Straight Couples Getting Kinky? Blame Gay Marriage.

What if gay marriage causes women to think men like to talk about their feelings? WHAT THEN???Credit: Lisa F. Young | Dreamstime.comWhen Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, published a study in 2012 claiming that the children of gay parents are worse off than the children of straight parents he was heavily criticized for his poor methodology (read about the problems here, as it’s too complicated to easily summarize). While most critics were unhappy with standards he used to contrast gay parents versus straight parents, I noted at the time he had some odd ideas about what counts as having “worse” experiences. He classified having more sexual partners and smoking marijuana as among the negative things children of gay parents may experience. While lots of sex and marijuana use could potentially become damaging experiences, their inclusion as inherent negatives didn’t exactly seem sociologically sound.

It seems that sort of judgment is not an anomaly. Jeremy Hooper, over at gay blog “Good As You,” took note of a recent speech by Regnerus at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. A portion of his speech is devoted to explaining how it’s gay marriage’s fault if straight men start to stray or get kinky, as gay men, even in committed relationships, are statistically less likely to be monogamous and are accepting of this. And then, I guess, straight men are going to see this and want it, too. And this, Regnerus says, is what will happen:

If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere and not a few husbands to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed – sexual novelty, in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship.  Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men’s sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and the American imagination. It may be spun as empowering women, but it sure won’t … sure doesn’t feel that way.

Is Regnerus saying that gay sex is now a normal thing that pops up in the imaginations of heterosexual Americans now? Is that true? Are you thinking about it right now? Did I cause you to think about it by asking you if you’re thinking about it?

The whole Regnerus speech can be watched here for those inclined. Note that these arguments again feed into the idea of society as caretakers of women’s sexuality and the assumption that women cannot make appropriate decisions for themselves. I mentioned this when analyzing the arguments the state of Utah has put forth to defend its ban on gay marriage recognition (which included references to Regnerus’ study). The primary arguments presented were all about making sure heterosexual women got strong messages from the state to get married and have children so that we don’t run out of humans.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I blame Warty.

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    Always a safe response.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    He is certainly to blame for any increase in non-consensual anal sex.

  • Rasilio||

    They have cause and effect backwards. Straight Americans getting more kinky led them to be more accepting of gay sex and then eventually gay marriage. There just aren't enough gays for them to trigger trends in the population at large.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But ... but ... gays (or, more specifically, gay men) are to blame for any social trend that anyone doesn't like. They can do it because they control the media. They won the media in a poker game from the people who used to control the media.

  • Zeb||

    So the Joooos are worse at poker than the gays? I would have guessed the other way round.

  • ||

    The gayz have the advantage of male gazing their opponents to put them off their games.

  • ||

    It's getting less effective as time wears on. Two nights ago I had a straight bartender at the diviest straight bar I've been to in a while slap my ass and then ask me to slap his just so he could show he had no problem with the gays...it hadn't even crossed my mind that he might.

  • PD Scott||

    If mutual slaps on the ass prove you have no problem with gays, then why was it a big deal for that football player to come out? Obviously the NFL has been okay with the gays for decades.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sounds more like he was flirting.

  • Doctor Whom||

    You wouldn't believe the number of pickup lines I've heard that began with "I'm not gay or anything, but ...."

  • Zeb||

    "I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I'd kinda like to make love to you tonight."
    -Dave

  • ||

    You wouldn't believe the number of pickup lines I've heard that began with "I'm not gay or anything, but ...."

    A gay guy who thought I might be straight used that to great success at a party in New Orleans. I have a soft spot for ironically executed pickup lines, but I'm not brassy enough to pull that type of thing off.

  • SusanM||

    totally NOT GAY!

  • Rhywun||

    I don't remember ever seeing so many straight men gaying it up. It's like the latter half of the eighties and the nineties never happened.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    While lots of sex and marijuana use could potentially become damaging experiences, their inclusion as inherent negatives didn’t exactly seem sociologically sound.

    I knew libertarian actually meant libertine!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    FUCK OFF, SLAVERS.

  • Rich||

    If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere and not a few husbands to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed – sexual novelty, in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship.

    And bestiality -- don't forget *that*.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Yuck. We're not back on the cow-fondling article again, are we?

  • John||

    And since when did men not pressure their wives for sexual novelty? That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while.

  • John||

    Seriously, is this man aware of the existence of women's magazines? Has he ever read one? There is about 70 years of writing concerning the subject of men wanting sexual novelty and what to do about it.

