|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
Ignoring totally any rights conferred on either party to a marriage, why do gay people wish to imitate a heterosexual marriage?
What are the pros, what are the cons?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I'm sorry but you can NOT ignore the rights issue. If you have a heart attack, you would be allowed the comfort and company of your family.
If I have a heart attack I will have to sit alone. Kevin would not be allowed in to visit.
I also resent your choice of the word "imitate".... We don't need to imitate any one.... From what I have seen, marrige is by far no panacea.
The lifestyle of "being married" can easily be accomplished simply by cohabitation.
It is however the righrs issues of health care, inheretance, power of closest relative, tax benefits, survivors benefits, as well as parental responsibilities. It is these "rights" as confered by our respective governments that make a marrige something more than shacking up.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
The rights issue can be dealt with elsewhere. Which is why I phrased it as I did.
Again, please, ignoring any issues of rights, which you so clearly define, what are the pros and cons of imitating a heterosexual marriage?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
None.... no pros.... no cons....
Why would anyone want to immitate something so proned to failure?
Is that better?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
So, no pros, no cons. But apparently doomed to failure. Whcih looks like a con to me.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
I think, in a way, both Timmy and Marc are right. I think that we need to use two different words.
Gays want marriage for the reasons that Marc mentioned: a lifetime loving relationship with another person needs to be accompanied by all the rights, duties and privileges that accompany a heterosexual relationship today - i.e. marriage, wedlock, whatever legal term answers the need.
Gays also want a wedding, for social reasons. Here Timmy is right: it is an imitation of a heterosexual wedding. The couple want the exhiliration and uplift that go together with a religious/social/public celebration of their union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Is it your aim to belittle what small bit of piece of mind we had to settle for.....
I resent the term "immitate" as it refers to marrige....
We are not playing house.... "Immitating our married parents"
We are working hard to build a life.... thats right a life.... even though at every turn we are belittled, berated and otherwise embarassed by our society. We keep trying....
I didn't think the same would happen here....
Is that better?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
The real thing. I don't think we need to "imitate" heterosexual marriage, it needs to be the same. Marriage, no matter what the swex of the partners, legitimizes a relationship. It demonstrates a commitment by each partner to the other in front of God (if you believe in such) and the world. Certainly marriages are fragile and there are many cons. These days the formal commitment doesn't always mean much. But I think it is still a vital part of a relationship for two people who are in love and, at least for the moment, want to spend the rest of their life together. The so-called rights that come along with marriage can't be ignored either. While the ceremony may put a stamp of approval on a relationship, the rights are what make it worthwhile. Just my two cents.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
If you have something to say in favour, why not say it?
So far you have carped about the question, decided heterosexual marriage has nothing to offer, object to the word "imitate", decided that a gay union gives you peace of mind, the lot. But you haven't answered a the question at all. A row is what you are seeking. A row is not what you are going to get.
The question is simple. It doesn;t seem totally difficult to answer it.
Homosexual peole, male and female, wish to enter into an institution (for want of a better term) that has hitherto been purely heterosexual. Since marriage per se is designed for procreation, a homosexual marriage can only be different from heterosexual marriage, and is seen by many gay people as an imitation of heterosexual marriage. You and Kevin are a fine example of making it work.
So, carping about it being the wrong question is you kicking yourself, really. Instead fo doing thta, if you see pros, if you see cons, why not answer the question?
The reason I have kept rights and benefits out on purpose is that they are by no means the same thing as two people choosing to keep matters emotional and sexual within that single pairing.
Oh yes. There was another reason, too. It was to get this board back to being able to talk about deep things in a spirit of friendship and courtesy.
Hardly seems worth the effort, really.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
What is it that I want a row of? I prefer stacks, piles, assemblies and heaps.... but never rows of anything.
My problem is your terminology. "Imitation" is a degrading term. I am not imitation anything or anyone.
As for the pros of a marrige, well you made it amply clear that it is not important for my mate to have the same rights as your mate.
As for the personal attributes that go along with marrige or in our case civil union because we are not permitted a marrige well yes of course there are personal aspects of our relationship that are pros such as that Kevy doesnt snore and doesnt douse me with icy water when I do snore. There are also cons as well, in that I have to listen to Kevy telling me about my snoring all the next day and me insisting that he does as well. (Just to be a prick)
Any one that has ever awakened next to the person they love knows the good and the bad of a relationship. If it is a list you are wanting I can't come up with one.... Maybe I am too close to the situation or just dont have a spare decade to name them all.... and neatly place them all on a row as you wanted.
No Tim, for me, personally, it is the legal aspect that is important. Just as it is for every other happliy cohabitating gay couple I know.
I don't want to die alone without my Kevy there to hold my hand... Just because the law says he has no right to do it.
This is what is important to me.
No anger, no frustration, just the truth of an answer to a question that to me doesnt really have an answer.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Timmy wrote: Since marriage per se is designed for procreation, a homosexual marriage can only be different from heterosexual marriage. Here Timmy is writing from his own religious tradition. Other traditions see marriage differently. For example, my own tradition sees marriage as being designed for "love, companionship, peace and friendship" (I quote from the wedding ceremony). If gays seek a relationship such as this is it because they are imitating heterosexual marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
or are there simply no pro and no cons? Is it just simply a thing some peole want to do and others do not?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Marrige is a thing done to legitimize the relationship.
