Would you marry your man?

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

    Nov 15, 2007 3:16 AM GMT
    Whether in a civil or some other form of commitment ceremony" would you marry or enter into some formalized legal life-sharing contract with your partner and why?

    Is such commitment a purely heterosexual construct and irrelevant to the gay experience?

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

    Nov 15, 2007 8:39 PM GMT
    I do...I mean, I would ... icon_biggrin.gif
  • irishboxers

    Posts: 357

    Nov 15, 2007 9:10 PM GMT
    Personally, I think a relationship/marriage happens in so many areas having nothing to do with the legal side that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Marriage is a guarantee of nothing...except perhaps 50% of the other person's assets. :-)

    Society still views marriage via a very narrow definition, and in that I include gay men. Marriage is a legal definition, not a statement of your relationship.

    And to answer the question: yes, I would.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 15, 2007 9:37 PM GMT
    In a heartbeat...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 9:44 PM GMT
    Absolutely, I would marry him... no questions. And if we were still living in MA, I would do it .

    You're other question is very interesting, Firecat. I never thought of marriage - with or without a ceremony - as a purely heterosexual construct. It's definitely a societal one, and is indeed one that was created by a society in which straight people are the majority, but I don't think that it's as easy a leap from that idea to an idea that this whole notion of "getting married" was indeed an imposed set of norms for straight people that doesn't/shouldn't apply to us as gay men. You see... while it could be argued that the only reason that gay men want to get married is because they mistakenly think that they have to play by the rules of the prosaic straight couple, it could just as easily be argued that some straight people who have never entertained the idea or experience of a same-sex relationship also get married because they mistakenly think that that's what society expects of them. In the same vein, I don't think it's as easily argued that gay men only think they have to get into a relationship because a straight society has perceived them as promiscuous and emotionally superficial... the same can easily be said about a lot of straight men and women too - that they chose to appear wholesome and do the right thing because one of the two of them got knocked up after a meaningless roll in the hay.

    So it's not so cut and dried to me... though I would be willing to hear a counter-argument.

    As for me... I'm commited to my partner simply because I want to be, and I would get married mostly because I see it as a celebration of commitment between the couple and the inclusion of the family in that celebration.

    Nuf sed.

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

    Nov 15, 2007 9:48 PM GMT
    The "asset-sharing" aspect is, I think, one of the things that gives one pause (or ought to) before entering and exiting relationships as readily and often as is considered stereotypical of gay culture. In that regard, I believe, it offers couples a rational stake in a single sustained relationship and in working to sustain that relationship through the inevitable trials that life will throw us. This rational stake can fulfill a counterbalance to impulsiveness. It is through those crises that some of the strongest and most intense bonds arise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 9:56 PM GMT
    I meant the stereotype of changing partners faster than they change their designer underwear.

    In the traditional "straight" marriage there was a greater expectation of longterm commitment (whowever arguably counter to human nature)

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

    Nov 15, 2007 10:04 PM GMT
    As to the second part of the question, Sahem, I was thinking of its aspect of transfer of chattel and the notion of marriage being a matter arranged by families (usually with the intent to advance in status)

    I don't know how many goats I'm worth and I don't know that my family would pony up the livestock.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 10:04 PM GMT
    So what you're saying is that in this soceity, gay men are expected not to commit whereas straight people are? I don't know that that's true.... isn't there an equally powerful stereotype about gay men talking some very colorful trash about their ex-boyfriends? In other words, isn't there another perception that gay men are constantly bitter at the lack of commitment? And for whatever it's worth, that too is not unique to gay men... Just watch any TV drama if you think it is.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure I agree. Help anyone?

    And as for dowrys and advancement.... does that still hold true in this day and age? I seriously don't think so, but I could be wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 10:22 PM GMT
    Yes, I do believe gay men are perceived as not being capable of long-term commitment. The equally strong stereotype you yourself cite in fact is part and parcel with the first [if they were committed they wouldn't be exes]

    Caslon observed elsewhere that we [gays] as a group were often late developing dating skills in our adolescence if we had much chance at all, and were thus quite ill-equipped to deal with making lasting romantic relatioships later. In that vein, it can can be argued that heterosexuals are better prepared [trained] for the long-term relationship, leading to that perception of pervsasive bitterness.

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

    Nov 15, 2007 10:37 PM GMT
    If you've got a #1, and you want to make a delcaration of this fact, or simply celebrate your relationship by hooking up your friends with a big ol' party, then have a wedding!