  • Mainer2||

    Just reading the covers while standing in the checkout, alot of those articles are about how to take advantage of men's desires.

  • John||

    In other news, support for gay marriage among straight married man found to have skyrocketed to 100%.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Nice.

  • ||

    Are you thinking about it right now?

    WELL NOW I AM

  • Dr. Frankenstien||

    As someone wrote on a friend's Facebook page. "You don't have to be gay to enjoy anal sex. But it helps."

  • ||

    Hetero couples are getting kinkier? I am gonna call bullshit on that. People like to fuck. They have always liked to fuck, and they have always liked to get their freak on.

    The notion of a golden age past where everyone was monogamous, lost their virginity after marriage, and only had missionary sex for the purpose of procreation is horse shit.

  • Zeb||

    People have always done what people do, but I think there is probably some increase in some kinds of kink simply because of how much more openly people communicate with others about what they get up to. And porn.

  • ||

    I for one won't be satisfied until everyone is participating in Roman levels of debauchery. I have my mosaicists working on disseminating ideas on how this can be accomplished as we speak. We're probably going to need more brothels and baths though.

    Everyone should be prepared to celebrate Floralia where "prostitutes danced naked and fought in mock gladiator combat." Put it on your calendars for April 27 (Sunday this year).

  • SusanM||

    shhh.... you're giving away the Gay Agenda.

  • Brett L||

    "Do you like Gladiator movies, Timmy?"

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    The notion of a golden age past where everyone was monogamous, lost their virginity after marriage, and only had missionary sex for the purpose of procreation is horse shit.

    Don't sociologists have to take undergrad history classes? Victorians were some of the kinkiest people in the history of western civilization. Or maybe they were just better able to record it.

  • ||

    I have a number of mayan clay sculptures of people having orgies and engaging in every kinky thing you can dream of.

    There are plenty of such things from all over the world from all times in history.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Exactly. And a lot I can't think of too, I'll bet. I have always been one of those guys who is genuinely shocked and often delighted by women's ideas of what to try next.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Wow, i never knew the Mayans supported Gay marriage.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually in the US sex was pretty damn vanilla from the 1800's through about WW2. This is not to say that there were not pockets of kink floating around (especially in the bigger northern cities during the Victorian era), it was really WW1 that started to open things up as masses of GI's went to Europe and saw how kinky things were over there, came back and started asking their girlfriends for it.

  • SusanM||

    I think people were more discreet really. Heck, Ben Franklin was quite the playa in his day

  • SusanM||

    "Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes."

  • Rasilio||

    Ben Franklin was not alive in the 1800's. I don't dispute that the colonials were quite randy but over time as the US became more religious and morally conservative their sexual practices became much more tame.

    One need look no further than the term "French Kissing" it was called that because open mouth kissing basically didn't exist in the US till after WW1

  • SusanM||

    I don't know for certain. There's always a difference between what you do and what you say you do. But if your assertion changes from what may have happened to what was admitted to then yes, I guess you're right.

  • Rasilio||

    Well it is not like there were researchers documenting sexual practices of the average american in the 1870's so they have to discern practices from alternative sources.

    I believe they research pornography and private diaries of the day and extrapolate from there

  • TANSTaaFL||

    You are correct that exposure to Europe's more laizze-faire attitude toward sex did contribute, but most historians credit the major influence to be "...a sense of moral loss or aimlessness apparent in literary figures [and soldiers and their contemporaries] during the 1920s. World War I seemed to have destroyed the idea that if you acted virtuously, good things would happen. Many good, young men went to war and died, or returned home either physically or mentally wounded (for most, both), and their faith in the moral guideposts that had earlier given them hope, were no longer valid..." (from paper by old history teacher at Montgomery College)

    Questioning of traditional values leads to exploration and ...more kinky fun. Think flappers and the roaring 20's.

    Can't blame TEH GAYZ for the 20's...or can you?

  • Zeb||

    I thought that the boom in hetero anal sex was because of how common it is in straight porn, which has a lot to do with the pay being better for women willing to do anal. I don't think there are a lot of straight guys watching gay porn for ideas of what to do with their women.

    I wish my parents had been gay. I could have used more sexual partners as a teen.
    As pure speculation, I would think that children of gay parents would be generally better off, mostly because for gays to have kids they have to really want to and have the resources to make it happen. It doesn't just happen on its own so you'll have more people who are really interested in being parents.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    I wish my parents had been gay. I could have used more sexual partners as a teen.

