. 150.

{142}Clunis, D. Merilee, and Green, G. Dorsey, Lesbian Couples (Seattle, WA: Seal Press, 1988).

{143}Ibid. p. 153.

{144}Ibid. p. 154.

{145}Ibid., p. 160, 161.

{146}Ibid. p. 161.

{147}Op. cit., Loulan/Nelson, Lesbian Passion, p. 35.

{148}Ibid. p. 83.

{149}Op. cit. Slater, p. 123, 124.

{150}Ibid. p. 231.

{151}Ibid. p. 134.

{152}Ibid. p. 140.

{153}Ibid. p. 148.

{154}Ibid. ref. p. 179, 180.

{155}Ibid. p. 189.

{156}Ibid. ref. p. 194.

{157}Ibid. pp. 202, 203.


{159}Op. cit., Slater, The Lesbian Family Life Cycle, pp. 24-25.

{160}Ibid. p. 40.

{161}Cf. Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, July 28, 1991, p. B-10.

{162}"Gay `Marriage' Becomes Homosexual Activist Priority," Lambda Report on Homosexuality, October 1995 - January 1996, p. 9.

{163}Cf. Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O Laumann, Gina Kolata, Sex In America (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994).

{164}Ibid. p. 1.

{165}Ibid. p. 25.

{166}Ibid. p. 35, Table 1.

{167}Ibid. p. 101, emphasis added.

{168}Ibid. p. 105.

{169}Ibid. p. 110.

{170}Ibid. ref. p. 109.

{171}Ibid. pp. 212, 213, 216.

{172}Ibid. p. 210.

{173}Ibid. p. 177.

{174}Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990.

{175}"Gay Community Looks for Strength in Numbers," American Marketplace, Vol. 12, No. 14, July 4, 1991, p. 131.

{176}"AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes for January-March 1990, Provisional Data from the National Health Interview Survey," Deborah Dawson; Joseph E. Fitti and Marcie Cynamon, op. cit. for April-June, 1990; Pamela F. Adams and Ann M. Hardy, op. cit. for July-September, 1990, in Advance Data, Nos. 193, 195, 198, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S. department of Health and Human Services, p. 11 in all three documents.

{177}"Study of U.S. sex habits may contain surprises."

{178}Op. cit., citing study, pp. 307, 302-304.

{179}As reported in "Homosexual figures grossly exaggerated," AFA Journal, September 1992, p. 9.

{180}World magazine, January 29, 1994, p. 9.

{181}Bruce Voeller, in Homosexuality, Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation (The Kinsey Institute Series, June Machover Reinisch, ed., Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 35, emphasis added.

{182}"The Homosexual Numbers," March 22, 1993, p. 37.

{183}"Homosexual activity lower than believed, study shows," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 15, 1993, p. A-13, emphasis added.

{184}"Sex in the Snoring '90s," p. 55, emphasis added.

{185}"The Shrinking Ten Percent," p. 27.

{186}"Clinton opposes gay `marriage,'" The Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, May 26, 1996, p. 8.

{187}"Clinton says gay marriages are wrong," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, June 8, 1996, p. A-10.

{188}"Average folks don't buy TV sex; Hollywood does," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 19, 1996, p. B-13.

{189}The information about to be cited derives from Sexual Orientation: Partner Solicitation Characteristics, Preliminary Findings Report, privately published, April 1994. Used by special permission.

{190}In a footnote (p. 2), Reisman and Johnson cite Kirk's and Madsen's After the Ball (op.cit.), in which Kirk and Madsen report, "We and our friends have placed many such [personal] ads over the years."

{191}Ibid. p. 2.

{192}A 1992 Advocate readership survey reported the average annual individual income of its readers as $62,100.

{193}Ibid. p. 5.

{194}Ibid. p. 6.

{195}Ibid. p. 9.

{196}Ibid. pp. 12, 13.

{197}Ibid., cf. Figure 3, p. 14.

{198}Ibid. cf. Figure 4, p. 14.

{199}Ibid. cf. Figure 5, p. 15.

{200}Ibid. p. 15.

{201}Ibid. cf. Figure 6, p. 15.

{202}Ibid. cf. Figure 7, p. 16.

{203}Ibid. p. 16.

{204}Ibid. cf. Figure 8, p. 16.

{205}Op. cit., Virtually Normal.

{206}Cf. "Christians, minorities agree on social issues," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, Sept. 10, 1993, p. A-6.

{207}Op. cit., After the Ball, p. 363.

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]