Is the above typically understood by gay men in general? Especially interesting to me was the comment concerning monogamous relationships generally not lasting very long among gay men.
I'm positive it's true. The way homosexuality has come into the mainstream is through counterculture movements. This isn't surprising at all.
I would see gay marriage as a non-monogamous institution contributing to the continuing undermining of marriage as a more permanent, exclusive bond.
If we are to assume that marriages are to be monogomous (now that's a big assumption, think really really hard whitlock, and others about marriage being mono-gamous - you know, "mono" means "one", right ok, we got that? but we'll take your hypocritical little definition at face value for now) then how would gay marriage fail to be a monogamous institution? What Whitlock "sees" makes no sense at all.
it is more an issue of rights or privileges under marriage law
I can't think, as a man, of any one thing a man can do, of his own free will, that will strip himselves of rights and privileges more so than by getting married. If gays are cheating each other and mixing things up all too much, then once they start paying alimony checks and dividing property, they might reconsider their decisions one way or another.
I will also say, that to an extent it can be viewed as a "privilage", so what if people do things just for the privilage? Why shouldn't they? I could go out and vote just because it's my right to, or because I'm bored, or because I think my opinion matters. But the vote counts equally well in all cases. In the case of marriage however, they'll learn fast once they start cutting alimony checks.
It appears that there are not a large number of gay couples that take advantage of it
There aren't many people who take advantage of energy credits for installing low-e windows, or credits for replacing older toilets with low-w consuming alternatives. Does that mean the programs should be scrapped, or might it mean they should be promoted better?
If it is admitted that gay monogamous permanent relationships by nature are rare at best, the Church's stance against gay marriage, at least from this angle, makes a lot of sense.
It actually makes no sense whatsoever. To see why, take the prodigal son as an example. He parties every night, he's sleeping with a different woman every week, maybe he does drugs, he's all things considered, up to no good. And what are his parents thinking? "Oh, I wish Henry could just get a job, find a nice girl and settle down." Well, if Henry is gay, why wouldn't it be an excellent goal to shoot toward a stable life and a monogamous relationship? Wouldn't it be terrific for him to overcome the even further obstacles thrown in the path by de facto gay culture and set his sights on marriage and commitment? Instead of pushing gays further into the risky behavior on the fringes, why not promote a higher ideal that they can take a part in?
Marriage is not the big "privilage" and "right" that Mormon apologists claim that it is. It's rather, a horrendously risky commitment that screws over as many people as it benefits. I would like to know, from the apologists, what on earth the "privilages" of being married are - the legally or socially bestowed ones? The biggest one is this:
commiting your life to one person is a horrendous undertaking, it's hard work, and it's usually not a party but the hope, and the only hope, is to find some meaning beyond a job and mere consumerism, there something about connecting with someone that seems to fill a void that nothing else can. But it's true that the odds aren't all that great it will pay off. Instead of being a privilage, marriage is a goal to shoot towards, a difficult and risky one, but one that could very well be worth it with the right sacrifices from both people. Given the difficulty of this choice, a marriage is culturally a symbol of the approval of family and friends. The ceremony is a time where everyone gets together, knowing how hard this road will be, supports the couple, and tries to give them a solid start in the right direction.
Imagine, if Fred and Bob, instead of, in their hurt and confusion running off to the courthouse to go out and show the world that they are people too, with no support whatsoever, imagine if Fred and Bob's parents gave them a ceremony, a cake, and encouragement and advice throughout their relationship. Imagine if somehow family and friends could legitimately accept their relationship. Wouldn't they have quite a bit more chance at a commited, long-term, and monogamous life together?
One of my best friends, who was gay, died last month of a drug overdose. Just before the end, he was finally coming to terms with who he was, and accepting that he didn't have a place in the church, that he needed to find a partner, and a different spiritual path. The problem is, it took 10 years of rebelling (post mission and college) to figure this out. By that time, the addictions were already too deep and he lost the battle. Other than myself, I blame three entities:
1) him. for being too weak. for being dishonest with himself in many ways.
2) the party culture that also happened to be part of the gay culture he got involved with.
3) the Mormon church, for its complete inability to realize that they're basically just a bunch of bigots caught up in protecting what they've grown comfortable with in life. The Q of 12 for being geriatric fools and completely out of touch with reality.