    My parents were born at the corner of Straight and Narrow. I'm from way across town. So by the time they got around to The Talk, I had just gotten dumped by my third sex partner. (I had neglected to inform her that Girl#2 and I were still having fun.) But I didn't seem significantly more or less successful than other boys, except maybe the ones who were painfully awkward.
    I don't see the correlation.

  • Zeb||

    No, that was a joke. It just took me too long what you could get away with. And I erred far too much on the side of caution.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    I figured it out so early because of a very helpful girl I made friends with when we were both far from home. She was two years older than me. Back home, she most likely wouldn't have come near me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men’s sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and the American imagination."

    I don't think this is an accepted interpretation inside the academic community ,among people who study the history of American sexuality.

    In the generally accepted chronology, heterosexuality didn't really exist as we understand it today as a sexual identity until we started thinking about it in relation to homosexuality. Prior to the advent of psychology, people didn't think about themselves in terms of being gay or straight--they thought of certain sexual behaviors as being normal or deviant.

    Having sex outside the context of marriage, masturbation, homosexuality--and even having too much sex within the context of a marriage, these were all considered the same kind of deviant. I just don't think it's commonly accepted in academia that anal became okay for heterosexual men once homosexuality became more accepted by heterosexuals.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Prior to the advent of psychology, people didn't think about themselves in terms of being gay or straight--they thought of certain sexual behaviors as being normal or deviant."

    Yes - different people had different kinds of temptations - some people were more tempted to adultery, some to sodomy, some to drunkenness, some to overeating, and some were less tempted. But it took psychology to say either "you're diseased because of your temptations" or "since you're disposed to drink/overeat/sodomize, etc., you shouldn't repress the urge."

  • ||

    "I just don't think it's commonly accepted in academia that anal became okay for heterosexual men once homosexuality became more accepted by heterosexuals."

    For how long have the puritans been telling us that any acceptance of homosexuality will bring about the apocalypse? Now that it is widely accepted they have to have something to point to as evidence that they were right.

  • anon||

    Well I wish that apocalypse would hurry the fuck up and arrive.

  • ||

    My Grandaddy was fond of saying " Hell is having your wishes come true.".

  • PD Scott||

    "ANAL APOCALYPSE: DAMN NEAR RECTUM"

  • Ken Shultz||

    And even when they say things like that the wide availability of pron makes women, say, more prone to BJs, I think they're saying we should be scared because of what our daughters might be doing on dates, but that's not really what comes across...

    How many guys out there think the world's a worse place if women are more likely to be...adventurous?

    It's just that I'm not convinced that's true. I think women are probably as adventurous as ever--although guys are probably more conscientious of personal hygiene now that we've got indoor plumbing and women feel freer to speak up about these things.

    But there's nothin' new under the sun. The baby boomers are taking a ton of credit for a sexual revolution that I'm not convinced happened. The pill was a big deal--but that wasn't a cultural shift because of hippie attitudes.

    When the stakes were higher for making a mistake with procreative sex, teenagers probably did the other stuff more often, I would guess!

  • Zeb||

    The revolution happened. It was just a lot more to do with what people will talk about than actual sexual practice.
    And I'd be really surprised if readily available birth control hasn't contributed to some increase in female promiscuity. People have always fucked like people, but when pregnancy was a more likely result, you'd end up married or sent to the special home that no one talked about.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Sandra Fluke agrees.

  • LemonMender||

    This reasoning is just bizarre. Of course some people will look for an excuse to cross certain social boundaries, but gay marriage, which in principle reduces gay promiscuity, is hardly something that can be blamed for increasing hetero promiscuity. It’s not as if men cannot find excuses even without gays to point to. We only have thousands of years of history to establish that what Regnerus warns about is pretty standard human behavior that has nothing to do with gays. If we take Victorian ideals (not even reality) as the norm, then I suppose one could argue that the gays violating those norms opens up space for everyone, but the assumption needed to arrive there is simply false.

    This is rather clearly a case of post-hoc explanation/quasi-justification for a conclusion Regnerus already has about gays.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You listen to baby boomers, and because people before the 60s didn't talk about these things in public as much, they seem to think they invented the blowjob because of the pill, or something. It just isn't so. People have been doing all of these things--probably at about the same rate they always have--for thousands of years. You can see the "heterosexual" acts advertised on the walls of the brothels of Pompeii! It's just that people talk about and admit these things more in America now than they did before the 1960s.

