Illegal Gay Marriage... A blessing in disguise?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    I am quite aware this topic may infuriate many of you, but I'd like to get it out there. I am a big proponent of taking a world-view on issues, and I think that gay marriage should be no exception. So here is my food for thought:

    Though I do believe that any couple, regardless of gender, should be able to wed, I like to entertain the idea that maybe the illegality of gay marriage in most states of the US is something special.

    Hear me out:

    Is it possible that we are actually blessed to have our marriage rights be so difficult to attain? Marriage is used to validate a strong and loving relationship, however it is quite easy to attain and often requires little to no effort for straight couples.

    On the other hand, in the world of gay couples, (being that gay marriage is still illegal in a majority of the United States) we do not have the same societal obligation as straight couples to get married to validate the sanctity of our relationships. In this way, we can set an example of true love and commitment without documentation.Thus, in a way we are MORE free, (think about that).

    Also, the marriage between two men or two women in the United States is something so special and precious because it is a struggle, and ultimately requires the truest of love and truest commitment in order to follow through with, which we tend to find less and less of in this day and age. Though equality is important, do any of you guys agree that maybe the difficulties we go through to get married are actually a very special thing?




  • Teqkilla42

    Posts: 338

    Mar 07, 2012 3:33 AM GMT
    In a way yes, but mostly no. You're both overthinking it and not thinking out the points you're making.

    and ultimately requires the truest of love and truest commitment in order to follow through with,

    This is just wrong. It doesn't require any of that, it requires lawmakers taking action. You can love each other and be committed to each other as hard as you want and it's not going to make gay marriage more possible. And once it is legal, any two Average Joes/Janes can get married just as easily as a couple that's been together 50 years.

    Also, how does not having any of the tax/other benefits of a wedded couple make us "more free" exactly? You seem to be one of those naive people who thinks marriage is "just a slip of paper." icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 2:00 PM GMT
    who cares? I mean really. I don't care if gay marriage ever passes, not relevant to my life at all. There are so many more important issues in both the gay and broader communities that we could be devoting this energy too. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 2:20 PM GMT
    DEKIRUMAN saidwho cares? I mean really. I don't care if gay marriage ever passes, not relevant to my life at all. There are so many more important issues in both the gay and broader communities that we could be devoting this energy too. icon_rolleyes.gif


    +1
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 2:23 PM GMT
    DEKIRUMAN saidwho cares? I mean really. I don't care if gay marriage ever passes, not relevant to my life at all. There are so many more important issues in both the gay and broader communities that we could be devoting this energy too. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I actually feel the same way. I hope it passes some day for the sake of those who it means so much to, but it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if it passes or doesn't pass. It's very hard for me to really get passionate about it because I just don't care. Not surprisingly, many (if not most) of my friends pretty much feel the same way -- even many who are couples. I do think at least "civil unions" that come with the same rights and protections as marriage is important for gay couples who have kids, or who plan to have kids. I wish the gay community would focus their efforts on "civil unions", because I think throwing out the word "marriage" would allow them to achieve the goal easier and more quickly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 2:31 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidI have to disagree.
    While I will never myself have one o them new-fangled gay marriage thingies myself, it isn't all about what I want or need, or what Todd wants or needs, or even you, Deki.

    It's about enshrining into the law the notion that we are, truly, equal. I know some of you love to say that you feel equal anyway, and that's swell, but whether you like it or not the law does not consider you equal. And it must, which is why this matters. Even though I'm never going to have some guy smearing cake on my face.



    I agree with your disagreement. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 2:35 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidI have to disagree.
    While I will never myself have one o them new-fangled gay marriage thingies myself, it isn't all about what I want or need, or what Todd wants or needs, or even you, Deki.

    It's about enshrining into the law the notion that we are, truly, equal. I know some of you love to say that you feel equal anyway, and that's swell, but whether you like it or not the law does not consider you equal. And it must, which is why this matters. Even though I'm never going to have some guy smearing cake on my face.



    I get the point you're making, JP...but not every gay man feels "unequal" just because "marriage" is illegal. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend a single second of a single day feeling that way -- I just don't. I actually thinks it sad that people seem to want to define their own equality based on societies definition of "marriage". I truly believe that many people who vote against "gay marriage" aren't of the mindset of being against gays, but rather they just want the definition of "Marriage" to not change and remain the way it has always been. I just don't find this insulting. I get that others do, but it's just not the way I feel. That being said, it's hard for me to define my own perceived "equality" based on something like "marriage" that I care nothing about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
    DEKIRUMAN I don't care if gay marriage ever passes, not relevant to my life at all


    Yes, you are right.

    Fuck civil rights.

    Fuck equality under the law.

