Everyone’s not as randy as you, pardon, we are. Apparently for some gay men, it’s important to maintain more “traditional” values.
In an op-ed published on HowAboutWe.com, Constantino Diaz-Duran acknowledges he’s one of those traditionalists and that he hopes the expectation of federal marriage equality will change the way gay people approach pre-marital sex and dating, especially at a time when more conservatives are coming out in support of same-sex marriage.
Raised Roman-Catholic, Diaz-Duran says he hopes to emulate the long-term marriages of his parents and grandparents.
He writes:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“I knew even as a young adult that what I wanted was a loving marriage rooted in traditional values. I wanted to make a promise to someone and stick to it. I didn’t want a wedding, or a commitment ceremony. I longed for a
marriage—for what comes after the guests have gone home and the gifts have been unwrapped.”
Followed by this jaw dropper:
“My boyfriend and I have decided to abstain from premarital sex—including oral sex, masturbation, and even sexting…What we do know is that living by our values will only make us stronger.”
Finally, he adds:
“Today’s world is unlike anything I ever imagined when I came out. I will someday be able to get married in a church, and the vows I make to my husband will be taken as seriously as those of any other man. This raises the bar. This gives me hope. This has brought me back to the fold and allowed me to be at peace with my Lord and my sexuality.”
What do you think about gay men waiting for sex until marriage? Sound off in the comments section.
Bozen
Whatever works, works.
But for me, that sounds fucking awful.
B Damion
@Bozen …lol I totally agree. This type of issh doesn’t work in the 21st century. But if that works for some people, hey…more power!
jwrappaport
This isn’t cute and it isn’t romantic: It’s bodily shame perpetuated by Bronze Age superstition and nothing more.
Kamuriie
Just wait until they’re married, and on their wedding night, come to the realization that they’re both strict bottoms or strict tops. So stupid.
Agree @ Jwrapp–this isn’t romantic; it’s a social more held-over from Bronze Age Christianity. You don’t lose your “purity” by sleeping together before marriage. But then again, if you’re the type who swallows superstitious religious nonsense, the idea of purity probably isn’t far-fetched to you.
GayTampaCowboy
While I understand and support their decisions (they are consenting adults after all), my worry is that by going public with this declaration, that IF and WHEN they divorce,
it will put a dent in their credibility.
That said, millions of people get married every year – and only a minute number are either virgins OR have abstained from pre-marital sex – so it’s kind of a red herring declaration.
Personlly, i couldn’t do it.
dnyboy
While his choice is his choice, I don’t like how he indicates that he hopes marriage rights “will change the way gay people approach pre-marital sex and dating.” It’s perfectly fine for him to live as he wishes, even if it might lead to possibly finding out they aren’t compatible sexually. However, I just get the impression that he’s being a little self righteous here. Straight people have been able to marry for millenia and they have plenty of pre-marital sex. There’s nothing wrong with it, and there’s nothing really wrong with waiting if that’s what you personally want (even if it is a bit pointless). Clearly he wants others to follow his idealogy even if it isn’t for them. But hey “spread the good word.” right?
lab
at least they won’t end up pregnant like bristol…other than that it is just dumb
Ruhlmann
That Catholic shit really sticks don’t it?
casey
It’s kinda sweet- BUT, the world has changed. I know, I’m 70 years old- and MY parents didn’t wait. I’m the cause they married.
Dixie Rect
Sorry, not buying it.
bledoutcolor
Personally I commend him and think its sweet. If it works for him great! And shame on everyone condemning him for it. It does have its benefits after all, should he and the partner both remain abstinent then they wont have stew to worry about, and I do think it could be a special bonding thing to only have been with your husband intimately. If open relationships aren’t a problem, why is the opposite? Not everyone can do it, but he isn’t being judgemental in any way and I wish him the best of luck.
Honestly it would be nice if everyone could do this, AIDs and other STDs would die out pretty quickly if so.
T.J Grabowy
@jwrappaport: Actually, considering in medieval Europe you could have sex with your betrothed since you were basically married anyway, the whole premarital sex thing is a far more recent phenomenon. Either way, of all the things to emulate, why this?
tardis
Considering the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in this modern age, I think everyone should hold on to some type of values, like these two gentlemen here. That’s why I’m off sex. Who knows who has what nowadays.
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
Same-sex marriage disregards the natural order of procreatory responsibility, not only confusing the natural disposition of parental authority; but undermining the legal principle that children have a right to a relationship with their biological parents, depriving a child access to their biological parent’s genetic, cultural and social heritage, not for extraordinary circumstances, but as a matter of routine. Same-sex marriage amounts to institutionalized adultery through a hostile takeover of civil society by the State. Children will no longer be entitled to their biological parents, as the transitory wants of same-sex adults will have taken precedence over a child’s best interest.
Children are not pets one purchases from rescue shelters(adoption clinics) and puppy mills(insemination and surrogacy). Children are human beings endowed with a natural desire to be procreated from an engendered act of love between a husband and a wife. Same-sex marriage is adulterous by nature and thereby destructive to not only children, but to our civilization.
Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
Same-sex marriage proponents demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer less-than-equal protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents.
Same-sex proponents profess that it is love which gives the right to join the institution of marriage, yet, in doing so, they selfishly violate the principle loving objective of this noble institution; to protect a child’s Natural Right to be raised by both biological parents.
Same-sex marriage is not justice in the eyes of a child. Same-sex marriage is an abuse of power, a tyrannical subversion of the fundamental principles of marriage and the duties which it enjoins; contrary to the nature and state of man, same-sex marriage is merely the unwarranted whims of an ignorant and selfish generation whose conduct is nothing less that an embarrassment to the dignity of mankind.
In fine, same-sex marriage is an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.
“No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant
andy_d
@Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui: If you are opposed to marrying someone of the same gender then YOU should not marry someone of your gender. As for children, there are children born to lesbians when they were married to men. It is ignorance such as yours that makes life difficult for EVERYBODY.
z
“No one has a right to do what which, if everyone did it, would destroy society”
Immanuel Kant never said this. It is an inaccurate (and frankly sophomoric) interpretation of his categorical imperative.
Also, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui was a 17th century moral theorist. The poster above, whoever he is, clearly enjoys dropping the names of figures from intellectual history (despite his apparently weak grasp of their ideas) in order to make his hysterical and specious arguments sound fancier. Pathetic.
DOFEK
Good for you baby! do anything you like Kisses AdamHomo .
Brian
Let’s face it – the gay community is based on sexual activity. Everywhere you go on the social scene, sex is marketed to us. From bars to bath-houses, adult book shops to beats, men like us can spend our entire day in a state of heightened sexual arousal. Promiscuity is the chosen lifestyle we succumb to.
It is refreshing to see a man who has chosen to exercise self-restraint.
Billysees
@Bozen: 1
You said it best I think —
“Whatever works, works.
But for me, that sounds fucking awful.”
Lol………hehehe……….
jeff4justice
@Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui: You should start an organization in which you pay gays if they sign a contract to not procreate or adopt. Pay me $20k and I’ll be your first customer.
Meanwhile, with all of your “think of the children” type rhetoric… Yes let’s think of the children with free education, free health care, and paying their parents enough money to ensure they have a quality of life.
Next, prohibiting gays from obtaining a marriage license does is a different legal issue than whether or not they may adopt or attain parental rights.
Daniel-Reader
@Jean-Jacques: Your rant has two fatal flaws in logic. First, gender roles are created by society. Your 1950’s view of children yearning for both genders is scientifically unsound since gender roles are society-based constructs. Second, your rant is actually an argument for heterosexuals not getting married. When you claim biology is the dominant factor for reproduction then logically a hetero male should not be tied to a single female since the resulting offspring may be genetically damaged. So maximizing genetic strength by breeding with many different females would be the “natural” way for heteros to interact with each other. When you use reproduction as an argument you reduce hetersexuals to the level of sheep stock. At that level they have to breed widely to maximize passing on their traits. Your rant is basically anti-marriage for heteros, or you are arguing for polygamy. Either way it is dumb and has no bearing on allowing gays to marry, since heteros are not impacted by gays marrying. Any hetero, who bases their own marriage on whether gays are also allowed to marry, is not really a sane heterosexual – just a bigot trying to create an excuse to deny a gay friends and family members their human rights.
jwrappaport
Stop feeding the trolls. It’s clear from their claims that we lack a common set of premises from which to argue meaningfully.
