Ordinary, Like Us
First published in the Chicago Free Press, May 7, 2008
Young gays and lesbians want to be married. And have kids.
That's what the first survey of the aspirations of gay and lesbian youth discovered.
Rockway Institute reported that more than 90 percent of the lesbians and more than 80 percent of the gay males they surveyed "expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30."
About two-thirds of the males and just over half of the females said they thought it was very likely they'd have children.
What's extraordinary about this is just how very ordinary it is.
Ordinary for mainstream society, I mean. When we think of straight young people, we assume they want to get married and have children. There are always those who don't, of course, but they tend to be eccentric outliers.
The gay community, though, has long assumed the opposite of itself (especially gay men), and the mainstream world has assumed the same. Gays were thought to be promiscuous. Gays were artists, not parents. Gays were the outrageous life of the party, not couples who were in bed by 10 p.m.
But maybe the ordinariness of the survey results should not be such a surprise.
The survey participants were 16- to 22-year-olds in urban areas; they've grown up in a world where there are out gay members of Congress, out celebrities and rock stars, out mayors and athletes and CEOs and writers.
They've grown up with gay-straight alliances in their schools, with classmates who had out and happy gay parents, with discussions about whether saying "That's so gay" constitutes prejudice.
Gay and lesbian youth want stable marriages and children?
Of course they do.
Because they have grown up in an America where being gay is starting to seem unremarkable. Where being gay doesn't need to mean living a particular way. Where being gay doesn't have to mean putting limits on your future.
Young gays and lesbians don't want to destroy "traditional marriage" the way social conservatives fear. They want to be traditional – and one state, Massachusetts, allows them to do that. Hopefully others will follow.
These young gay people want what many heterosexuals want: a home, a family, a purposeful life, a job they can pursue with passion. They want to work without fretting they'll be fired for being gay; they want to marry their sweetheart without having to hire a lawyer to make sure they can visit each other in the hospital; they want to raise kids without worrying that their child will be beaten up for having gay parents.
It is my theory – but I don't know this to be true – that as gay and lesbian role models diversify, as we have images of lesbians who drive trucks and lesbians who are fashion models, images of gay men who style hair and images of gay men who are dedicated dads, more people will feel comfortable (and have felt comfortable) coming out.
As it becomes clear that gay people are not all one thing, more people will realize that it is not fitting into the "lifestyle" that proves you are gay — it is not the "gay accent," or the lesbian's comfortable shoes, or the love of club music, or being a Democrat – it is simply loving and being attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
There have always been gays and lesbians who wanted monogamous partners and children, but until the past couple of years, they've been hidden from mainstream society by the gays and lesbians who get more attention – the promiscuous, the party-goers, the style tastemakers.
We love that part of our community. The absolutely fabulous gays are the ones that help define us as being creative, artistic, fun. They're the ones who help us feel special. Different.
But we're also the same.
And that basic similarity is what young gays and lesbians see right away. They have access to it. They know – already! at their age! – that they can have the life they want, whatever that life is.
They can do the party circuit. They can be successful government officials, or artists, or business owners. They can be parents.
Being gay doesn't limit them, because being gay is only one part of who they are. Or perhaps it's that the definition of being gay has expanded. It no longer means only eternal singlehood and a furtive life lived in gay bars and dark city parks. If a lesbian wants to be married, she doesn't have to pretend that she's living with her "best friend." If a gay man wants to be married, he doesn't have to marry a woman and then seek sex in public restrooms.
Now she can marry a woman, and he can marry a man.
And our gay and lesbian youth are planning to do exactly that.
Comments to "Ordinary, Like Us":
KamatariSeta | May 8, 2008, 10:35am | #
""""Ordinary for mainstream society, I mean. When we think of straight young people, we assume they want to get married and have children. There are always those who don't, of course, but they tend to be eccentric outliers.""""
I don't think this is nearly as unusual as it may have been in the past. While the ones who don't get married may still be a small number, there are more and more married couples who just don't have kids for whatever reason.
James | May 8, 2008, 12:29pm | #
In one way I loved this article - anything that reduces the perceived "oddness" is welcome. However, I agree with another responder that being single is not being an "eccentric outlier." Being single is far more common now. I was married for 22 years and have been divorced and single for 5 - guess which I prefer? I got married because I felt pressured to do so - I should have remained single. I am bi but that is not the main point - society just said that being single was eccentric. The world has moved on. Secondly, I am not sure that the gay population should necessarily follow the straight community in what it does - it might be wrong!
Pepe Johnson | May 8, 2008, 2:28pm | #
I think part of this is function of population growth. More people, more visibility. GLBT people are both ordinary and different at the same time. Everyone of us is an individual regardless of orientation. I'm 29, so I'm older than the survey participants, but still young enough to feel much as they do. Thanks for this posting.
