What effect will universal gay marriage (in the USA) have... on us?

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 23, 2015 12:42 PM GMT
    In the 1970s, the gay movement was anti-marriage and anti-military.
    By the 1990s, the focus of our fight was gay-marriage and gays in the military.

    With gay marriage in this country gaining ground (slowly but surely... next week?) what impact will its achievement bring?

    Will the white picket fence, along with adopted or biological kids, become the aspiration of younger gays and future generations?

    Wasn't marriage itself meant to tame wild straight men, to know who are the fathers and provide for their children?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 1:33 PM GMT


    Just look North. The result of nationwide equality is sitting right here in Canada (ie nothing happened, lol, other than everyone getting on with their lives).


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

    Apr 23, 2015 2:45 PM GMT
    mwolverine saidIn the 1970s, the gay movement was anti-marriage and anti-military.
    By the 1990s, the focus of our fight was gay-marriage and gays in the military.

    With gay marriage in this country gaining ground (slowly but surely... next week?) what impact will its achievement bring?

    Will the white picket fence, along with adopted or biological kids, become the aspiration of younger gays and future generations?

    Wasn't marriage itself meant to tame wild straight men, to know who are the fathers and provide for their children?


    Please cite support for your saying that the gay rights movement was ever anti-marriage because I just caught a whiff of revisionism in your statement. What I remember of the 70s was that marriage wasn't even a consideration for most us. Never mind that the first half of the 70s, before my political time, was mostly about gaining psychological legitimacy and getting a foothold in politics, we were already being locked out legally from marriage at that time. That didn't mean that we didn't want our long term relationships recognized even when not monogamous, that many of us weren't acutely aware that our relationships weren't deemed by society as valid. We just didn't have the number or the strength yet to change it. And there were other complications. Here's a paragraph summing that up pretty well...

    http://www.salon.com/2013/09/08/the_secret_history_of_gay_marriage/
    ... Baker and McConnell were in the minority as they publicly pushed for the right to marry. Many homosexuals rejected marriage and monogamy. Some, having been one half of a heterosexual marriage, negatively associated the institution with their closeted lives. Marriage was not an initial goal of the gay rights movement, and many activists of the 1970s and early 1980s offered explicit critique of the institution or ignored the subject. Others seemed content to create their own versions of marriage, untouched by state sanction and unmarked by public recognition or celebration beyond their closest friends.


    So while the notion of marriage--that we might be able to have what they have--was congealing from having lived for a millennium marriage-less into what we know today, I think that a statement which says that the gay rights movement was against marriage confuses some issues.

    That some were coming to terms and out of the closet with having engaged hetero marriage, that they might have had issues with marriage did not speak for the rest of us. That some of us were in practicing bisexual relationships did not speak to being against marriage, but that the relationships might not have fit the paradigm. And even those specifically against marriage might simply have been rationalizing a way to find comfort in a world that didn't let them marry.

    So to say we were anti-marriage really takes things out of context. Even while not allowed, marriage was not unknown. Further from that article:

    Mary Mendola, a writer “married” to another woman, conducted an investigation in the late 1970s to determine just how many same-sex couples existed. The resulting publication, The Mendola Report, while hardly scientific, proved that gay men and lesbians resided together as married couples throughout the United States. Using only an informal network of gay and lesbian contacts, Mendola found 1,500 potential couples to survey and received an astonishing 27 percent return on her distribution. Of her return sample, 67 percent of respondents described themselves as permanently committed or “married.”


    I'd also like to see citation for us having been anti-military other than that we might preach sex not war. The 70s was the end of the Vietnam War so there was a lot of protest against the military, generally, leading up to that and that was also the big initial thrust of the gay rights moment fresh out of Stonewall, but those were still separate issues even if played out on the same battlefield. I was out by 1977 but by 1975 I had already looked into the AFROTC, hoping then to become a pilot. I don't recall any association in my mind of being gay and by that being anti-military. Those issues weren't the same.

    What I see as the big impact of marriage rights for our future is that it further legitimizes our humanity, empowering us to gain the rest of our civil rights here and to export our new found freedoms to our brothers and sisters still struggling around the world.

    This is a landmark to step up upon.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Apr 23, 2015 3:59 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    mwolverine saidIn the 1970s, the gay movement was anti-marriage and anti-military.
    By the 1990s, the focus of our fight was gay-marriage and gays in the military.

    Please cite support for your saying that the gay rights movement was ever anti-marriage because I just caught a whiff of revisionism in your statement.

    ...I'd also like to see citation for us having been anti-military other than that we might preach sex not war.

    Granted that my 10-word sentence may be an over-generalization.
    Yet from your first (Salon) article:

    Many homosexuals rejected marriage and monogamy.
    ...Marriage was not an initial goal of the gay rights movement, and many activists of the 1970s and early 1980s offered explicit critique of the institution or ignored the subject.

    Not just because some had been closeted in a hetero marriage, but there was also "progressive" politics at play: marriage was an institution meant to enslave women. In today's language, some still chide gay marriage as being "hetero-normative".

    I'm not sure the Mendola report is particularly relevant. No one denies that same-sex couples existed (and it's 67% of a short-list of hand selected "potential couples" who self-described themselves as married, nothing to do with the general population).

    I was more concerned with the political wind at the time. Part of that was a sign of the times, as you point out: "The 70s was the end of the Vietnam War so there was a lot of protest against the military, generally." I'd also add that it was the decade of "free love".

    Gay politics back then (even as today) weren't dominated by Log Cabin Republicans. The "don't rock the boat" Mattachine Society was replaced by the Gay Liberation Front (which started out as the Mattachine Action Committee but then broke away).

    From the 1971 [British] GLF Manifesto:
    Gay shows the way. In some ways we are already more advanced than straight people. We are already outside the family and we have already, in part at least, rejected the ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles society has designed for us. In a society dominated by the sexist culture it is very difficult, if not impossible, for heterosexual men and women to escape their rigid gender-role structuring and the roles of oppressor and oppressed. But gay men don’t need to oppress women in order to fulfil their own psycho-sexual needs and gay women don’t have to relate sexually to the male oppressor, so that at this moment in time, the freest and most equal relationships are most likely to be between homosexuals.

    But because the sexist culture has oppressed us and distorted our lives too, this is not always achieved. In our mistaken, placating efforts to be accepted and tolerated, we’ve too often submitted to the pressures to conform to the straight-jacket of society’s rules and hang-ups about sex.

    Particularly oppressive aspects of gay society are the Youth Cult, Butch and Femme role playing and Compulsive Monogamy....

    COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples ot live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one ‘right’ partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven’t even the justification of straight couples – the need to provide a stable environment for their children (although in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.)

    Monogamy is usually based on ownership – the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children – and is entirely bound up in the man’s idea of property; furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated shut-in, uptight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And although we don’t lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society’s blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says ‘we two against the world’, and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime – as though there were a ration of relationships and to want more than inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which stunts the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow and to learn about other human beings.

    It is especially important for gay people to stop copying straight – we are the ones who have the best opportunities to create a new life-style and if we don’t, no one else will.

    It goes on to talk about establishing gay communes and collectives.
    Not exactly ROTC material. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 6:31 PM GMT
    mwolverine said...It goes on to talk about establishing gay communes and collectives.
    Not exactly ROTC material. icon_smile.gif


    Right, because we only have kibbutz's with conscription.

    Besides that I thought this was a USA topic, I kid as I get the worldwide movement of Gay Rights, I think a lot of your British ROTC material is more contextual than reflective not only by its nature of having been written then, but especially of trying to prove a point at the time and of not looking forward in anticipation of one day looking back, which is easily held evident by notions of monogamous str8 relationships without allowing for divorce which did happen then yet not only not mentioned but exaggeratingly claiming those meant as forever bonds, plus this idea of ownership during a time when most women were not in the workforce (only starting to enter in the 70s) : so if you want to question applicability, there's that.

    The study I mentioned from the article is relevant even if limited in scope or even as it might be anecdotal because the reality is that many of us did have long term successful relationships and many of us either had or knew of even commitment ceremonies. Just me as one person, I was in a 10-year relationship in the 70s thru 80s with a man I still love and at that time, though our relationship was complicated by his bisexuality and homophobic family, I did have a cousin then who had a commitment ceremony with his partner. So the study might not be scientific but the results were not uncommon and certainly not unknown.

    As to the notion that marriage equality was not an immediate goal of the Gay Rights movement, keep in mind that first we had to fight to be considered by the world as human beings. They didn't let their dogs marry either. And until 1974 in the USA we were considered to be products of a personality disorder. So we had our priorities set not necessarily by our preferences. To say that it wasn't in our minds, that we didn't want what the heteros had, that's revisionism. It killed us inside to not have what our parents had, what our siblings got to enjoy, what our str8 friends had. No matter how it was rationalized, no matter how it played out, our desire from the beginning for equality in every aspect of life is what fueled this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 7:17 PM GMT
    pellaz said
    mwolverine said... It goes on to talk about establishing gay communes and collectives

    the hippies all wound up voting republican anyways


    5_2jqzaulusmlps9-fmska.png

    http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/
    517-11.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 9:33 PM GMT

    Being "monogamish" doesn't help reduce HIV rates. It's a false sense of security, especially if not tested regularly.

    pellaz saidgay men could be more monogamish, reduce their tendency for hiv infection.


    Than there is a large existing population of gamophobic gay men truly afraid of a long term commitment going bad. For couples that have been together for say 3years, the risk of divorce is significantly lower.



    mwolverine said... marriage itself meant to tame wild straight men...
    -marriage is a contract between lovers.
    -before getting down on marriage failure rates consider if your glass if half full or empty. The other 50% continue together for a life time of marriage bliss is spectacular.
    -marriage is a way to double instantly your wardrobe and complete your self. For example; one boy has a 8-5 job with a pay check and the other is entrepreneurial and has a profitable business. Or one can flip houses and the other has a real estate license.

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

    Apr 23, 2015 9:39 PM GMT
    CONTINUED UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SINGLE PEOPLE.
    Marriage of any kind is a scam to force single folks to pay for the health care of freeloading "partners." Marriage should be strictly a personal contract . No government involvement at all. It you want a spouse and kids take the financial responsibility of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidCONTINUED UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SINGLE PEOPLE.
    Marriage of any kind is a scam to force single folks to pay for the health care of freeloading "partners." Marriage should be strictly a personal contract . No government involvement at all. It you want a spouse and kids take the financial responsibility of them.


    Contracts are useful only if they can be legally enforced, which necessarily involves passing laws and litigation. "No government involvement at all" is impossible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:32 PM GMT
    Less people will get married, like in Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:57 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Just look North. The result of nationwide equality is sitting right here in Canada (ie nothing happened, lol, other than everyone getting on with their lives).



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

    Apr 24, 2015 5:50 AM GMT
    When different sexuality is embraced, and people aren't waging war against others with different sexual attraction, Men will have to finally look at themselves more deeply in regards to matters of anger, inner inadequacy, and the current nature of our sub culture, since there will no longer be an external opposition for gay men to blame their problems on, which is what most gay men do now: blame their own versions of racism and discrimination for the world, on the world hating and discriminating us first.

    There will be fewer excuses for us to hind behind, and we will be faced with a lot of the problems that we actually have created ourselves that we didn't know we created until the world began to accept us.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 24, 2015 2:52 PM GMT
    Other countries have legalized gay marriage and NOTHING changed. Perhaps other than the destigmatization effect that legal recognition of same sex marriages has, but I'd argue those benefits come decades later, not overnight.

    The biggest change is probably a year or two boom in wedding services and products (i.e., wedding planners, cakes, flower ships, etc.).

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

    Apr 24, 2015 3:31 PM GMT
    KJSharp saidLess people will get married, like in Canada.


    Yes, and no. Common-law marriages are up, which are legally the same as legally tying the knot, which yes has slowed down to less than 1% growth in numbers per year.

    As for gays..." That growth shift — from 7,500 to 21,015 married same sex-couples — is a significant increase over just five years. But Statistics Canada also reveals that despite the change, same-sex married couples represent just 0.3 per cent of all Canadian couples."

    However the huge plunges in straight marriage took place between the 70s and the 90s, long before there was any marriage for gay people.


    http://www.canada.com/Census+Canada+families+shifting+away+from+marriage+common+same+couples+increasing/7265308/story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 3:34 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidOther countries have legalized gay marriage and NOTHING changed. Perhaps other than the destigmatization effect that legal recognition of same sex marriages has, but I'd argue those benefits come decades later, not overnight.

    The biggest change is probably a year or two boom in wedding services and products (i.e., wedding planners, cakes, flower ships, etc.).




    Real estate: when gays get married there's this odd desire to buy a home and grow some roots, lol.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 24, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Svnw688 saidOther countries have legalized gay marriage and NOTHING changed. Perhaps other than the destigmatization effect that legal recognition of same sex marriages has, but I'd argue those benefits come decades later, not overnight.

    The biggest change is probably a year or two boom in wedding services and products (i.e., wedding planners, cakes, flower ships, etc.).




    Real estate: when gays get married there's this odd desire to buy a home and grow some roots, lol.


    Makes sense. As long as people are, when possible, buying/mortgage instead of renting, I'm all for it. That's, in part, how you create equity and wealth!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 5:59 PM GMT
    pellaz said
    timmm55 said Being "monogamish" doesn't help reduce HIV rates. It's a false sense of security, especially if not tested regularly...
    getting tested regularly dosnt prevent you from being infected. get tested every 3mo and you still had the disease for months not knowing.

    I didn't say "prevents". Testing, in and of itself, is not a Risk Reduction method.

  • Apr 24, 2015 8:28 PM GMT
    Marriage is so bourgeois and BASIC and conservative

  • Apr 24, 2015 8:41 PM GMT
    That's one of the dumbest things I've heard

    Straight marriage doesn't make heterosexuals monogamous
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 11:03 PM GMT
    In the 1960s and 1970s gay marriage was simply not a concept on the table for one to be either for or against. The concept itself had no reality to it. Being labeled as gay in and of itself could bring dire social and professional consequences, such was the situation in those days.

    Similarly, opposition to the military had nothing to do with homosexuality. Anti-military sentiments were tied to and a function of opposition to the Vietnam War, which was a tremendously divisive extended status dominating the country for a decade, which wreaked many unfortunate long-term consequences to the country. (Actually, admitting one was homosexual was a means of being classified 4F for the draft, but even then that was an option rarely professed.)

  • Apr 25, 2015 2:01 PM GMT
    http://www.vice.com/read/bruce-labruce-doesnt-drink-the-kool-aid-266