    In other words, that communication revolution in the 1960s all happened at the same time. But just because people started admitting and talking about the stuff they do--at the same time that people started admitting and talking about being gay--that doesn't mean that the acceptance of gay people made gayish forms of sexual activity newly acceptable to heterosexuals. People just started to feel more open talking about the stuff they had always been doing.

  • John||

    Yeah. People didn't have those huge families back in the time before birth control because they avoided "sexual novelty".

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not sure what you're getting at...

    If you're asking me why people tend to have smaller families today, my first guesses have to do with us not being on the farm and needing the free labor that comes with children so much, post industrialization, and also the fact that women expect to have careers outside the home, now, and everywhere in the world that happens (including in Catholic countries like Italy and Spain), the birth rate drops dramatically. This is why Italy has a graying population now: women used to have an average of six children each, and now they have an average of less than two and a career.

    I'd certainly look to those factors first rather than the explanation that gay men becoming more acceptable in polite society made heterosexuals turn to anal sex so much that the birthrate dropped dramatically.

  • sarcasmic||

    There tends to be an inverse relationship between family size and wealth.

  • Ken Shultz||

    After the industrial revolution, that's true. It was the opposite in the farm economy.

    Prior to the Great Depression, I believe a majority of Americans stilled lived on farms.

    Free labor on a farm is economically advantageous. Having a kid sitting around in a house in the suburbs for 18 years while you're waiting for him to learn how to become productive--not so economically advantageous.

    It used to matter more before Social Security and Medicare, too. Before Social Security and Medicare, if you didn't have enough kids to support you in your old age, you were in big trouble.

  • John||

    What I am getting at is that married couples have always engaged in odd or kinky things in the bedroom. They just didn't talk about it in public like they do now. They didn't keep having sex enough to have those large families because they only did it in the conventional way.

  • Mainer2||

    Nothing like a little game of Escaped Prisoner and the Warden's Wife to spice things up...I'm told.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Climb up in the freezer and play a little Whip 'n' Chill! (Old song I can't quite remember.)

  • ||

    I remember reading a French academic who studied the working class in Paris (I don't remember the era but it was after the Industrial Revolution was well under way) and he was just HORRIFIED by what they were getting up to in the bedroom and was only willing alluded to it so that he could titillate but not scandalize his upper class readers.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Chaîne de montage, perhaps?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It certainly doesn't seem to me that having sex with a woman can be homosexual, and that seems to be what this guy is driving at.

    Listening to some of these people, you'd think we're all supposed to be a little bit gay if we like anything other than procreative sex.

    I was jogging on the track at the gym the other day behind this girl with an ass that looked like everything I ever wanted for Christmas. I swear, she could have been in the SI swimsuit issue.

    Now if she gives me a BJ, and I think that's great--it's because I'm secretly gay?

    I don't think so.

  • ||

    Listening to some of these people, you'd think we're all supposed to be a little bit gay if we like anything other than procreative sex.

    I don't think that's the point he or other social conservatives are making. They're arguing that the normalization of some "deviant behaviors" in this case gay sex, has softened us up to the normalizing of all deviant behaviors. I believe Epi would refer to it as "projection".

  • anon||

    They're arguing that the normalization of some "deviant behaviors" in this case gay sex, has softened us up to the normalizing of all deviant behaviors.

    I still can't understand why the fuck someone that I've never met and will never know could give a shit less what I do with another consenting adult. Fuck, people I've known my whole LIFE couldn't give a shit less how I choose to get my sexing done.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It may not be the social conservatives point, but it's an obvious implication.

    Saying that men like things other than procreative intercourse because they find homosexuality more acceptable has implications.

    Incidentally, when gay guys are on the bottom, don't social conservatives think of them as acting submissive and feminine?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    , when gay guys are on the bottom

    A real rimshot there.

  • lap83||

    "They just didn't talk about it in public like they do now."

    This is a huge pet peeve for me. There's always at least one person where I work whose favorite topic of conversation is sex-related. I'm not a prude but I have no respect for people who can't go beyond their base instincts. It's like they're neanderthals.

  • Rasilio||

    My understanding is that oral sex was almost unheard of in the US from about the 1850's through the 1920's. During WW1 the Doughboys discovered it when they went over to Europe and brought the practice back here.