    Fuck Social Security benefits.

    Fuck spousal privilege.

    Fuck inheritance rights.

    Fuck the 1000+ other economic, insurance and taxation rights, benefits and privileges that come with marriage.

    FUCK.

    THAT.

    SHIT.

    Kapo fags like you make me weep for the future...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    DEKIRUMAN saidwho cares? I mean really. I don't care if gay marriage ever passes, not relevant to my life at all. There are so many more important issues in both the gay and broader communities that we could be devoting this energy too. icon_rolleyes.gif
    How about we vote jim crow laws back? Would you 'care' then?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 3:11 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    I think maybe you didn't read what I wrote all that closely. It isn't about you feeling equal (I'd have bet $1000 on your saying that). It's about how the law regards you.



    No, I read it...and as I said, I get it...at least I get YOUR interpretation or definition of "equality". That doesn't mean we all have to live by the same definition. Make no mistake about it, I am all about "equality" when it comes to protecting gays against violence, employment discrimination, or other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, however I feel changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays crosses into a broader context that leaves millions, obviously, conflicted. This is why I think if gays would focus on a solid "Civil Union" initiative that included all the same rights and privileges of marriage, as this would be a compromise that most (but I know not all) would be willing to live with. Getting hung up on semantics and the word "marriage" is, in my opinion, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Get over the semantics, get solid "civil unions" passed, and move on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:16 PM GMT
    Have you considered the enormous costs of doing that Curiousjock? Being fiscally conservative etc....civil unions in the US are a hodge podge patchwork of equal and unequal rights State by State.


    ...and you're missing JP's point still.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:26 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    JPtheBITCH said
    I think maybe you didn't read what I wrote all that closely. It isn't about you feeling equal (I'd have bet $1000 on your saying that). It's about how the law regards you.



    No, I read it...and as I said, I get it...at least I get YOUR interpretation or definition of "equality". That doesn't mean we all have to live by the same definition. Make no mistake about it, I am all about "equality" when it comes to protecting gays against violence, employment discrimination, or other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, however I feel changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays crosses into a broader context that leaves millions, obviously, conflicted. This is why I think if gays would focus on a solid "Civil Union" initiative that included all the same rights and privileges of marriage, as this would be a compromise that most (but I know not all) would be willing to live with. Getting hung up on semantics and the word "marriage" is, in my opinion, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Get over the semantics, get solid "civil unions" passed, and move on.


    The majority of Americans were opposed to "redefining" the definition of marriage to include people of different "race" before the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia.

    Oh no.

    People are "conflicted."

    They are "conflicted" all the time.

    This morning I was "conflicted" about ordering a venti white mocha vs a tall skinny latte with an extra shot.

    Oh the horror of being "conflicted."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said Have you considered the enormous costs of doing that Curiousjock? Being fiscally conservative etc....civil unions in the US are a hodge podge patchwork of equal and unequal rights State by State.


    ...and you're missing JP's point still.



    Clearly, you and JP are missing mine and other's point --- we just don't care about gay marriage. It's NOT that important to many gays, and that's just reality. Being gay doesn't require that we all care about the same thing. I do not feel like a 2nd class citizen simply because I can't marry another man. For one thing, I don't even want to marry another man, and even if I could I doubt that I would, so it's sort of hard to really care about it. I suspect that part of the reason that gay marriage hasn't been passed across the country is that many gays, like myself, just aren't all that passionate about it one way or the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:36 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    JPtheBITCH said
    I think maybe you didn't read what I wrote all that closely. It isn't about you feeling equal (I'd have bet $1000 on your saying that). It's about how the law regards you.



    No, I read it...and as I said, I get it...at least I get YOUR interpretation or definition of "equality". That doesn't mean we all have to live by the same definition. Make no mistake about it, I am all about "equality" when it comes to protecting gays against violence, employment discrimination, or other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, however I feel changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays crosses into a broader context that leaves millions, obviously, conflicted. This is why I think if gays would focus on a solid "Civil Union" initiative that included all the same rights and privileges of marriage, as this would be a compromise that most (but I know not all) would be willing to live with. Getting hung up on semantics and the word "marriage" is, in my opinion, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Get over the semantics, get solid "civil unions" passed, and move on.



    Gays want to be all romantic and refuse to see marriage as a legal
    Issue. Changing the terms of all existing str8 marriage contracts retroactively is nasty business. It's like the Nazis disallowing Jews from owning property retroactively. Gays should create there own rainbow unions that serve them best and fuck str8 marriage completely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:36 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    JPtheBITCH said
    I think maybe you didn't read what I wrote all that closely. It isn't about you feeling equal (I'd have bet $1000 on your saying that). It's about how the law regards you.



    No, I read it...and as I said, I get it...at least I get YOUR interpretation or definition of "equality". That doesn't mean we all have to live by the same definition. Make no mistake about it, I am all about "equality" when it comes to protecting gays against violence, employment discrimination, or other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, however I feel changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays crosses into a broader context that leaves millions, obviously, conflicted. This is why I think if gays would focus on a solid "Civil Union" initiative that included all the same rights and privileges of marriage, as this would be a compromise that most (but I know not all) would be willing to live with. Getting hung up on semantics and the word "marriage" is, in my opinion, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Get over the semantics, get solid "civil unions" passed, and move on.


    No. No, no, no, no, no.

    This is empowering greater society to categorize us as different and or in a different category. Love and commitment between two PEOPLE can be classified as a marriage. It is weakness and our own willingness to be trodden upon that says, "civil unions are good enough." Fuck that, there are some things we do not need to compromise on. This is one of them. To hell with heteronormative ignorant nincompoops who feel that our having "marriage" too will cause them conflict. If you dont want a gay marriage, don't fucking get one. Tell your kids not to. Don't attend any. It's that damn simple. We are 2-3% of the population, not 10%.

    Weakness. This is weakness and cowardice not to fight against people who think its okay to categorize all of us as below them in one way or another. The very fact that you are ok with being given a "separate but equal" is a reflection of many things - it's highly unlikely that it's just "well I dont really CARE..." ....I'm sorry but if you didn't feel like being gay was a second-class existence, you'd act like it wasn't...and you would actually give a shit that you are being discriminated against on a governmental level. I may never marry either, but that doesnt mean that I wont fight fiercely for other people's rights to be equal within the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:43 PM GMT
    Curiousjock said, "Clearly, you and JP are missing mine and other's point --- we just don't care about gay marriage. It's NOT that important to many gays, and that's just reality."

    ...me, me, me. I got that point.


    You know, I'm all for wage parity for women. Now why should I be? I'm not a woman. Yet it matters.....equality isn't all about me, it's about others, too. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:46 PM GMT
    meninlove said Curiousjock said, "Clearly, you and JP are missing mine and other's point --- we just don't care about gay marriage. It's NOT that important to many gays, and that's just reality."

    ...me, me, me. I got that point.


    You know, I'm all for wage parity for women. Now why should I be? I'm not a woman. Yet it matters.....equality isn't all about me, it's about others, too. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug



    Exactly!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    I can see both the sides being debated in this thread. And I believe what we all have to realize is that both sides are surprisingly and strongly valid.

    I think we can all agree that we - the LGBTQ, the gay, the homo, whatever you call us - should have legal equality under the law. We may not agree what form that should take, but we can agree that we should have equality under the law and ideally be treated equally under the law by our fellow citizen, even if they'd like to cast us in a giant oven and dance around the ashes.

    At the same time, just as there are straight people who do not want to marry and thus create relationship paradigms for themselves, there are LGBTQ people who do not embrace relationship traditions for themselves. One of the beauties of the (untarnished) American ideal is that our free citizenry is able and allowed define the terms of their lives. If a gay man doesn't find marriage appealing, it should be perfectly fine for him to not support gay marriage, even if in the same breath he willingly supports equality work.

    Hostility toward those who do not want or support "gay marriage" within the LGBTQ is not necessary and cross purpose. Also, hostility toward gay marriage by uninterested gays rather falls into the "if you don't have anything nice to say" category.

    There must be room in the world for all ideas and preferences around these issues. Absolutes just make us sound like crazy Christianists.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 4:01 PM GMT
    ZbmwM5 said
    This is empowering greater society to categorize us as different and or in a different category.

    Last I checked, it's perfectly legal for me to get married like everyone else. Is it society's fault if I decide I want to marry a man and the legal definition of "marriage" is between a man & a woman? What if I decide I want to marry a dog? My sister? My mom? Who is society to tell me I can't marry whomever or whatever I want?



    ZbmwM5 saidLove and commitment between two PEOPLE can be classified as a marriage. It is weakness and our own willingness to be trodden upon that says, "civil unions are good enough."

    That may be YOUR opinion, but it's certainly not mine. I see "Civil Unions" as a compromise. Compromise is a weakness only to the selfishly narrow-minded who can't grasp the concept that sometimes you have to lose a few battles in order to win the war.


    ZbmwM5 said
    To hell with heteronormative ignorant nincompoops who feel that our having "marriage" too will cause them conflict......We are 2-3% of the population, not 10%.

    And therein lies the rub. Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate the small fraction of the society who is gay has proven problematic and, to many, not necessary when "civil unions" could essentially accomplish the same thing.


