San Francisco Study: Monogamy Rare in Homosexual Relationships

I’ve examined the appalling lack of monogamy in homosexual relationships before. It’s well documented from a variety of sources including Psychology Today, as well as the work of homosexual researchers David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, the homosexual magazine Genre, the Washington Blade, The Handbook of Family Diversity, U.S. Census data, and studies in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a study by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University which affirms what we already knew: monogamy in even “committed” homosexual relationships is rare.

Hoff, who just received a $3.5 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to continue the study for five more years, initially started her research based on findings that HIV infection is on the rise among male couples.

“So much of the HIV prevention effort is aimed at a different set – men in dance clubs or bathhouses having anonymous sex,” she said. “HIV prevention might want to expand its message to address relationships; we have to look at risk in a greater context.”

In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.

As other studies and reports have shown, even “monogamy” usually has a very different meaning for homosexuals. The loosest definition in the dictionary for monogamy is “the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time,” yet many homosexuals “redefine” monogamy to mean whatever provides them with the greatest emotional comfort: always coming home to the same person no matter how many others you have sex with elsewhere; only having sex with another person if your “partner” is present; always telling your partner about the other people you had sex with, etc.

One of those interviewed for this study affirmed this:

“When we started this study, we felt we didn’t know many people with open relationships, but now our friend set is much more diverse,” said Lowen, 57. “People we didn’t think were open turned out to be. It’s just not talked about that much.”

That is one reason why the fallacy of parity between homosexual relationships and marriage has gained the traction it has in the last 10 years: the truth is rarely discussed. What’s more, in the absence of not only candor and clarity in the debate but even critical thought, the issue receives little more than a “Yeah, whatever” acceptance from pop culture.

Meanwhile, the most important institution and building block of society is being redefined right out from under us.

“It’s a redefinition of marriage,” Spears said. “The emotional commitment, the closeness, all of it is there.”

Yes, it definitely is a “redefinition” of marriage, as there is a redefinition of monogamy. The thing is, words have a specific meaning for a reason. Words are used to convey information that is usable and reliable to all parties in the communication. When there is a high degree of instability and unreliability in the words we use, communication breaks down and the words we pass to another person lose their meaning. No one wants to either say or hear meaningless babble.

Yet that is exactly what we create when we engage in or acquiesce to the “redefinition” of words and terms, especially when those words describe critically important societal institutions and concepts. ¬†The tremendous health risks and reduction in longevity in homosexuals aside, we are squandering a societal treasure by embracing these deceptions.

Just as we devalue legal currency when we allow counterfeits and fakes to be passed as the genuine article, we devalue and render meaningless the institutions and principles we allow to be counterfeited and “redefined.”

If homosexuals insist on engaging in this unhealthy behavior, no one is trying to stop them, but undermining fundamental human institutions is unacceptable.  Marriage is too important to people, to society and to children for us to allow it to be hijacked in this manner.

27 Responses to “San Francisco Study: Monogamy Rare in Homosexual Relationships”

  1. Get back to me when you do a study of Gay couples in the “Flyover States” as well as a study of committed (but unmarried) Straight couples in the San Francisco area.

  2. If you examine all those studies I mentioned, the rates vary little geographically, and homosexual monogamy is always extremely rare compared to heterosexual monogamy.

  3. THANK-YOU!!! Its about time somebody said it!

  4. Long live straight

  5. Over half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce… mostly due to infidelity.

    Consider the fact, too, that some folks choose to remain married despite the cheating.

    Do the math… the majority of heterosexual relationships are not monogamous, either.

  6. That figure of “half” comes from the fact that often when someone divorces once or more, they frequently become serial marriers/divorcers. This behavior by people who have almost as little respect for marriage as homosexuals skews the numbers.

    You are also incorrect about the level of infidelity. That is one of many reasons for divorce with communication issues being the #1 cause.