    That said the roaring 20's were every but as sexually promiscuous and experimental as the 60's, probably even moreso since it reached into far larger segments of society than free love flower power did in the 60's

  • Mock-star||

    "People have been doing all of these things--probably at about the same rate they always have--for thousands of years."

    That rate would be "not enough" IMO.

  • sarcasmic||

    Q) What do two gays guys do on their second date?

    A) What second date?

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    As a bisexual who has been in same-sex relationships I can confirm that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

  • sarcasmic||

    Q) What do two lesbians bring to their first date?

    A) Toothbrushes.

    Q) Their second date?

    A) A U-Haul.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Are you thinking about it right now?

    Great. Now all I can think about is penises.

  • sarcasmic||

    Penis!

    (clip from 500 Days of Summer)

  • waffles||

    thanks for the trigger warning I hated that movie

  • sarcasmic||

    Once upon a time people kept their private lives private. I liked it better that way.

  • Zeb||

    I think most people still do. Sure, there are probably a lot more who overshare. But I can't think of anyone I know who in real life shares many intimate details of what they get up to sexually.

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    FASCIST OPPRESSOR!!!!!

  • ||

    Yeah, the guy down the road from me, he is fucking someone. I dont know who it is, but I am certain of it.

    I would like to keep it that way.

  • lap83||

    How Dare You. When people talk about their sex lives with strangers it's brave and moving! It's basically like rescuing a thousand concentration camp victims in a single bound, but better because WW2 is so 90s.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Why is it that when same-sex couples do the same exact things as opposite-sex couples (eg not being secretive about who they're dating) they get accused of shoving it in everyone's faces?

  • ||

    "Why is it that when same-sex couples do the same exact things as opposite-sex couples (eg not being secretive about who they're dating) they get accused of shoving it in everyone's faces?"
    I'm sure the bigots have their reasons, and their reasons suck.

  • Mainer2||

    This is analogous to people using drugs, and how normal behavior gets somehow defined as deviant. Every society in the last 1000's of years has drank, chewed, smoked or otherwise ingested substances to stimulate or relax themselves. This suggests that teetotaling is the deviant behavior.

  • ||

    More like ANALogous, am I right?

  • Tony||

    First we made you dress well. Then we made you into manwhores. The agenda is coming along nicely.

  • ||

    Shhh, if we gloat they won't participate in the alcohol fueled brunches of phase six.

  • ||

    And, whatever you do, don't mention state-funded anal pap smears.

  • anon||

    What if gay marriage causes women to think men like to talk about their feelings? WHAT THEN???

    That's actually the best argument I've heard against gay marriage to date.

  • ||

    Is Regnerus saying that gay sex is now a normal thing that pops up in the imaginations of heterosexual Americans now?

    I don't agree with the study, but why is the notion of redefining marriage or the obsoleting traditional marriage causing people to re-evaluate their marriages so unfathomable?

    This is something that I was first and firmly compelled would happen when gay marriage came up decades ago. Men (and women) aren't thinking about gay sex, they're thinking about the flexibility in the definition of marriage. I think gay marriage and promiscuity are stupid (not that the two go hand-in-hand) and don't support it for a minute. However, if you asked me to redefine marriage that allowed more partners, you'd certainly get a pause for consideration. And, in the name of equality, you would have to grant plural marriages to women as well as men.

  • ||

    I cant understand your concern.

    My marriage is what my wife and I decided it is. Nothing that anyone else says or does will change that. Nothing the state does will change that.

    Who and under what conditions other people chose to enter into partnerships with is of zero concern for me. I am just not qualified to dictate that to them.

  • ||

    It's not so much concern. I'm more baffled by the 'sardonic' and 'aloof' theme running through the article. Regnerus may have little data to support his claims, but they're hardly criminal or otherwise overtly wrong and aren't really disputed in the article.

    It comes across like a bad parody of the mentally handicapped (not that Regnerus is). Just like the devout were concerned about people 'catching the gay', Shackford seems concerned at even a whiff of implication of homosexuals for *anything* will lead to a wave of gay night club fires or something.

  • ||

    Shackford seems concerned at even a whiff of implication of homosexuals for *anything* will lead to a wave of gay night club fires or something.

    You are aware that two parent gay adoption isn't universally legal in the US, right? This flawed study was flogged heavily by groups like the AFA and FRC as "proof" that gays shouldn't be raising children to whip up opposition to gays having the most stable legal arrangements for raising children. I can't imagine why anyone would find him a worthy target of derision.