Michigan-Matt | May 8, 2008, 4:21pm | #
I wonder if others took as much solace in this piece as I did because, the people and the values these gay youth (16-22) are identifying with and expressing -monogamy, settling down, putting down roots in a community beyond the gay ghetto, becoming parents- are values M-M partner and I (as well as a minority of other gay partnered adults) share.
I hope the 16-22 yr olds who have these values and vision for their future can withstand the adverse reactions of most gays in our community... where monogamity is considered "strange, unnatural" by some gsy peers, parenting is downright considered a "sell-out to the breeders" by other gays and thinking of your self or your family as more than "just gay first" is perceived as being a traitor to the true gay nature of today and days gone by.
You may be smiling, but seriously, there is a very sizable segment of our gay community who think the values these young gays are expressing are seditious to the gay lifestyle.
Diversity is a great tool for growth in the mainstream culture, I wonder if this kind of diversity can withstand the adverse tensions in our community writ large?
Charles Wilson | May 12, 2008, 12:35am | #
settling down, putting down roots in a community beyond the gay ghetto, becoming parents- are values M-M partner and I (as well as a minority of other gay partnered adults) share.
How quaint, Michigan Matt. You are a Log Cabinette with "values." And you are superior to most gay people, including your "friends", you you described in such glowing terms: "… most of our gay friends (not all) are not upwardly mobile, career advancing or flush with disposable cash. Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up."
But when it came to Matt Sanchez, the never-gay, anti-gay Republican gay whore,/a>, it would seem that your values when on vacation. You pronounced that, at $200-$250 an hour, your friend the ex-Marine hustler "was a bargain in any book. Woof. Damn."
Would you care to reconcile you publicly-declared lust for a male prostitute with your model rectitude? Or does being a Republican wingnut mean never having to explain yourself? Ha!
Charles Wilson | May 12, 2008, 12:36am | #
settling down, putting down roots in a community beyond the gay ghetto, becoming parents- are values M-M partner and I (as well as a minority of other gay partnered adults) share.
How quaint, Michigan Matt. You are a Log Cabinette with "values." And you are superior to most gay people, including your "friends", you you described in such glowing terms: "… most of our gay friends (not all) are not upwardly mobile, career advancing or flush with disposable cash. Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up."
But when it came to Matt Sanchez, the never-gay, anti-gay Republican gay whore, it would seem that your values when on vacation. You pronounced that, at $200-$250 an hour, your friend the ex-Marine hustler "was a bargain in any book. Woof. Damn."
Would you care to reconcile you publicly-declared lust for a male prostitute with your model rectitude? Or does being a Republican wingnut mean never having to explain yourself? Ha!
Joel | May 12, 2008, 11:30pm | #
This survey might come as shock to MANY ppl. Guess when you normalize homosexuality, it becomes what it is, normal.
Im 20... and more from a rural background but still. That embryo adoption i heard not too long ago sounds very intriguing, interesting and would be the first alternative for adoption for me.
Michigan-Matt | May 13, 2008, 9:57am | #
Memo to Charles Wilson: the IGNORE button is "ON'. Take your meds.
Charles Wilson | May 13, 2008, 8:03pm | #
Memo to Charles Wilson: the IGNORE button is "ON'. Take your meds.
Matt, you do realize that you're not even telling the truth about "ignoring" me, right? What do they do when you join the Log Cabinettes? Give you some sort of specialized lobotomy? Ha!
North Dallas Thirty | May 14, 2008, 1:05am | #
LOL....we have to remember that Charles Wilson thinks his "partner's" death was a "normal" part of life for gay people.
On Sept. 22, 2004, he died of the combined effects of AIDS and chronic alcoholism.
Pretty neat trick, considering that, according to Wilson, his partner "wasn't promiscuous".
My partner wasn't promiscuous. I never gave any indication that he was.
So tell us, Wilson; how did your partner, who you claim wasn't having sex with anyone else and had never at any time been promiscuous, as in having sex with multiple partners, end up with HIV?
Oh, and by the way, I took the liberty of archiving the site where I found you admitting your partner's death -- since you seem to have a habit of deleting website pages to cover your tracks, "willysnout1".
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 2:11am | #
So tell us, Wilson; how did your partner, who you claim wasn't having sex with anyone else and had never at any time been promiscuous, as in having sex with multiple partners, end up with HIV?
Long before we met, my partner was with someone else. That person played around on the side and contacted HIV. This was at the time when it was known as "GRID." He was one of the first people to die from it. Tragically, my partner was infected. Fortunately, I never was.
So, North Liar Forty, I hope you're satisfied. And let's hope, for your sake and I suppose mine, that we never meet.
North Dallas Thirty | May 14, 2008, 2:23am | #
Long before we met, my partner was with someone else.
