Gay/lesbian "marriage"

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

    Sep 11, 2007 3:06 PM GMT
    I have been giving this some thought, lately, and have come to the conclusion that we, as "gay" entities, need to quit trying to imitate the breeders by seeking the "institution" of marriage (and I mean "marriage" as a term). I think we need our own term, like "committed companionship" or something like that. Perhaps that would settle the furor of the straights, and help us to create an honored institution which will allow us to have the rights which are currently afforded only to "marriages", such as rights of survivorship, etc.

    Even then, we need to look seriously at what we really want from such a committed companionship. Since we are homosexuals, we may have needs which transcend those of heterosexuals, which we have never even considered. Those of you who are lawyers and gay marriage activists need to take a serious look at the institution, and make a comparison between heterosexual marriage and homosexual companionship, and present the similarities and differences to the rest of us, so that we may make some really pointed choices as to what we want and what we expect legally.

    How about it?

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

    Sep 11, 2007 4:23 PM GMT
    errr.... "civil partnership"?

    but I think we should at least have the option of using the same name; after all to do otherwise would suggest our relationships are less legitimate than heterosexual ones. Any advance on the status quo in the US would be a bonus!
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Sep 11, 2007 4:29 PM GMT
    A quick copy-and-paste from my profile:

    "I currently support the struggle of gays and lesbians for same-sex marriage because of the legal rights that are attached to marriage; my ideal would be to end governmental sanctioning of the marriage institution and instead codify the rights within marriage as bundles of legal contracts that people can enter into regards of sex or gender (with a possibility for numerical limitations in terms of how many an individual person can establish a contract with)."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 4:40 PM GMT
    I think, "breeder," is a bit of a raunchy term to use - but whatever (kinda funny too) I don't know why, but the idea of gay marriage rarely crosses my mind. I guess I just figure that it'll happen eventually...maybe that's lazy of me, I don't know.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Sep 11, 2007 4:40 PM GMT
    No way. I will settle for nothing less than civil marriage. There may be intermittent steps along the way, but the goal is MARRIAGE. If we are ever to be fully included in the fabric of society, we must be equal in every way to heterosexuals in the eyes of the law, which again means MARRIAGE for the purposes of credit, inheritance, , helth care, insurance, taxes, etc. Second class citizen is not going to cut it anymore.

    More personally, I want society to acknowledge and affirm my relationship just as much as any one of Britney's marriages. People like her mock the institution, whereas some of us have the highest respect for it...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 5:36 PM GMT
    "The only major limitation (other than the cost of getting unmarried)I can think of is the proscription against polygamy..."

    I see this as a major stumbling block to full gay marriage. (Had a lengthy debate about it with one of my professors, who is also gay, incidentally) Gay people come off looking like hypocrites when we advocate so strongly for marriage amongst ourselves, yet (many) wish to deny it to polygamous couples, the vast majority of whom believe just as, if not MORE strongly, in their right to be recognized legally. How can you say "I want the traditions changed for MY people, but not for YOURS?" You can't, and there's the block angle. Make an exception for one, then others must follow. Moreoever, an even more massive majority of people are against polygamy, and so that presents the slippery-slope problems, as well.

    Ultimately, I see a type of civil-union arrangement emerging in most states in the U.S. I do NOT, however, think it will progress to full-fledged marriage, with a few states as exceptions. Even here in Iowa (where we recently had the first-ever non-coastal gay marriage), I see the practice being banned constitutionally by legislators. The governor (Democrat) says he supports such a move.

    Also, not to sound too serious, but the use of the term "breeder" is pejorative. It implies that the only function of a heterosexual relationship is for reproduction, and that is not only false, but silly. Really... to have a serious discussion about SERIOUS issues, things like that need to be discarded, because they don't help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 5:43 PM GMT

    I have always stated that we should totally seperate the legal benefits and protections afforded by our civil government from the religious term marriage.

    Leave 'Marriage' to the religious, and the individual church's.

    Give EVERYONE the same civil benefits under something like a 'Civil Contract'.

    Iain and I are civil partners under UK law, and had a ceremony blessed by the Anglican Church. We consider ourselves married no matter what anyone else thinks.

    The problem occurs when you use two or more seperate terms to define the same institution for different classes of people - that leaves it open to descrimination.

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

    Sep 11, 2007 6:00 PM GMT
    I agree with IT Jock 1000%...its symantics....give up the term "marriage" and we can have the legal union we seek.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 6:02 PM GMT
    Here in Holland we have the right to commit to eachother thru a civil marriage and even in some churchs, we came there in steps, first there was a `legal partnership` that is/was open for all, now we have an open civil mariage and the civil servants that has to conclude a marriage have the right to refuge a same sex marriage if they where installed before the law changed..... So within a few years that will be out off the question and the marriage is completly equal, as it should be
  • art_smass

    Posts: 960

    Sep 11, 2007 6:52 PM GMT
    I'd only get married for the presents. By the way, Obscenewish and I are registered at Saks Fifth Avenue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 7:51 PM GMT
    I think someone who describes themselves as a 14 year old should do some research before putting quotation marks around the term gay marriage, as they seriously risk fucking some people off (namely me to begin with).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 7:54 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi, you make a valid point with the inborn/orientation argument.

    However, in the United States, (like the equal protection clause) we also have the guaranteed freedom to practice the religion of our choice. I don't have a deep understanding of polygamy, but I do know that many fundamentalist (non-LDS) Mormons and Muslims have religious tenets that either allow or require them to marry multiple spouses. With the law as it is currently, they are prevented (in their view) from the full and open practice of their religious obligations. As it currently stands, there is little motivation to change that, because marriage has been thought of largely as a static and unchangable concept. However, if an exception is made for gay marriage, be prepared to fight off an onslaught of other "interpretations" of marriage.

    As I said earlier, an enormous majority of Americans are against polygamous marriage, so it will be a great struggle to try to justify the one-without-the-other changing of the rules.

    Also to note, there is no inherent "right" of marriage. Marriages are granted on a case-by-case basis, and are subject to the approval and recognition of legal authorities. We need to have this remain in place, otherwise, the door is opened to all sorts of abnormalities (cousin marriage, fraudulent marriages, marriages under duress, underage marriages, etc...)

    Because of what I've mentioned, I only see two outcomes as being possible in the long-run. 1.) An expanded definition of marriage to include not only gay couples, but polygamous ones, as well. 2.) The granting of civil-union type partnerships without placing those arrangements on an even playing field with "married" couples.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:17 PM GMT
    Well, I don't wanna offend anyone on this issue but let me put in this bit...

    Why is the state concerned with marriage rights anyway? It's to control property. From this vantage point, the state would be better suited granting "marriage" to LGBT people as it would increse the state's power over property (and income, as many gay white males have substantial disposable incomes); the reason why the state refuses to do this has to do with ideological (or religious & moralistic) reasoning which, among other things, sees gays not as fully-fledged people. Therefore, why concentrate on this marriage issue when the real one is the disavowal of gay people as full citizens/people. I'm not sure if the answer is being assimilationist (though the evidence to date shows that's not working) or an assertion of our status as "other" but that our focus is on the wrong points of the argument. Sorry, but until we concentrate on getting gays seen as fully human (which would include those who are poor, disabled, non-white, etc.)and stop the hate crimes against gays, we'll never win this argument.

    Sorry if I sound cynical, just my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:18 PM GMT
    Lets not forget in the early days Gays and Lesbians did get married, it wasn't a 'breeder' practice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:19 PM GMT
    and also, what is changing the name going to do, A...it's the SAME thing just a different title and also, all you're doing is stirring up segregation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:21 PM GMT
    and can we leave Britney out of this shes been through a lot.

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

    Sep 11, 2007 8:29 PM GMT
    Um, "most of us favor some sort of gov. regulation of sex & religion"?!? WTF! That seems like the most undemocratic function of the state: they need to worry about providing safe roads, healthcare, and universal education, not worrying about whose cocks are being sucked and why it's wrong according to this or that religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:32 PM GMT
    Well, we def need regulation of religion. Those polite hari krishnas as bus stations and airports might not be as polite otherwise and would simply abduct would be adherent (for example). Sex regulation? Nah.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:35 PM GMT
    Jackal's Law on Religion: "Mind you own damn business!" :)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:35 PM GMT
    I find a lot of the "discussion points" ventured on this forum quite bizarre, coming from a non-American perspective I guess.

    In my country (New Zealand), heterosexual and homosexual married, civil-unioned and/or defacto couples (2+ years living together) automatically have all the same rights and responsibilities (communal property, custody, immigration...)

    But yet religion, polygamy, and pederasty (!!) never came or come into discussions regarding relationship legislation at all.

    The State does have a role in recognition of couples as the family unit is a fundamental building block of the society upon which the legitimacy of its power rests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:38 PM GMT
    But Jackal, the religious are so much fun to ridicule! Please?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:42 PM GMT
    Hitler was elected (a legit gov. figure), was a big Christian, and according to him, gays were as worthy as Dachau (sp?) as the communists. Are you saying you want government regulation of ALL religions or just some? Careful with that one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 8:43 PM GMT
    "...as WORTHY of Dachau..."

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

    Sep 11, 2007 8:44 PM GMT
    Definitely all. It's abusive, for example, that parents send their kids to Jesus Camp. I believe that exposure to religion shouldn't even happen until someone is old enough to make up his or her own mind about it. Before that, it's child abuse, IMO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2007 9:04 PM GMT
    I see the discussion is starting to drift, but I'd just like to point out that the ONLY countries on this planet where any type of gay civil union/domestic partnership (or marriage) are recognized or allowed are in CHRISTIAN nations (with the exception of Israel). A variety of Christian denominations either give blessings to unions, or perform unions themselves, including some groups of Anglicans, Christian Reformed Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Quakers, Old Catholics, Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ. Gay people should try to engage the support of Christian churches and organizations rather than trying to wage war against them, because that is an unwinnable, and ultimately, self-defeating fight.