  • ||

    Married religious men wrestle with sexuality and marriage in light of changing definitions of marriage... better put a stop to that before they start bombing gay pride parades.
    /GAYZ EQUALZ!

    You do realize Rengerus was speaking at a Franciscan University and not at a Congressional hearing or in a District Court, right?

    Criticizing someone for doing so, especially without providing any superior form of data or 'proof' to refute or discuss claims made strikes me as violating the NAP and drives toward violating Regnerus' 1st amendment rights for both speech and religion.

    And yes, I'm aware that two parent gay adoption isn't universally legal in the US and that's a good thing. Believe it or not, there might actually be some downsides (or upsides) but you'd never know if there weren't different cultures and customs to compare and contrast. Legislatively mandating equality doesn't make things equal (see gender and race relations).

    If you really didn't believe Regnerus's proposition, or really did believe that what he was asserting was happening, unless you're some meddlesome bureaucrat, what's the problem?

  • ||

    better put a stop to that before they start bombing gay pride parades.

    You're terrible at using hyperbole to make a point. You should try other forms of humor, they might suit you better.

    drives toward violating Regnerus' 1st amendment rights for both speech and religion.

    You sir are retarded and likely a troll. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from derision for that speech.

    unless you're some meddlesome bureaucrat

    Or if you're a meddlesome legislator who believes that gays are icky and is looking for a "scientific" reason so you don't look like an asshole.

  • ||

    You're terrible at using hyperbole to make a point. You should try other forms of humor, they might suit you better.

    Have you seen/heard the speech? Is there some call to action or proposed legislation you disagree with? Does he cite some data that you believe to be untrue? Do you have data any to cntradict his supposition? Or do you just disagree with him because of who he is or because of some popular opinion of him?

    The whole fuking article trolling! Deriding speech withot any explicit evidence, proof, or talking points (other than he used words homosexuals and promiscuity in the same speech!) certainly isn't some noble exercise of free speech.

    I don't agree with Regnerus because I'm anti-homosexual. I agree with Regnerus because I talk to married women about being promiscuous.

    Or if you're a meddlesome legislator who believes that gays are icky and is looking for a "scientific" reason so you don't look like an asshole.

    First, you are saying homosexuality can't, be considered icky, socially or legally, even if there is compelling evidence to support it. Which is the same zealotry as saying they are icky even if the evidence doesn't. Also, your statement is akin to criticizing Nietszche for Nazi Germany or Adam Smith for American Imperialism.

    There's freedom of speech, freedom of derisive speech, and then there's mocking people just for entertaining ideas that you might not share or simply because they are different.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Freedom of speech includes the freedom to call out others.

  • Uncle Joe||

    "There's freedom of speech, freedom of derisive speech, and then there's mocking people just for entertaining ideas that you might not share or simply because they are different."

    Being mocked isn't suppressing anyone's rights. We have a right to speech, but not to a receptive audience.

    Regnerus makes statements with no evidence to back them up. Others latch on to his work to back up their (ahem) positions.

    Those of us who care about evidence, can point out the lack until he comes up with substance, or fades into obscurity. My money is on obscurity.

  • ||

    "Or if you're a meddlesome legislator who believes that gays are icky and is looking for a "scientific" reason so you don't look like an asshole."
    THIS!

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Way too many people have been raised by same-sex couples for your stance to hold any water.

  • Zeb||

    The thing is that the meaning and definition of marriage has never been static. The purpose of marriage and the roles of the participants have changed enormously though history.

    I really don't think that gay marriage has any part in causing recent changes in attitudes about marriage. Rather, both phenomena result from changing attitudes about sexual propriety in general. When having children without being married is socially acceptable and being married and choosing not to have children is practical, of course marriage is going to have a different role in society than it used to have.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    What does same-sex marriage have to do with promiscuity?

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Hey, my alma mater!

  • Agammamon||

    Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common

    Goddamnit gay people.

    First you started this whole 'art and theater' thing, then it was revitalizing economically depressed neighborhoods and now, now look what you're doing - forcing people to actually *communicate* their wants and needs in a relationship. You're actually making *married* couples TALK to each other.

    What monstrous thing will you do next.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    What monstrous thing will you do next.

    They might teach women that men should be muscular, with very defined abs. They might even teach women that men can dress well.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey! Real men have curves.

  • PD Scott||

    "Is that what a real man is supposed to look like?"