Oh, I see; so your partner WAS promiscuous, even though you specifically claimed he wasn't.
So, North Liar Forty, I hope you're satisfied.
It's a start.
And I can't figure out what you're upset about, since you consider your partner's death to have been "normal" for gay people. Aren't you proud of how he died? After all, it shows that he lived the full promiscuous, substance-abusing gay lifestyle that you champion as being required to really be "out".
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 2:43am | #
No, North Liar Forty, he was with someone else in a relationship. My partner was monogamous; unfortunately, the other person was neither monogamous nor honest. No, I'm not "proud" of how he died. It makes me sad to think about it. His life could have been so much better than it was.
North Dallas Thirty | May 14, 2008, 2:55am | #
My partner was monogamous; unfortunately, the other person was neither monogamous nor honest.
What do you mean, "unfortunately"?
After all, Wilson, you claimed that those who support monogamy and responsibility in relationships are "from 1958" and that they are out of touch with "more enlightened" people like yourself, who fully endorse and support promiscuous sex outside of relationships.
The other guy is not to blame; he simply took the advice of you and your fellow promiscuous gay libertines who were out having "fun" and insisting that other gays who weren't following your leftist and promiscuous sexual beliefs were "closeted" and "self-hating".
His life could have been so much better than it was.
How so? He did the substance abuse and promiscuous sex that you require of "out" gay people. He never fell into that "1958" mentality of sexual responsibility and monogamy; he fooled around with other people and drank, just like "real gays" like you support.
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 3:06am | #
After all, Wilson, you claimed that those who support monogamy and responsibility in relationships are "from 1958" and that they are out of touch with "more enlightened" people like yourself, who fully endorse and support promiscuous sex outside of relationships.
North Liar Forty, I never made any such claims and you know it.
Patrick | May 14, 2008, 8:12am | #
North Dallas 30, Charles has a severe problem with social relationships and interacting with adults; that's clear from the abundant evidence.
He's been kicked off many blogs, discussion boards, community forums and internet groups for his angry, mean-spirited, petty personal attacks on other commenters at those sites. Just like here with Michigan-Matt, Brian, Bobby, you and others.
If I had been partnered to the guy, I think I would have been an alcoholic just to cope with his manicly self-destructive, obsessive stalking behavior patterns.
How manic is the behavior today? Probably just as bad as it's always been. After all, this is the guy who was so vicious and petulant to other commenters that even the Democrat Underground blogmasters (a site well known for particularly drawing angry, frustrated people to its fold) had to delete his personal attacks on fellow left-wingers and ban him for a while from their site. SO even among people just like him, who value pettiness and personal attacks, Charles was too severe.
That is breath-taking!
On one of the travel blogs he's frequented, his reputation as a pain-in-the-ass and vindictive, mean-spirited commenter has brought many commenters to ask others who engage in a caustic comment if they are willysnout... under a different name. He's become the very definition of people who wantonly engage in petty personal attacks. That is so lame on so many levels.
North Dallas 30, you are also correct in the claim that Charles tries to eliminate websites and entries to cover his tracks as willysnout, wet willy, ww, willnsnout2, Charles Wilson, CW and more. In one gay blog's thread on Charles’s most intense obsession, journalist Matt Sanchez, Charles adopted up to 7 different personalities just so he could debate with himself.
Charles makes James Carville look tame, polite and well-mannered by comparison.
The problem is, he keeps spoiling and fouling the threads to a point where rational inquiry is abused and he drives people away with his personal attacks.
What's his pattern after someone finally bans him from yet another site? He goes to other sites to scream about how fascistic the old site was, then he uses the site he just demeaned for references, and completes the loop as Resident Hypocrite. It's amazingly anti-social behavior. Charles did it again just this week here on I.G.F.
Yes, I think I would have been an alcoholic if I had had a Charles in my life. I’m sorry for his loss but that can’t be used as an excuse to continue his anti-social, pathological personal attacks.
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 1:27pm | #
Patrick, where do you come up with this stuff?!
Michigan-Matt | May 14, 2008, 1:29pm | #
Patrick, it's not just that he's anti-social, it's a pathology for him.
I too am sorry for the loss of his partner to such a tragic, horrible end, but using your dead partner as an excuse to engage in petty, mean-spirited personal attacks against complete strangers who simply disagree with his radical views, seems pathological.
Pathetic, but pathologically anti-social.
Michigan-Matt | May 14, 2008, 1:32pm | #
CharlesWilson asks: "Patrick, where do you come up with this stuff?!"
Can I answer, Patrick?
Patrick gets it from the records you leave behind on the net and your own sordid conduct there. What was that classic line: "hoisted on his own petard"?
How fitting for KingCharles.
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 2:32pm | #
Michigan Matt, does this mean you are no longer "ignoring" me? Ha! Woof. Damn.
Patrick | May 14, 2008, 3:48pm | #
Charles, I hope he does. I left you a reply to the challenge of finding your "asian stir fry" remark.
Here:
http://independentgayforum.com/blog/show/31517.html#16815
Charles Wilson | May 14, 2008, 4:27pm | #
Patrick, I responded to you there. Let's see if, for once, we can avoid reposting the same thing in several threads at a time.
Patrick | May 14, 2008, 7:07pm | #
Charles, that wasn't a response... that was you avoiding the question, denying any responsibility for your uncivil conduct and spinning it all into another ranting spew-fest with foaming spittle.
Here's what I wrote in response to the lie you make as a claim directly above.
"Patrick, where do you come up with this stuff?!"
I guess your lying is unstoppable. You were hoping that no one could catch you on your racist remarks about tropical disasters being just "asian stir fry"... and then, when it didn't happen immediately, you got emboldened and thought you were in the clear... moving into usual attack mode.
You asked for it: on May 8th at 10:56, using the self-admitted pseudonym of willysnout, you wrote
"So why don't you call yours typhoons and let the Asians call theirs stir fry?"
When a few commenters took exception to the racially motivated remark and challenged you for making it, you threatened them with "legal actions" if they persisted. You then got your buddies (who are blogmasters of the site) to strike the critical comments and what remains is a shell of the original diatribe.
Now, May8th was just LAST WEEK. Care to explain to all of us why you continued to deny making that comment? You've done it in these various IGF threads 6 times now.
Comment made on May 8th but denials from you repeatedly since?? Hmmm? even if you use some lame excuse like it was a joke (which the language and resulting interaction clearly shows it wasn't for some), you can't claim to have forgotten making a statement like "asian stir fry". You have repeatedly said you didn't say them, they were creations, imaginary notions from wingnut liars. Well?
Why lie about these things, willysnout or Charles Wilson or wet willy or CW?
BTW, at that site, commenters run a thread called "Most Outrageous Commenter of the Week" and you've won by a landslide. People seem to dislike you there as much as they do at Malcontent, Columbia University's Blue & White blog, Mudville Gazette, Patterico's Pontifications, Towleroad, DemocratUnderground, GruntDocs, brawnylads (hmmm), BoiFromTroy, Black5, One Marine's View and dicussion boards on single malt scotch, segway, and microsoft.
The best advice to you, which you have elected to ignore, comes from the segway community discussion board FIVE YEARS AGO... 5 years ago in 2003,
"willysnout, unhook your questions and opinions from your unveiled hostility and personal attacks and cheap shots and you might get your questions answered and your opinions considered. Just a suggestion."
And, true to form, you replied with anger and stalked the guy and the fouled the Board for months.
Now, what was that about your claim to Michigan-Matt "that I never made that (remark)" about natural disasters in the Pacific being just "asian stir fry"?
And it was only last week!!
I hope somewhere in your character you still have the capacity for bearing shame... because your conduct is shameful, even if you hide behind the smug exterior of someone on a mission of truth.
MIchigan-Matt | May 15, 2008, 7:11am | #
Patrick, thanks for posting this information and for calling to our collective attention the credibility of someone who had called me a liar at least 1,000x (kidding, no CharlesWilson, don't rush to all the threads now to count and report the real number of times you've used "liar" this week... but I bet it's close to 1,000).
I noticed he didn't dispute the racist bigoted comment about tropical disasters should be called "asian stir fry"... to think that some of the recent "lesser tsunami" in Indonesia have claimed 240,000+ lives the racism in that statement is appalling.
Those are a lot of sites to get banned, barred and blocked.
I can also understand why someone would plead, desperately, for you not to share that information as in
"Let's see if, for once, we can avoid reposting the same thing in several threads at a time."
Back on topic, I wonder if the age group surveyed indicates just youthful optimism or a cultural shift within our community? I ask because one of the first ploys used by our resident baiter (wink, but ignoring) was typical gayLeft style... that was to smear anyone who takes an opposing viewpoint from the proper gayLeft view with an attack on your morals?
It's done so often by the gayLeft it makes talk of them being a monolith almost seem self-fulfilling. Like a liberal biased MSM press... which the liberal MSM press is quick to discount. So too with the gayLeft.
Just wondering Patrick. Thanks.
Ginia | May 8, 2008, 5:18am | #
It is said that everyone is bi to some extent. Not sure about this. But I also heard about the same from some professional sites. Maybe it depends on how to define it.
If you can appreciate the beauty in both men and women, and find yourself attracted to the person regardless of their gender, then you are bi. Many hot and sexy bi singles & couples on ** BiLoves dotcom ** are looking to explore their bisexuality, coming out or enjoying their lives as bi here.