You “Kant” convince them of anything. Boom.
the other Greg
As ridiculous as this is, people could try clicking on the link (I know, I know, what a radical idea, nobody ever bothers to do that):
He lives in New York, a gay marriage state.
He doesn’t say they are waiting for “federal marriage equality,” or mention that issue at all; that’s an editorialization (or rather invention) of the Editors who posted this.
He and his, um, betrothed are not virgins and have both been in relationships before.
He is now a member of the Episcopal Church, which performs gay marriages. Presumably they could get married in a church next week, or at least on short notice. He even says the wedding ceremony itself is not that important to him.
But they’re waiting a few years to get married because… um… that’s what straight girls do? Or something.
So maybe it’s sillier than it seemed at first!
jheryn
For those of you hating on this man and saying it is dumb, don’t project your personal feelings on him. It may be dumb for you, but this may be perfect for him.
I have a revelation for all of you; you (and I) are not perfect and everything you do is not perfect for everyone else. You haters and naysayers are the first to bitch about being judged for ANYTHING in your life, but have no problem judging everyone else. Could you be more hypocritical?
I couldn’t do what he wants to do, but I sure as hell support him for his decision. Why? Because that is just what this is: His decision. No one has the right for him to marry or conduct his life in any manner to which he sees fit to live. Especially when his decision is not harmful anyone. And if you try to make a case saying it is harmful to the gay community in any way, I feel sorry for you. You are just looking for someone to hate on. For those of you judging this man, either shut up or go join the Westboro Church. They love to judge people.
jwrappaport
@jheryn: You use the word judging imprecisely. No one is passing moral judgment on this guy let alone expressing hatred of him, but rather criticizing the illogic and insidiousness of his position, namely that he seeks sexual abstinence in keeping with his Roman Catholic upbringing (and that of his older relatives).
He should be free to do what he wants and equal before the law and other citizens, but we can and should criticize the glorification of sexual shame when we see it – and this, my friend, is superstitious sexual shame par excellence, which I can assure you is harmful to people. Leaving mutual physical sexual acts aside, I ask anyone to explain in secular, objective terms why masturbation should be avoided. Or perhaps why dirty talk with your monogamous boyfriend of three years is similarly problematic. Every objection can be traced back to Bronze Aged superstition and sexual shame and fear almost without exception – I beg you to prove me wrong.
If this makes me a hater, then I happily join the club.
the other Greg
@jheryn: I WOULD agree with you, if he were not proselytizing for his peculiar self-loathing views. Click on the link and see:
“I have nothing but respect for older gay couples who stuck it out despite the lack of societal recognition, but it’s fair to say that most of us [!!!] don’t have the self-discipline to make it work without that extra binding tie.” No, it’s not fair to say that. In fact it’s pretty insulting.
“Marriage—fully sanctioned and dignified marriage—was now on the table. If you met someone and became his boyfriend, your relationship didn’t have to stagnate.” Stagnate! – what an odd word. But he’d just described how his one and only previous relationship stagnated. He attributes that to the lack of marriage. Ah, if only marriage had been available, then they’d be stuck together and, um… happy?
“This is what marriage equality is ultimately about: the recognition that gay people not only have the same dreams and yearnings as straight people, but that we must [!!!] also hold ourselves to the same standards and obligations.” Must? What is he going to do to us if we don’t? (You gotta love all these self-appointed Gay Popes!)
“I believe promiscuity and premarital sex devalue love and water down the sanctity of what I understand as marriage.” To which I can only say: Go fuck yourself.
jheryn
@jwrappaport: Really? I think I used the word ‘judging’ exactly as it was meant to be used. You are indeed passing moral judgement on him. His ‘position’ may have stemmed from his religious beliefs and the examples of his relatives, but the position itself is a moral one.