It is a registration made to the state of issuance that two people are henceforth now in a committed, legal and binding relationship with all the RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES that accompanies a marrige.
Marrige has nothing to do with procreation or cohabitation.
Both of these things can be easily accomplished out of wedlock.
The pros are that the relationship is legitimized. The cons are that society deems which people are to benefit from marrige and who will not.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My question about gay marriage is simple. How does me getting married to a man in any way make some right wing heterosexuals marriage any less valid. They call it a threat to the institution, I just don't see it.
Just my thoughts,
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13752
|
|
|
excellent concept to discuss. Worth a different thread.
What about the question, though?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Immediate Release
Friday, February 6, 2004
HRC Denounces Ohio Ban on Marriage and Marriage-related Benefits for
Same-sex Couples
GLBT Families Deserve Nothing Less than Equality Under the Law, Says
HRC
WASHINGTON - The Human Rights Campaign denounced Ohio's ban on
marriage and marriage-related benefits for same-sex couples and other
unmarried couples, signed today by Republican Gov. Bob Taft. The law
not only prohibits any recognition of marriages between same-sex
couples but also precludes the "recognition or extension of the
specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage" to any unmarried
couple. Such a divisive and discriminatory law could have devastating
effects on Ohio families, says HRC.
"This law blatantly discriminates against hard-working, tax-paying
Ohioans," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. "A law that prevents a
state employee from ever receiving health insurance for her partner
is wrong, plain and simple. In Ohio - and in every state in this
nation - we deserve nothing less than equality under law."
According to an analysis of the 2000 Census, every single county
in Ohio is home to at least one same-sex couple and same-sex couples
with children in Ohio are raising an average of 1.79 children.
Heterosexual couples are raising an average of 1.93 children. The law
prevents state employees from ever receiving health insurance benefits
for their unmarried partners - undoubtedly leading to more uninsured
individuals in the state. Additionally, out-of-state same-sex couples
who are both legal parents of their children may see these adoptions
invalidated or not honored when they visit or move to Ohio.
"The governor should know that this is bad for Ohio families and
bad for Ohio businesses," said Tim Downing, chair of Ohioans for
Growth and Equality (OGE) and HRC board of director. "From OSU's
president to the mayor of Cincinnati, leaders in Ohio are recognizing
that fairness is good for the economy - for the governor to ignore
this fact is shameful."
A broad range of Ohioans spoke out against House Bill 272 -
including Republican Attorney General Jim Petro who told the Cleveland
Plain Dealer that he opposed the bill, saying it was "a little too
broad" and "a little unfair." In addition, Ohio State University
President Karen Holbrook urged Taft to veto the bill saying it would
have an "adverse impact on the efforts of Ohio State, one of Ohio's
largest employers, to attract and retain employees." Holbrook made
clear that OSU's inability to do the same will cost the university
some of its "best and brightest." Several other companies expressed
opposition to the measure, including Fortune 500 ranked NCR
Corporation, which is based in Dayton, Ohio, and the software company
Missing Lynx, which is currently based in San Ramon, Calif., and was
set to consider relocating to Cleveland if the governor vetoed the
measure.
Ohio becomes the 39th state with a law banning marriage rights
for same-sex couples; however, no other state prohibits the extension
of benefits to all unmarried couples. On Jan. 29, 2004, South Carolina
State Rep. Gloria Haskins, a Republican, introduced a measure (HB
4657) that would also prohibit such benefits for unmarried couples.
In 2004, legislators in 26 states have introduced measures that would
ban marriage rights for same-, and, in some cases, opposite-sex
couples.
HRC has worked closely with OGE every step of the way during the
legislative process, contributing staff time and expertise, writing
testimony and providing legal analysis. Yesterday, HRC joined with
Log Cabin Republicans and OGE in running a full page ad in the
Columbus Dispatch urging constituents to work against the measure.
Contact: Mark Shields
Phone: (202) 216-1564
Cell: (202) 716-1637
Contact: J. Smith
Phone: (202) 216-1580
Cell: (202) 716-1650
State Group Contact: Tim Downing
Chair of Ohioans for Growth and Equality
Cell: (216) 798-7173
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Hopefully Ohio's State Supreme Court will see fit to overturn this ridiculousness. I grew up in Ohio and while they have always had their fair share of right-wing idiocy, there used to be enough opposition to balance it out. I guess that's not the case at the moment.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your talking about imitation as a positive or a negative. It can be either one.
Societal norms are set out for heterosexual kids, ie. this is how you date, manogomy, and on and on. But gay kids have to kinda figure out their own way in the world, so many choose to use some of the information that exsists for straight kids. Then that carries right on into adulthood.
Should that be the case? Sure, for some why not? For others, who needs it?
To each his own I say. As for the rights and legal protections, they should apply to anyone or no one.
Just my thoughts.
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Sure killed that topic stone dead. better? Well no. 
Re: gay marriage 
Re: gay marriage 