    You really should read not only the report cited in this article, but the considerable studies like it that have found exactly the same thing: monogamy is far more rare among homosexuals–frighteningly so.

    There's just no positive spin you can put on homosexual behavior–not even by pointing out the failures of some heterosexuals.

  7. “people who have almost as little respect for marriage as homosexuals”

    So no gay people anywhere have any respect for marriage? Mate, that's a simple and straightforward slander.

    But then, this entire post, which twists a research study and quotes it out of context to make it say things it doesn't actually say, is also a slander. Nothing new there, then.


  8. I have found homosexual women to be among the most monogomous couples going. Your story is only appearing to be representative of homosexual males. Shouldn't that be stated?

  9. If someone behaves sexually in a manner that shows disrespect for marriage as the proper setting for sexual expression, then yes, homosexuals (and heterosexual promiscuity) show disrespect for marriage.

    The facts speak for themselves, but I realize they are unpleasant for you. They indicate you should make a change that you don't want to make. Lord Keynes once addressed this intransigence when he said, “When the facts [as I know them] change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    Obviously some people ignore them.

  10. Homosexual women are more monogamous than homosexual men. However, their monogamy rates are still lower than heterosexual women. I have heard homosexual women described as “serial monogamists”–essentially meaning that they tend to stay with one person for either a shorter or longer duration…before moving on to yet another partner.

    That may constitute monogamy at one single point in time, but it isn't actual monogamy that involves being joined with one person for an extended duration (i.e. many years).

  11. Thanks for bring up that question so Bob could address it. I had kind of wondered about that myself.

    Anyway, when it comes down to it, one can react to homosexual behavior in only two different ways: (1) disapprove of it; or (2) in some way disregard, gloss over, or be ignorant of the facts about it. (Well, some people manage to do both, but that's another story.)

  12. I'd call South Dakota a “fly-over” state, and yet a good friend from that state who is homosexual has told me stories of promiscuity that are jaw-dropping. It may come as a surprise to many normal folks in conservative locales, but even in po-dunk areas of conservative states, there is at least one “gay” bar, which may be rather inconspicuous, within easy driving distance. These bars are overwhelmingly the epicenter of homosexual culture, where flesh is marketed daily, and where the agenda of the activist is largely drawn up.

  13. “… “serial monogamists”–essentially meaning that they tend to stay with one person for either a shorter or longer duration…before moving on to yet another partner. …”

    I think the term you're actually looking for here is “dating”…

    And I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you yourself dated more than one woman (some for longer than others) before you met your current wife.

  14. Now see, I choose to disapprove of heterosexuality: its ripe with sexism, pornography, divorce, infidelity, hypocritical, manipulative and arrogant. The USA's economic system rewards couples for having children in exchange for tax breaks; straight women in particular would rather have children than a husband. And straight men would rather have lap dances and topless dancers serve them chicken on their lunch hour than go home and say hi to their wives who are playing soccer mom for the kids.

    No one has a right to disapprove of anyone's sexuality, or say that another person's “marriage” is counterfeit to yours based on “mainstream storybook values” that have very little to do with love, virtue and respect or “Real Life” for that matter.

    I appreciate where you're coming from Bob, and how you're trying to spin objective facts into homophobic “Tea Party' rhetoric but you're way off the mark. You're also out of touch with the culture you're critiquing – maybe there's a deeper reason for that. Average heterosexual folk really don't care – unless of course they're trying to convince themselves and others that they're not gay. So maybe thou dost protest too much for a reason….?

  15. “Dating” for many conservative people doesn't mean what homosexuals and promiscuous fraternity types mean. It means what it used to mean not too long ago: time together to get to know each other and each other's families and friends before committing to a lifelong relationship which included sex. How “dating” got to be so grotesquely contorted in meaning reminds me of how “gay” has also been debased.

  16. Nicely put NH. I agree with pretty much everything you write. I would add to your list of problems with heterosuxuality, which perhaps fits under “sexism,” that it's ripe with sexual abuse as well. There's either stupendous naivete or willful ignorance in the writer's take on heterosexual marriage. If as a culture we ever get to the adult point of acknowledging reality and dropping the childish storybook values, perhaps we'll start having more honest, and therefore deeper and more meaningful, relationships with the ones we purport to love.

  17. Let me re-word that for you….

    If heterosexuals insist on engaging in this unhealthy behavior, no one is trying to stop them, but undermining fundamental human institutions is unacceptable. Marriage is too important to people, to society and to children for us to allow it to be hijacked in this manner.”

    I can send you a report on a long-term study of lesbian familes (20 year) that proves that gay couples are no more unhealthy for children than opposite sex couples. In fact, molestation/sexual abuse is more prevalent in opposite sex couples than in lesbian couples.

  18. I agree that it is unacceptable for heterosexuals to attempt to undermine marriage, and acknowledge that there are a number of “useful idiots” who have joined homosexual activists in doing so. You'll get no argument on that here.

    As to the so-called study you mentioned, I am familiar with it. To begin, it defies common sense that the intentional deprivation of a child from having a father (or mother) is neutral or beneficial. Both sexes make invaluable contributions to the development and balance of growing children.

    Additionally, the recent study involved a laughably small group–78 children of lesbians and 93 children in the control group. The study consisted not of a random sampling but of people who deliberately volunteered for the study. The findings are also based on the reports of the mothers, not on objective measurements, and few mothers (homosexual or heterosexual) will be straight about the developmental problems of their children. There was also no effort to control and adjust for other influencing factors. In other words, it was a puff-piece designed to whitewash the pitfalls of homosexual parenting. Transparent propaganda such as this is why the medical and scientific community has lost so much credibility in the last 40 years.

    Meanwhile, the findings of an enormous number of clinical research projects paints a horrible picture of the environment in which the child of a homosexual has to endure. Domestic violence is far more prevalent among homosexuals, especially lesbians, subjecting the child to a greater likelihood of being caught in the crossfire of domestic violence. Homosexuals also have much higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, various forms of substance abuse, depression and suicide. This is not a good environment to deliberately subject a child to.

    DOJ and other statistical sources show child abuse rates of boys by homosexuals at more than 7 times that of sexual abuse rates of girls by heterosexuals. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, for instance, reports homosexuals molest boys at a rate 5 times greater than heterosexual men molest girls. There is also strong evidence of a correlation between childhood sexual abuse and the rate of homosexuality in adults. In other words, children who are molested are more likely to become homosexuals as adults, which makes sense since the abuse strongly throws their sense of sexual normality off kilter.

    Sorry, I can't allow you to peddle homosexual propaganda unchallenged. This lifestyle is dangerous enough for the adult practicing homosexual. It is morally reprehensible to expose vulnerable, developing children to it.

  19. The equation of monogamy = good is fallacious to start with. There are many types of relationships, including gay monogamous ones. It's human history, and all the better reason to take a cultural anthropology course at your local community college sometime. Fascinating stuff, really.

    People have the right to decide what's best for themselves, and it's called autonomy. Ignorant people generalize groups, and straight folks, given their penchant for divorce (one in two marriages, in fact, end in divorce), aren't in a position to lecture anyone else. Charity begins at home.


    A San Franciscan gay male who has been in a seven year, monogamous relationship and outlasted my straight peers' average. In other words, you should be listening to me. Peace.

  20. re: “'Dating' for many conservative people doesn't mean what homosexuals and promiscuous fraternity types mean. It means what it used to mean not too long ago: time together to get to know each other and each other's families and friends before committing to a lifelong relationship which includes sex.”

    Oh, we 'get' what dating means. Apparently, you don't get us and that's why you can only see us in a way that fits your belief, but it's not reality.

    re: “How “dating” got to be so grotesquely contorted in meaning reminds me of how “gay” has also been debased.”