You claim that his position is illogical and insidious because it comes from the Roman Catholic church. That is you making a judgement about the Catholic church and its moral dictates. We may not agree with them, but that is our stance and opinion. Obviously the Catholic church judges us for being gay and how we live our lives, but that judgement is reflected back at them by the gay community as well. You can justify your position against the church and what you perceive as outdated, bronze age dictates and I would agree with you, but that doesn’t make it any more than our belief and opinion. We are still talking about our beliefs. He has his. We have ours. Telling someone they are wrong for those beliefs is a questioning of morals. It is an assault on our the core of who we are to be told what we believe is wrong.
Your words: “We can and should criticize the glorification of sexual shame.” You see it as sexual shame, he does not. In truth, neither of you can PROVE that you are correct.
Again your word: “Superstitious”. To you his beliefs are superstitious to him they are real and substantive. Again, neither side can actually provide definitive proof of their positions. It cannot happen. There is no ‘objective secular terms’ in these fights. Particularly when the secular world is arguing against religion. Both sides think the other are wrong. Why should any religion give you a secular reason for their action when you cannot give them a religious one by their standards for yours?
Those arguments have been going on for centuries and people still cannot prove either right or wrong. Take your stand and be proud of your beliefs and convictions. I honor you for that, but if you are telling this man in the article that his beliefs and convictions are wrong, yes you are making moral judgments.
I agree with you. I believe that masturbation and dirty talk are harmless, but those are our beliefs. We have come to those beliefs through our own life walks and information we have taken as fact for ourselves. Still we cannot force our beliefs on others or ridicule them for not adhering to it. Tell me that you like it when others try to subject you to the same treatment.
So bottom line on judgement? People are judging his moral stance to remain chaste until he is married. That is his moral position on how he needs to conduct his life. If you are telling him that he is wrong for thinking that way you are indeed judging him. It is beneath an intelligent person (which I believe you are) to try to justify your judgement as basic factual property. It is not.
Bottom line on hatred? You may believe that the posts here are not hateful, but I doubt the man who the article references would feel the same should he read them. Just because a person does not perceive themselves as hateful, doesn’t mean they are not being that way. I think there is a huge sect of religious right out there who don’t feel they are being hateful to gays, but we on the receiving end of their hatred know differently.
jwrappaport
@jheryn: Just because someone has a belief doesn’t mean that that belief is entitled to even an ounce of respect – the person and their right to hold it are, but the belief itself is not. I don’t respect the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos. I don’t respect female genital mutilation. And I don’t respect the idea that masturbation is wrong. All of these can be easily dismantled and exposed for what they are: appeals to the supernatural and nothing more. If you think that belief and non-belief in god are simply matters of viewpoint and not subject to rational inquiry, I would argue that the burden of proof always lies with those making the positive claim – in this case, the positive claim is that god exists.
You are an extreme relativist, and I am not. I urge you to use your intellectual faculties and sense of reason to actually commit to a worldview rather than taking the agnostic approach, i.e., that every viewpoint is equally valid and invalid. I don’t suggest that there are absolute truths or falsities, rather that there are certain positions that are simply more reasonable to take than others, and that we can decide between them on the basis of the available empirical evidence and without appeals to emotion or the supernatural (i.e., that which is not empirically verifiable).
What would you say to a person who told you that pedophilia was simply a cultural difference that wasn’t subject to your moral outrage? Or perhaps that forbidding women to drive was just a difference in faith and entitled to respect as a different, but valid viewpoint? I’m happy to be labeled a cultural imperialist and say that these ideas are repugnant to civilized society and that you’re wrong if you don’t think so. We can’t force people to believe things, but you bet we can ridicule them (in the appropriate time, place, and manner) for believing in them when those beliefs are as insidious as they are. To not do so is not diplomatic and it is not kind – it is cowardly.
Dresden
Just another religious nutjob sanctimoniously condemning everyone that doesn’t live by his own screwed up concept of morality. “Go fuck yourself”, indeed… or better yet, have someone else do it for you.
jheryn
@jwrappaport:
I can actually agree that all beliefs are not to be supported or entertained. The examples of pedophilia and female genital mutilation are great examples. Religious belief or lack-there-of, are not the case. I will not agree that the burden of proof, where religious belief and god is concerned is solely upon those who believe.
The gods of most religions are entities that you cannot see or touch. Their followers believe whole completely that they exist and we cannot, in truth, prove they do not. Empirical evidence is garnered by observation and experimentation. Religious people point to things they believe to be miracles as proof of their gods validity. They believe it is observable truth. I may not think what they claim is a miracle is a miracle, but even I can admit that is often perception. Religious people also claim that living by the dictates of their religion has made their lives better and they have been ‘blessed’ because of living their lives the way they do. They believe this to be the experimental evidence they need of their beliefs. However, they think and believe that empirical evidence is that of a mind devoid of faith and worthless as evidence.
I absolutely do have faith. I have faith that there will be oxygen in the air to breath when I wake up each morning. I can’t see it or prove it when I go to sleep, but I have no doubt it will be there when I wake. On a more fluid level, I have faith that my partner will not cheat on me. We have been together for 15 years and I still never even entertain the thought of him being unfaithful. It isn’t that he can’t, I just have faith that he will not. That sort of faith cannot be proven by empirical evidence. Neither example can. The experimental side of empirical evidence cannot be substantiated.
And I guess that is where I see the flaw in your argument. You think that ‘we’ can make decisions on positions based on empirical evidence without emotion or the supernatural. That can never be true because, I and billions of other people are part of that ‘we’. I acknowledge that other people have different ways of coming to conclusions. They ways people process and compile evidence is often not the same. Empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence there is. Perhaps for you that is true, but not everyone.
I fully accept you look at things the way you do. I am glad you are strong in your beliefs and have the guts to say what you think. That being said, I am not certain if you are capable of seeing things from another perspective whether you agree with it or not. If you cannot do that, you can never claim to embrace empirical evidence. Empirical evidence only is valid if observation and experimentation is completely objective. Empirical evidence comes from a place of theory neutral perception. I don’t see that from your arguments.
And no I am not an extreme relativist. I just believe that there are other perspectives and belief centers other than my own. I don’t dismiss them all as being invalid because they do not align with my own. I don’t, however, believe that all other beliefs are equally valid and invalid. I have my own stringent black and whites. You named several that are abhorrent to me. Many religions, whether or not I think them ridiculous, are not those among those you listed.
I accept that there are always going to be people out there who do not approve of me for one reason or another. There are positions in which I take hard stands. I am not deluded into thinking that I am not judging them against my own beliefs and morals because I am. And so are you. You can call it whatever you want. Use semantics or words that make you feel better about yourself, then by all means do so.
One thing we agree on; we can indeed ridicule those people who we feel carry repugnant anti-societal civilities. I would just caution you to not be surprised or offended when they do the same to you for what they perceive as your aberrant conduct.
the other Greg
@jheryn: You’re making it a believer/non-believer thing. Not so fast.
Why doesn’t this guy have a talk with a gay Episcopal priest? He might have thought of doing that before pontificating in op-ed pieces about what other gay men “must” do with their sexuality.
I don’t think his new denomination of Christianity actually supports most of the judgmental, insulting nonsense he is spewing.
bledoutcolor
Okay seriously? The guys doesn’t want to have premarital sex. Big deal. Not affecting you Hess you allow him to convince you you shouldn’t be having sex. It makes him happy, and he isn’t trying to make premarital relations illegal. I don’t see a problem. Maybe he just holds HIMSELF to these standards, and when he was speaking about the community he just meant we need to tone down thenpromiscuity which I agree with. Gay men as a whole DO need to practice more self restraint. Maybe not to the point he is, but certainly more than what we are. That’s not sexual shaming, its common sense.