    Gays are lucky. We get to have any kind of wedding or party we want. There are no traditions and expectations to hold us back.

    Whenever I have *my* wedding, it will be first and foremost to make sure all our friends enjoy a party they'll never forget, and less about the two of us.

    As for the contract or life-sharing commitment, I don't think it would be explicitly necessary, but if it afforded us legal benefits, then sure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 10:38 PM GMT
    You know what? I do want to continue this discussion, but I think we might be pulling the train off the rails here. icon_wink.gif

    Let me mull over what you're saying some more though, okay?

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

    Nov 15, 2007 10:40 PM GMT
    Your face here:
    mangown.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 10:44 PM GMT
    I prefer to live together in sin. We did register when NJ first allowed domestic partnerships and there's a piece of paper somewhere. In a binder. In a box. In a garage or attack. Marriage wouldn't matter to us one way or the other. What we got goin on is stronger than marriage. Me and Mrs. Mrs. Jones.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 10:44 PM GMT
    ...str8s have dating experience than gays and yet they still have divorce rates of like 50%
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 15, 2007 10:51 PM GMT
    we wear rings I designed and had made, but we've never had a ceremony

    honestly? I doubt we'll ever have marriage or domestic partnership on a national level so I haven't really thought about it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 11:19 PM GMT
    Firecat wrote: "Whether in a civil or some other form of commitment ceremony" would you marry or enter into some formalized legal life-sharing contract with your partner and why?

    Is such commitment a purely heterosexual construct and irrelevant to the gay experience?"

    Yes, to protect him legally, to protect me legally, to have the full imprimateur of the law and State behind our decisions.

    No, it is not.

    There are two sides to marriage: The Legal Rights and the Emotional/Social aspects of relationship and commitment.

    1 - Legally: (Sorry OW - I don't know where this list originally came from)

    In just my state of residence, VT, some of those rights include:

    Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, in testate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer (during life or at death) of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold property as tenants by the entirety.

    Causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2007 11:48 PM GMT
    One of the important purposes of the marriage ceremony--and this is at least as important to gays as to straights--is to give the community at large a stake in the success and continuation of your relationship. It's not an accident that traditional marriages involved signed "witnesses"--society has a stake in the domestication and settling of couples, and when a couple runs into trouble, friends, family and the community often take it upon themselves--rightly, in my view--to see what they can do to help the couple patch things up if it's possible.

    One of the reasons gay relationships have historically been more short-term than straight marriages is the corresponding complete lack of society having a stake in the success of the relationship. This is one of many things that having same-sex marriage will improve.

    Frankly, I wish this had been true when I broke up with Mr. Right seven years ago. Sadly, there were a number of people in the community who either didn't care or thought we'd been together long enough anyway (seven years).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2007 10:39 PM GMT
    I would.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2007 10:48 PM GMT
    To be honest, I wouldn't need a ceremony and or "celebration" to tell someone how much I am devoted to them to both our love & life. It's about the things you do and how you prove it.

    Although with that said, I wouldn't mind having one anyways and telling the world at the top of my lungs how much I love my man, MY man. :^)

    I can't wait to find him though- I wonder where he is.

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

    Nov 19, 2007 10:56 PM GMT
    Second star on the right, straight on 'til morning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2007 11:01 PM GMT
    I live in an Australian state where you can register a same sex realtionship and me and my man have done that. We have been together 17 years, but previously lived is a state where that was not possible. Tasmania is way advanced on gay issues compared to anywhere else in Australia. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2007 11:08 PM GMT
    I can here in mass and i will. Or maybe iwillmove to canada. who knows? I love to love and be loved and I want it to be with the right man with his imperfections included. My two moms couldn't stay together after 15 years but that doesn't mean that i can't. They aren't officially divorced yet so maybe they can reconcile. I hope so.icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2007 12:26 AM GMT
    Firecat,

    I married my husband 2 years ago. It was not a hard decision, we had already been together 11 years, so considered ourselves "married".

    What it gave us was a sense of security for our relationship. As long as we were in Massachusetts, if anything happened to one us, there would be no question as to the other's legal standing. This is a major reason to get married, as ITJock mentions. But it is not the only, or necessarily the most important reason to marry.

    We married because we wanted to affirm our relationship, and to have the state recognize, and have our families there, was icing on the cake. We love each other, want to spend our lives together, and want to know the other is taken care of if anything happens to one us. We do consider ourselves an old married couple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2007 12:28 AM GMT
    I think Amy said it best.



    Did it once, not interested in doing it again.