  • ||

    In the strict context of 'art and theatre economy'. I defy you to show me a local economy turned around by 'art and theatre'.

    Around here, every community 'turned around' by art and theatre is offset by the collapse of a historical art and theatre community.

    My understanding is that the notion of culturally enriching the ghettos out of poverty is grossly exaggerated and that it's, at best, a zero sum game. It's not like the upscale patrons of any MoMA are clamouring for a chance to visit a shithole, even if they did want 'street art' they'd want it displayed in waterfront gallerie nestled amongst the commercial and residential high rises.

  • ||

    Not a fan of Jane Jacobs I take it? I was just in Mitte in Berlin which used to be the heart of the arts scene but has been taken over by high end chain retailers. The artists and designers have moved on to other areas and Mitte is more prosperous than it was. The area is invigorated temporarily and will decline eventually. In the meantime the artists and hipsters are spending time and money in Kreuzberg which is an absolute shithole but will begin improving and becoming more desirable.

    The process isn't to make every portion of a city wealthy and prosperous, but gentrification and decay allow a wide range of living and working options while preventing any one area from rotting so completely as to become a hellhole.

    /ridiculously oversimplified gloss

  • ||

    Anti-urban?... Urban-animus?... Nostalgic?

    When a Detroit (or Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Buffalo...) turns into a ghost town, I don't shed a tear. I am saddened when I see a Mountain View or Boulder of 20-30 yrs. ago turn into what they are today.

    /also glossed over

  • Azathoth!!||

    Any mention of the Regenrus study brings to mind it's problems, and more importantly, the reason for those problems. And the only real statistic that meant anything.

    Regenrus couldn't find enough gay parents for a valid statistical study so he redefined 'gay' in a massively overbroad manner.

    But the important part is--Regenrus couldn't find enough gay parents for a valid statistical study.

    This is, therefore, a nonexistant "problem"--on either side of the coin. So why care? Just like the question of more kink.

  • ||

    So why care?

    I think it's pretty obvious by this statement that you hate both children and gays.

    /sarcasm?

  • Brian||

    He classified having more sexual partners and smoking marijuana as among the negative things children of gay parents may experience.

    There's the problem with the study right there: this guy has no idea how to have a good time.

  • VicRattlehead||

    We need to kidnap him and take a trip to TJ so he can see a donkey show

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Re the alt-text:

    What if gay marriage causes women to think men like to talk about their feelings? WHAT THEN???

    That actually does sound like a problem.

  • VicRattlehead||

    The ones I've met already do, despite how many times I have to say don't ask me stupid questions they always ask "what are you thinking?" as if I am always thinking about something if I'm not expunging air out my mouth hole without making sounds its the most fucking irritating thing in the fucking world makes you almost want to choke a bitch

  • Uncle Joe||

    "...its the most fucking irritating thing in the fucking world makes you almost want to choke a bitch"

    COME & GET HIM, GIRLS! HE'S SINGLE!!

  • GILMORE||

    "While lots of sex and marijuana use..."

    I'm a little miffed I wasn't included in the final study results, despite apparently being part of the experiment for the last 20+ years.

    He should have mentioned that these people also tend to end up having unnecessarily large record collections. Which *can* be a problem. Especially late at night when you're high and just had sex, and look at them and realize, translating them instantly into all the money you spent, "Holy shit, I could have bought a Porsche."

    Well, maybe a cheap Porsche.

  • VicRattlehead||

    -or gotten crisp clear digital music and spent the rest of that money on more weed and hookers

  • VicRattlehead||

    Yes the gays did it to me.... not the free internet porn, or the Japanese hentai, or just an inherent desire for the rush of doing something taught to be socially unacceptable... nope it was them scary GAYYYSSSS OMG!!!111!!!*hides face*

  • AlgerHiss||

    Can one be tri-gendered and bi-specied at the same time?

  • gaoxiaen||

    So... the gays are causing the Great Human Shortage!

  • gaoxiaen||

    So... the gays are causing the Great Human Shortage!

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    People are always going to reproduce.

    On one side people say there are too many and on the other they say there are two few. Both are insane.

  • gaoxiaen||

    !

  • Mark22||

    Apparently, most men are homosexual and they sleep with women only because social conservatives and the law force them to. Who knew! Men must be excellent actors, because a lot of them sure as hell act as if they really like breasts.

  • newshutz||

    In the future, everyone will be gay married for 15 minutes

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement