Relationship Types at Consonance (Gleichklang): Gay, Lesbian, Heterosexual, and Bisexual
Psychologically, all relationship types at Consonance — whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual — are grounded in a union of love and attachment. The main supporting aspect is the mutual maximization of the individual happiness of those involved and likewise the mutual minimization of individual suffering. All romantic relationships carry this characteristic when they are to be described as love relationships. Arranged partnerships and forced marriages are, of course, to be judged differently and are not to be discussed here.
The foundation of all partnerships as love relationships—again regardless of whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual—is also the pursuit of permanence, which distinguishes a partnership from a flirtation or an affair. Studies show that homosexual relationships between men last on average shorter than heterosexual relationships, which in turn last on average shorter than lesbian relationships. These average differences in relationship duration are quantitative in nature and do not indicate a qualitative difference between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships. The results also show that this is not an effect of sexual orientation itself, but rather a gender effect, which can best explain the differences between gay, heterosexual, and lesbian relationships regarding their average duration. Furthermore, precisely because of the tendency for stronger discrimination against gay men compared to lesbians in public, it is also reasonable to assume that the insufficient recognition and support of same-sex partnerships tends to reduce the duration of gay relationships in particular. In any case, the average figures are not suitable to prove a fundamental difference between gay, heterosexual, and lesbian relationships.
A commonality of all relationships—again regardless of whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual in nature—is that as a rule, partnerships also provide a structure to mutually live out sexual desires and needs and thereby achieve sexual satisfaction. However, in the presence of asexuality, partnerships do not serve this purpose. Although in the heterosexual domain there is also a coupling of sexuality and reproduction, this applies motivationally only to a very small number of sexual acts in heterosexual relationships, since both all other practices as well as vaginal intercourse without contraception and sexual acts by women after menopause certainly have no relation to a reproductive purpose. The same applies to sexuality in the presence of existing infertility. The fact is that in heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, the overwhelming majority of individual sexual acts are not caused or co-caused by a reproductive purpose. Likewise, there are numerous heterosexual relationships where sexuality never serves a reproductive purpose, which is also the case in same-sex partnerships. The only difference in the motivational anchoring of sexuality between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships is therefore that in the former, in contrast to the latter, the reproductive purpose sometimes plays an additional role. Thus, one can essentially assume a unified motivational basis for the anchoring of sexuality in partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation, even if occasionally there is an additional reproductive purpose in sexual acts between heterosexual partners.
Independently of the coupling of sexuality to reproduction—which is also only very weakly pronounced at the individual level of single acts even among heterosexuals—partnerships can also form a structure to raise children together. Although child-rearing is not necessarily tied to a partnership, the desire to have children is often developed together within a partnership. The desire for children and the ability to raise them are not tied to sexual orientation. Even though few studies are available, it is already proven that homosexual parents and couples can assume competent parental functions and that growing up in same-sex partnerships does not lead to harm. Contrary assumptions are to be considered refuted and are most likely an expression of societal prejudice. It is a fact that neglect, mistreatment, and abuse of children and adolescents are by no means rare phenomena—neither in the familial nor in the institutional context—but these are not tied to a heterosexual or homosexual orientation. Parental function can thus be regarded as an important possible, though not necessary, characteristic of partnerships, regardless of whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual relationships.
Regarding the question of a monogamous relationship structure, individually differing relationship models are represented, encompassing both strictly monogamous partnerships and partnerships that allow sexuality with persons other than the partners. In tendency, monogamous relationship models are most strongly represented and lived in lesbian partnerships and weakest in gay partnerships, while heterosexual partnerships are in the middle. Again, this shows merely a quantitative difference, which, moreover, is again to be regarded more as a gender difference than a difference between sexual orientations.
A partnership is typically focused on two people, but there are also variations of love relationships in which more than two people are involved. While such relationship types are discriminatory against women in some cultures by granting multiple partners exclusively to men, there are individual extensions without discriminatory quality that can relate to the heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual domains. Particularly with regard to bisexuality, partnerships of more than two people can also make sense against the background of the specific sexual orientation, since only in this way is it possible to implement sexual needs in a partnership that covers the entire orientation.
Overall, homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual relationships are characterized by far more commonalities than differences, with the latter also appearing to be merely quantitative. What all sexual orientations share is the basic need for partnership, however exactly the structure of that partnership may be concretized. Consonance regards all partnerships between consenting and capable persons that are focused on maximizing the satisfaction of all involved as legitimate and worthy of support. That is why Consonance, as an alternative matchmaking service, supports the matching of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual relationships as well as the establishment of both monogamous and non-monogamous partnerships. What type of relationship you are seeking remains solely the decision of the members. Consonance distinguishes itself from typical dating sites, partner search sites, dating agencies, and matchmaking services on the Internet through extensive information gathering, the psychological foundation of our dating system, the alternative orientation, and the seriousness of the members, which is also ensured by a moderate but mandatory membership fee.
