I did not deny the point made by lissener. But it is also true that the redress ends up giving gay couples an option that straight couples do not have. You seem to be acknowledging this when you say “I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well”.
Divorce is very compicated and messy. It is alot more difficult to get out a marriage than to end a “domestic partner relationship”. It is primarily for this reason that many people prefer the domestic partner arrangement to marriage, until they are ready to give the level of commitment that marriage requires.
Sure many people get married for convenience. But many don’t. And if you are in this group of people who don’t wish to do so, you are at an advantage (in certain cases) if you are gay in that you can have your domestic partner relationship qualify you for corporate benefits.
Again, this is not to say that gays are not at a disadvantage in that they cannot be married. But they also have, in these instances described, an advantage.
Frankly, I don’t think that straights are crumbling under the heel of oppression due to the facts described. But they are facts nonetheless.
I did not deny that proof of domestic partnership is required. What is not required is proof of a long-lasting domestic partnership. This is typically something that is checked off on a form.
I do acknowledge it - based on the list beaker provided, it looks like it’s about half that offer to both and half that offer to same-sex only. But based on the way society is currently structured, i.e., overwhelmingly heterosexually oriented, this drop in the bucket is the start towards equality. O, woe is the poor opposite-sex couple who doesn’t want to get married but wants the benefits anyway. Is it fair? Maybe not, and as I said, I wish it weren’t so, but I think it’s a small price to someday achieve the goal of equality for everyone.
Hey, it was the movement the gay community started for equality that even gave some heterosexuals the option of a domestic partnership instead of marriage. Before us, it was either single or married, and no in-between (even common-law marriages are still marriages). If anything, the gay community is bringing equality to heterosexuals.
One miniscule “advantage” in a small handful of companies. I’m not losing any sleep.
Also wrong. I should have clarified that those proofs of partnership must be at least a year old. Again, as someone already pointed out, an opposite-sex couple can get married and have those benefits extended immediately, but a same-sex couple has to wait a year. Yeah, that’s fair… :rolleyes:
Sorry, but you are wrong here. You may be correct about the case that you are familiar with, but it is not typically the case. (Also I think a full year is a bit longer than average as well).
Wrong. The redress given by a very small number of corporations gives a very small number of gay couples an option that straights working at those companies don’t have. In the VAST VAST MAJORITY of cases, gays are S.O.L. This is NOT something that is available to ‘gay couples’ in general. And in no cases at all do gay couples get all of the other benefits and legal protections given to straight married couples.
And the fact that Esprix agrees that it’s wrong when gays have an option not available to others simply shows that he doesn’t have a double-standard on this issue.
And that is wrong. Straight couples should not be denied DPR status because they’re straight. Just like gay couples should not be denied marriage because they’re gay.
But come on, get real. A minute number of gay couples have an advantage over a very small number of straight couples. And the vast majority of straight couples have a huge advantage (remember the DPR status in question applies only to CORPORATE benefits, not all the rest of the marriage bonus) over all gay couples.
Why are you blowing up such a tiny advantage to elephantine proportions?
Gosh, I’m glad to hear that. I was about to call for a chorus of tiny violins.
Wrong again. Divorce may be very complicated and messy. That is not necessarily true, however. You don’t even need a lawyer to file a no-fault, no-child, uncontested divorce. I know people who’ve done it. You agree to what’s yours & what’s theirs (doesn’t even need to be in the decree as long as there’s no significant property that’s legally jointly owned) and file a piece of paper with the court clerk. Just about like ending a DPR, huh?
On the other hand, dissolving a long-term DPR, especially for folks who have resorted to other legal means to give them the marriage benefits they’re not allowed (joint ownership of property, medical power of attorney, living wills, etc etc etc), can be very complicated and messy as well. Since you don’t have the one-stop-shop of divorce court, you have to handle each of those issues separately and individually. And sundry deities help you if you’re involved in a messy breakup and forget one!
Many of us who don’t marry do it for our own reasons, not for yours, thank you very much.
You’ve made this assertion several times. Please provide some backup. Every corp that I’ve heard of that offers DPR benefits (not that I claim to have vast experience - it’s pretty unusual around here) requires the couple to prove that they’re more than just temporary roommates.
This idiotic sentence seems to underline your whole post, so I’ll respond to it. I am not blowing anything up into elephantine proportions. I am not trying to compare the overall advantages that gays have with the overall advantages that straights have. In fact I specifically acknowledged at least once that straights would have it easier. Unfortunately this has failed to penetrate into your head, so I am repeating it again.
It is unfortunate that many people are unable to look at specific facts on their own and persist in seeing everything as part of a larger battle.
Sorry, no backup available. I am employed as an employee benefits consultant, and as such, have dealt with these issues. Take it or leave it. I should add that it would be helpful to you if you paid attention to what I actually said, which you evidently did not.
The thing is you can’t be for same sex only DPR and against straight only marrage. Its hypocrisy. I don’t exactly see how this is bizzare logic, ever heard the saying 2 wrongs don’t make a right?
Also for divorce it takes a year to complete. (or at least that has been my admittedly limited experience with it. Also if you have Klinefelter(sp?) syndrome in Texas you could probably get married because thats where a person has XXY genes instead of XY(though it can go up to XXXXXYYYYY)
Yes, you stated (a couple of times, actually) that straights have it easier. You also asserted at least that many times that gays have this advantage over straights.
The implication is that gays in general have an advantage over straights because gays can get benefits without getting married. This, in case you are not aware, is pretty damn close to the well-known “those queers are always wanting special rights” argument that is widely used in the anti-gay crowd.