    ZbmwM5 saidI'm sorry but if you didn't feel like being gay was a second-class existence, you'd act like it wasn't...and you would actually give a shit that you are being discriminated against on a governmental level.


    Not sure what else to say other than we don't all care about the same things, or feel the same way about every issue -- and that includes gay marriage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 4:04 PM GMT
    Half. Baked. Argument.

    Short answer, no - not a blessing in disguise.

    However, it is a little disappointing to hear some people say they could give two fucks about marriages/civil unions either way because they don't want to be a part of one. . .I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion and to live the way they choose, but I find that a little ridiculous.

    I guess it just sort of represents how little monogamy means to a majority of gay men. The mentality that relationships are temporary, and that you are just waiting for something or someone "better" or "new" to come along.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 4:07 PM GMT
    ZbmwM5 saidThis is empowering greater society to categorize us as different ...


    That is exactly correct. Marriage for gay people is about equality in civil rights, to be treated and thought of as 100% human as are str8 people. Anything less dehumanizes us.

    To the OP's point, that you might find coincidental or even collateral benefit in suffering only rationalizes through the pain. It neither relieves suffering nor justifies it. It is perverted to think it does because we do not release ourselves from suffering by indulging it.

    That a benefit is derived from suffering does not mean that the very same benefit can not be introduced or realized without suffering. Indeed, the greater the suffering, the less of a chance has the individual to reach an enlightened state of consciousness because there is that much more distraction and that many less tools available to extract oneself out of that condition.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    RunintheCity saidI can see both the sides being debated in this thread. And I believe what we all have to realize is that both sides are surprisingly and strongly valid.

    I think we can all agree that we - the LGBTQ, the gay, the homo, whatever you call us - should have legal equality under the law. We may not agree what form that should take, but we can agree that we should have equality under the law and ideally be treated equally under the law by our fellow citizen, even if they'd like to cast us in a giant oven and dance around the ashes.

    At the same time, just as there are straight people who do not want to marry and thus create relationship paradigms for themselves, there are LGBTQ people who do not embrace relationship traditions for themselves. One of the beauties of the (untarnished) American ideal is that our free citizenry is able and allowed define the terms of their lives. If a gay man doesn't find marriage appealing, it should be perfectly fine for him to not support gay marriage, even if in the same breath he willingly supports equality work.

    Hostility toward those who do not want or support "gay marriage" within the LGBTQ is not necessary and cross purpose. Also, hostility toward gay marriage by uninterested gays rather falls into the "if you don't have anything nice to say" category.

    There must be room in the world for all ideas and preferences around these issues. Absolutes just make us sound like crazy Christianists.



    Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful post. I agree with you, but I do think some clarification is needed. I fully support "gay marriage", and I sincerely hope that, for the sake of those who it means a lot to, that one day it is legal in all 50 states. However, that doesn't mean that it is personally an issue that I am passionate about either way. I just think it's important to point of that not caring one way or the other about "gay marriage", or any issue for that matter, does not necessarily mean one does not support it.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    7Famark said
    I guess it just sort of represents how little monogamy means to a majority of gay men. The mentality that relationships are temporary, and that you are just waiting for something or someone "better" or "new" to come along.


    I totally disagree. Since when does "marriage" define "monogamy". You do not have to marry someone to be committed to monogamy. In fact, I wouldn't be in a relationship if it was not monogamous -- period. Plenty of married people out there running around who are not monogamous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    7Famark said
    I guess it just sort of represents how little monogamy means to a majority of gay men. The mentality that relationships are temporary, and that you are just waiting for something or someone "better" or "new" to come along.


    I totally disagree. Since when does "marriage" define "monogamy". You do not have to marry someone to be committed to monogamy. In fact, I wouldn't be in a relationship if it was not monogamous -- period. Plenty of married people out there running around who are not monogamous.


    Of course you do. You disagree with literally everything I say lately
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20063

    Mar 07, 2012 4:20 PM GMT
    7Famark said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    7Famark said
    I guess it just sort of represents how little monogamy means to a majority of gay men. The mentality that relationships are temporary, and that you are just waiting for something or someone "better" or "new" to come along.


    I totally disagree. Since when does "marriage" define "monogamy". You do not have to marry someone to be committed to monogamy. In fact, I wouldn't be in a relationship if it was not monogamous -- period. Plenty of married people out there running around who are not monogamous.


    Of course you do. You disagree with literally everything I say lately lol


    LOL! SORRY! :-) I assure you, it's not deliberate. I just think it's misguided to think that just because someone doesn't particularly care about "gay marriage" that it is synonymous with not caring about monogamy. They are two entirely different things, and one does not guarantee the other.