Personally I believe you (by this I mean I) shouldn’t have sex unless in love with someone, because sexual intimacy is a special bonding mechanism, and fewer partners means less risk of stds. Furthermore, someone I love and trust and have faith he feels the same will be more likely to take my health into account and protect me when it comes time for sex, including being honest with me about sexual history/std status.
I’m an atheist/agnostic (somewhere in between?) And to me its just common sense. Both the gay AND straight communities need to make better decisions about sexual partners and have fewer of them and always use protection unless ABSOLUTELY sure that both partners are clean and faithful or ar trying for a baby. Your sexual and emotional health (and likely the state of your relationship) will improve with this. No brainer.
Its the right decision for him, and I see sound secular reasoning behind it as well. Stop judging and leave him be. If it makes him happy and doesn’t hurt anyone (and no making someone think about the responsibility of sex isn’t sexual shaming, he didn’t call anyone a slut or whore and isn’t a virgin himself) then more power to him and I commend him. Aside from maybe the religious aspect, he seems like a good role model for gay children, and as long as he doesn’t preachand villify then that wont be a problem and he has a right to his faith.
Billysees
@jwrappaport: 22
Good advice.
“Stop feeding the trolls.”
Billysees
Overall, a very interesting conversation by all.
Bellerophon69
Whatever floats yer boat, it’s their lives and who am I to judge, but God and my parents gave me hormones, and I’m glad I didn’t waste them (and all the fun that goes along with them!) waiting for “marriage”, gay, straight, or “otherwise”!
jwrappaport
@bledoutcolor: Show me secular justification for not masturbating.
@jheryn: I will most certainly be offended if and when people refer to me as disordered or morally evil because of who I am. Indeed, most major religions require that of their followers. That is not even in the same ballpark as me saying that a staunch pre-Vatican II Catholic has backward superstitions for the very reason that I’m attacking an idea, not a person. When they claim to “hate the sin, but love the sinner,” they are making a false distinction: my physical expression of my sexuality is inextricably intertwined with my inner and most primal state of being in a way that my metaphysical beliefs are not.
I have to laugh when people of faith profess sexual superstitions. I can come to terms with a belief in God and indeed wrestle with it myself, but what I cannot come to terms with is a belief in a God who, after creating the universe and its infinite complexity and beauty – its literally billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars – cares if a primate in one corner of it jerks off.
UEShoz
Constantino – dear Lord, you will do anything for publicity. Did you think that all the men you slept with across NYC would stay silent in your bid to cast yourself as some sort of virgin? Your shirtless Grindr photos are floating around ready to bite you on your hypocritical ass just in case this lame meme goes viral. Waiting till marriage? Yeah, maybe you’re abstaining from sex with your boyfriend – which, for the record you have had for all of, like, one minute – but you are still having sex with guys all around town. That’s no surprise given your history as a liar and a cheat. Good luck, sucker.
Michael
I’m a 16 year old virgin and don’t plan having sex until I’m married in my twenties hopefully. What’s wrong with that lol
dwndckd
You know—as I am reading your comments, it has occurred to me that we (i.e. STR8 men) say and have said many of the things about “butt” fucking that are written within your comments. We call it crazy, deranged, etc. But, as soon as we do— The gay community takes up arms… So, it has occurred to me that you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing…Where is your “fucking” tolerance now…?
Virge
Every guy I’ve ever heard say crap like this has had some weird fucked up issue besides the one he talks about.
Weight?
Penis issues? Teeny weenie? Peyronies?
Two ton ego?
Egocentric?
And none of them ever are telling the truth about being virgins….. when you get past the BS.
Susanapink
@bledoutcolor:
Hi Bledoutcolor I know it’s been a long time since your comment and I don’t know if it matters to you, but I just read all you had written and I agree with you. Thank you.
I think everyone deserves the right to do what they want to do, so long as no one is being hurt; no one should have to do something they’re not comfortable with, and if this is what works for him, then hey, more power to him! 🙂
What make work for one may not work for another, and that’s okay. Different folks, different strokes – it’s simply a part of life, and everyones’ personal preferences should be respected. Don’t see the need for people to get so flustered.