SAME-SEX UNIONS ARE DIFFERENT

Prepared by REAL Women of Canada
February 2003

Same-sex unions are different from heterosexual marriages. Don’t take it from us, but from the experts on the topic – a homosexual couple themselves - a psychiatrist, Dr. David McWhirter, and a psychologist, Dr. Andrew Mattison, who had been cohabiting together for a twelve-year period at the time they studied 156 other homosexual couples. Their findings were described in their book, The Male Couple, published by Prentice-Hall in 1984.

Although the book was published some time ago, there is no reason to believe that the conclusions reached would be different today, especially since we now live in an even more permissive society than when the study was conducted. Moreover, no one can claim that their study is biased, as it is written by homosexuals for the benefit of homosexual couples. Their findings are both fascinating and revealing.

The study reveals, first of all, that since homosexual couples lack models for their relationships, other than the traditional heterosexual one, they are required to establish different ways to maintain their relationship. In effect, the values and practices that are the cornerstone of heterosexual relationships are generally absent from male unions. According to the authors, some of the qualities identified with stability and intimacy between opposite-sex partners are actually detrimental to homosexual couples.

Male relationships the study finds, acquire unique features that distinguish them from heterosexual couples, and, apparently, lead to a quite different social script, These differences include the following:

Sexual Infidelity

One of the most explicit differences between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is that heterosexual couples enter their relationship both expecting and generally remaining sexually faithful to one other. However, few homosexual couples remain sexually monogamous throughout their relationship. According to the study, ninety-five percent of the couples studied had an arrangement whereby the partners had sexual activity with others outside their union. Only seven couples had totally exclusive relationships, and these had been together for fewer than five years. Simply stated, all homosexual couples in the study with a relationship lasting more than five years, had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship.

The findings also described that outside sexual encounters to male couples were regarded as stimulating and thought to improve relationships by broadening and varying their sexual repertoire. Understandably, jealousy can result from these outside sexual encounters. To avoid jealousy, some of the male couples studied engaged in three-way sexual activity with a friend or outsider, which then rendered the outside sexual encounter a “shared event” between the partners. That is, many homosexual couples maintained their sex life together by introducing other sexual partners and experimenting with new sexual opportunities. According to the authors, “fidelity” to male couples means an emotional commitment, but not sexual exclusivity.

The authors concluded that, far from undermining the relationship, the outside, sexual contacts contributed to the stability and longevity of their relationship. The authors stated:

In short, homosexual couples regard sex as recreational without emotional content. The partners regard their mutual freedom to express their sexuality with others as one of the most important factors in maintaining their bond.

Financial Management Between Male Partners

Another difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is that “equality” between two men is very different from that of opposite-sex partners.

Due to biology, tradition or practicality, in most heterosexual relationships, the woman is usually dependent upon the man for financial support of the family since he often has the greater earning power. While modern feminism has demanded changes to this arrangement in the heterosexual partnership, only a small percentage of male-female couples have succeeded in establishing a substantially different pattern – especially when children are born to that union. Lacking a difference in gender, however, the expectation in same-sex unions is that each partner will take care of himself financially. That is, male partners in a relationship remain as single financial entities. Male couples retain this financially separate independence indefinitely, unless they are able to establish that rarity in same-sex unions, a relationship that lasts twenty or more years. Only at that time does there appear to be any attempt to share finances.

In summary, the money in male unions is managed differently in that it does not go into a joint financial arrangement as it does in traditional heterosexual unions. Instead, each partner puts in 50%, regardless of his income. Male couples apparently do not believe that they are “in this together”, as do heterosexual couples, but remain independent of each other both financially and sexually.

Skills Compatibility

Since there are no set “husband and wife” roles, each man usually can perform all necessary tasks at some level of competence. As a result, one of the male partners must develop what the authors describe as a “planned incompetence” so as to unlearn his level of competence in order to show appreciation for his partner, and to satisfy the other partner’s wishes and/or needs.

Finding “compatibility” in skills with each other which does not arise naturally as it does between different sexes, is frequently one of a male couple’s greatest challenges. According to this study this achievement is one of the most important factors in keeping them together as a couple.

Duration of Same-Sex Unions

The median for the length of time same-sex relationships were maintained in this study was 5.0 years. However, according to the authors, other researchers have found that male relationships commonly end at the end of the third year.

Male couples who have remained together the longest and who report the most satisfaction, usually have a wide disparity in ages. The authors believe that “gay men’s homing fantasies and longings for liaisons with their fathers may prove accurate for some male couples.” Moreover, the authors found that another characteristic of the homosexual partners was that they had experienced little or no male bonding during their formative years. This all suggests that a homosexual’s attraction to other men is based on psychological needs, not met as a child from his father and other male influences, rather than genetically based, as claimed by homosexual activists.

Male Couples’ Use of Drugs

Drug and alcohol use are an integral part of a same-sex union lifestyle. According to the authors, the majority of the male couples and individuals use drugs as a regular part of both their social and sexual lives. That is, extensive use and availability of drugs at the majority of social gatherings are a part of the homosexual sub-culture. According to these authors the widespread availability and use of drugs among homosexual men is due mainly to the to the fact that the use of drugs has the reputation of increased sexual enjoyment. The authors state:

The use of the nitrites, both amyl and butyl, has become common over the past decade. The ready availability of butyl nitrite as a legal, over-the-counter “incense” or “room deodorizer” has greatly increased its usage. … some of the younger participants have tried other drugs, such as methaqualone (Quaaludes or ludes), which has the reputation of being a potent aphrodisiac. Among all drugs, alcohol is far and away the most commonly used substance.

Same Sex Unions are Consensual Sexual Liaisons Only

Homosexual activists claim that their relationships are marginalized in society because they are not recognized in legal marriages. They also fiercely argue that their relationships are very similar to heterosexual relationships. This is not the case.

Homosexual activists want to make marriage “user-friendly”, tailored to the needs and wants of the self-interested adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Their cultural message is clear: marriage must have no essential relationship to long-term heterosexual bondings and children, but must be reduced to a cluster of perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in a consensual sexual liaison.

In a genuine marriage, however, there is set in motion a deep and permanent sexual and emotional bond between one man and one woman which is a life-long, complex, intimate, cohabitational, day-to-day, bonding of two sex-opposite lives. It is tailored to the complex challenges and struggles of long-term heterosexual bonding and the rearing of biological offspring. The heterosexual act in a marriage generates procreation, which weaves men, women and offspring into complex genealogical histories and kinship, forming bridges, from past, present and future generations.

Conclusion

Homosexual activists claim that their relationships operate from the same dynamics and meet similar needs as heterosexual unions and, therefore, should be treated the same in law. This study of 156 homosexual couples published in the book The Male Couple shows clearly that this is not the case. Not only are these homosexual unions, due to their biological limitations, unable to provide the important contribution to the continuation of our society by producing children, their relationships are essentially different in structure, values, practices, and longevity. Such relationships lack the cornerstone of heterosexual unions and should not be regarded as “marriages” in law.