    The only way 'gay' has been debased comes from negative sources with delicate sensibilities and a nasty way of seeing a group of people. We took it back after those keepers neglected to do anything meaningful with it. We gave it beauty and love, and I'll thank you for your respect.

  21. No, it's called “promiscuity,” and it is well documented, as well as widely admitted within the homosexual community. Hundreds if not thousands of sex partners, often anonymously, is not “dating.”

    You can put perfume on a pig, but it's still a pig.

  22. I'm afraid you DON'T get what dating means. I know enough homosexuals to know what the culture is about, and for them, “dating” is actually a step beyond sex, which is often the first contact homosexuals have with each other as opposed to what most normal people would consider a casual introduction: a handshake.

    It's almost funny – the new meme from the homo-activists is that as more people get to know “out and proud” homosexuals that they will start to see them more and more as normal people. I remember several people growing up, before homosexuality began it's push for the mainstream, who I suspected, or later found out were in this lifestyle, but not knowing for sure, I had much more respect for them. My level of disgust for these activists behavior is now at ever-increasing levels, and I'm convinced that I'm not alone by a longshot.

    Homosexual activists not only pervert the language, they pervert the reality behind and undergirding language. The bizarro world of the homosexual takes love, God, scripture, marriage, tolerance, reproduction, and innocence and makes a mockery of all of them in ways that are truly twisted and demonic.

  23. Bob,
    Not only do homosexuals admit the rampant promiscuity in their community, they either shrug it off or praise its benefits! Not being content to wallow in this sewer themselves, they encourage others, mostly our children, to join in through BAGLY, GLSN and other porn-pushing organizations in our schools.

  24. Are any of us saying that sexism, pornography and divorce are OK? Obviously not. Are any of those things inherent or inevitable results of normal (i.e., “heterosexual”) sexuality? Of course not. The elephant in the living room that you're missing is that all the bad things you name are not players on the *opposing* team from homosexuality — they're players on the *same* team. All those things, along with homosexuality, are *opposed* to sexuality as it was designed to work. To try to justify the sin of homosexuality by mentioning other sexual sins just doesn't work.

    And “No one has a right to disapprove of anyone's sexuality”? Where does that come from? By that logic, no one has the right to disapprove of bestiality or predatory pedophilia either. Once again, it doesn't work.

    I know it's tough for you to make a point when all reality goes against that point. So you need to be putting all that brain energy into something else.

  25. “A San Franciscan gay male who has been in a seven year, monogamous relationship and outlasted my straight peers' average.”
    Well, counterfeits *always* involve less work than the real thing, so you're not really making the point you think you're making. It's easy to maintain a shallow physical “relationship” that doesn't involve unselfishly working with an opposite partner.

    And frankly, having been through a divorce (albeit one falling in the top 1% of justifiability) and struggled with porn addiction, I would not consider myself “better” than the homosexual. We're all sinners, folks. The difference is, I'm admitting my sin and doing whatever it takes to get beyond it. And I would ask anyone else, gay or normal: What are *you* doing with your sin? Claiming it's not sin and continuing to wallow in it unrepentantly? Then it is *you*, my friend, who waive the right to make judgment calls.

  26. Have you turned on your tv lately…?!

    Every other commercial is catering to the promiscuous heterosexual… condom commercials, his and hers lubricants, male enhancement pills, once a month birth control, 1-800 chat lines, alcohol commercials promoting club-hopping and casual sex., Victoria's Secret, Match/eHarmony/Koosh dot coms, Hooters, Trojan fingertip devices, etc, etc, etc.

    And you're worried about the obscure safe-sex literature that's being selectively handed out to members of gay high school and college student organizations…?!

  27. Uh, yes. As bad as all this is, we do not need to make it even worse by adding further sexual irresponsibility. I've never considered throwing gasoline on a fire a good way to put out the blaze.

    Young people are also more directly influenced when authority figures and authority settings promote things to them, than when casually exposed to them.