Perhaps that is not your intent. However, you keep arguing the point, which makes it seem to be your intent.
**
And it is also unfortunate that many people falsely imply greater import to specific facts than those facts actually merit.
No one has argued against the fact that, on rare occasions, gay couples can get DP status from certain corps that don’t give that status to straight couples. In fact, everyone has acknowledged it.
What I disagree with is your implied message. The one that you keep restating over and over.
**
[quote] Originally posted by redtail23 You’ve made this assertion several times. Please provide some backup. Every corp that I’ve heard of that offers DPR benefits (not that I claim to have vast experience - it’s pretty unusual around here) requires the couple to prove that they’re more than just temporary roommates.
**
I’m sorry, which of your statements in which you flatly stated your personal experience as fact did I ignore?
My sincere apologies if THE FACT THAT I CAN NOT MARRY AS I CHOOSE makes me see your petty arguments as a much larger battle than they deserve. My sincere apologies if THE FACT THAT I CAN NOT GET THE PRIVILEGES EXTENDED TO MARRIED COUPLES tends to get me a bit tetchy. My sincere apologies if THE FACTS THAT I CAN BE ARRESTED, LOSE MY JOB, LOSE MY HOUSE, AND BE DENIED ACCESS TO MY LOVED ONES IN MEDICAL EMERGENCIES (to name only a few of the problems) cause me to view these issues as more than an intellectual debate.
Apparently the fact that these are not merely entertaining discussions to some of us hasn’t penetrated into your head. When you face bigotry and discrimination on a daily basis, it’s hard to maintain that oh-so-chic sense of being above it all while someone makes idiotic statements about how easy you have it.
Never mind. I’m getting concussed and I’ll have to stop now.
Izzy…two friends of mine (call them D and F) are breaking up. They’re two men, so it should be simple, right? But no…they’ve shared a house, but it is owned by F. But although D makes a lot less money he is a talented artist and architect and has put a lot of work into the house while F has paid most of the mortgage.
They are esentially in exactly the same position that a divorcing straight couple is in, except they don’t have the legal protections from each other that divorce law gives. I expect F to probably “buy out” D for some amount, but D doesn’t have a legal case. I think that a “divorcing” couple that was married in all but name has a harder time separating. And of course there are the usual recriminations and bitterness that accompany most breakups, especially since only one of them wants the breakup. So, divorce is never easy, even if you aren’t legally married.
I don’t agree with this. Someone says something. I dispute this. He disputes back. I dispute back in turn. At which point am I supposed to concede if I don’t wish to imply something about a larger issue? And for what reason?
You ignored the difference between proving a relationship and providing historical record of this relationship. In the example that Esprix gave, he addressed this, saying that you had to provide records that were a year old. You ignored this distinction.
You can view this however you wish. In fact, you can rave away to your hearts content and I will not complain. All I ask is that, however you view these issues, you not misrepresent things that I said, and not pretend I’ve said things that I haven’t. It seems a simple request.
Lemur866,
I still think being legally married adds another layer of entanglement, and I think most people contemplating marriage will bear me out. However, even if this were not the case, there is some reason why many people chose to deliberatly avoid legal marriage, even when they meet domestic partner definitions.
Shoot beakerx, I was about to post that news!
A question for the gay guy: what is gay? Define it please.
I know someone who doesn’t like the idea of ever having anal sex with another male. To me, this means they are not gay.
Please elaborate with your extensive gay knowledge.
Izzy, no one is denying your statements that in some cases, same-sex couples have an advantage over opposite-sex couples in obtaining corporate domestic partnership benefits. There remains a question over the requirements of applying for such benefits (i.e., proving the existence of a relationship vs. proving the duration of a relationship), but, yes, sometimes gay folk are offered the DP option when straight folks are not. And I dare say everyone here thinks this is patently unfair, but at the same time it’s a step towards balancing the vast unfairness in society today against the gay community.
That said, do you understand why people are ticked off that this is even being discussed? Gay couples finally get a break and all someone can do is point out that it’s slightly overbalanced in the other direction?
I still maintain that heterosexuals have the advantage in all cases by having the ability to marry, and that in the end DP benefits will balance out and provide a new option that heterosexuals previously did not enjoy.
So not only does being gay involve sexual intercourse and sexual attraction, but it also involves “enduring emotional, romantic… or affectional attraction to another person.” There is also a difference between orientation and behavior.
But since you specifically asked about anal sex, does “sexual intercourse” automatically mean “anal sex?” Let’s check back with Webster’s:
Since homosexuality distinctly does not involve penis and vagina contact, it therefore falls under “other,” and intercourse does not specifically involve penetration.
So, if this person has emotional, romantic or affectional attraction to the same sex, and/or has had or desires to have sexual intercourse with the same sex, regardless of their desire to perform one specific sexual act, then, yes, they’re gay.
Besides, lots of gay guys think anal sex is icky. As I’ve often said, if you think the only way to have sex is to penetrate your partner, you are missing out on a world of fun.
As merely a gay guy, not THE Gay Guy, i’ll do my best.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual acts, but toward the gendertoward which one is attracted.
Let’s take a Catholic priest, for example. He is attracted
to women emotionally and sexually, but he has taken a vow of celibacy. He has not, and will not have sex, but he is still heterosexually oriented.
One can have a love relationship with someone of the same genser without ever having sex, yet it would be a gay relationship.
Etymology note–the word "gay " does not come the synonym of “happy”. It comes from the Middle French word “gai”, which in its origianl sense meant naught or wicked.
the word became associated with prostitutes and demimondaines. In the 1600s the word became Anglicized as “gay”. In the early 20th century, the word became associated by extension to homosexuality.
