Seems so, to me. If gays were to have their unions (illegitimate as they are) recognized and approved by society, with all the pomp and tax benefits and ceremony that come with that status, society would be encouraging stability within gay unions. As it is, you have a “roommate” or “friend” - so what? Unless you have a strong circle of gay friends (hard in a community which exists still in the shadows, largely), you are less likely to feel a commitment based upon you being one-half of a couple.
Ask youself also how many heterosexuals stay in ho-hum marriages for reasons other than the specifics of that other person?
I’m not convinced that " all the pomp and tax benefits and ceremony that come with that status" is a major factor in the stability of heterosexual unions. Where straights have it over gays when it comes to commitment is in biological children, a great motivating factor in riding out the rough periods and searching for compromise and understanding in close relationships. Keep in mind that we are only talking about one factor, and the relative significance is easily debatable.
Grienspace, are you a “mature member” at the Pizza Parlor? If you are, I’d like to e-mail you a link to a thread there where I share personal information I don’t feel comfortable posting on open board here; if not, I’ll C&P the post for e-mail.
Suffice it to say that for very personal reasons, the “the reason for marriage is children” argument is one that wound me personally and deeply.
And commitment exists where it exists, between any two people who feel it towards each other, inside of a marriage or in a non-sexual relationship. My former ward and I are “father and son” in a commitment with no legal validity whatsoever, but one that shows every intent of being a lifelong bond between us. I see no reason why two gay men or women could not feel a sense of lifelong commitment to each other that is irrelevant to whether they can co-progenate with each other.
If the inability to have children is a legitimate reason to ban gay marriages, then we need to apply the same standard to any post-menopausal woman or impotent man who wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex. After all, fair is fair.:rolleyes:
Like my husband and I. Our marriage and commitment to one another rock-solid, even though we never intend to have any children. Staying together for “the sake of the children” isn’t commitment: it’s resignation.
I don’t think that prohibiting gay unions in any way encourages promiscuity. Promiscuous people will remain that way whether marriage is an option, or not, and those who want a stable, monogamous relationship will engage in one regardless of whether they can make it legal. The fact that marriage for straights exists shows that the institution itself is not guard against promiscuity. Likewise, straight people can also cohabitate without benefit of clergy for a lifetime and be fully comitted to one another.
I think gays should have the same options available to them as straights. Despite vague ramblings about the “defense of marriage” I have never really heard a logical reason why allowing gays to marry would in any way harm the institution itself.
I think there is definitely a hypocrisy involved when gay men are lambasted for their “promiscuity” on the one hand, but they are refused theb right of marriage on the other hand. Ironically, it seems that lesbian relationships have a higher percentage of long term success than either male/male or male/female relationships. Promiscuity isn’t a gay thing, it’s a guy thing.
I’ve been registered there for quite some time, but I don’t know if I qualify as “mature” Please e-mail me.
If I came across as making such argument, then I have sincere regret in being misunderstood… I married my wife for lots of steaming hot sex, and having children is kind of counter productive to that end
Not hard to understand, but such relationship is not subject to negative stresses as to how money is spent, picking up after each each other, and sharing time on the computer.
No argument there either. I have two sisters-in-law that cohabit in Texas and they aren’t sisters. It is a relationship that has been tested over a decade , and there is no question as to the depth of commitment there. The are both inexorably rooted in the lives of their large “in law” extended families, visiting often, enabled by their extensive business travel and accumulated wealth. They are precious role models for my two daughters who are absolutely enamoured by them. Their participation in hosting and mentoring my daughters makes me extremely grateful. So I don’t think I need any lessons on the potential for childless commitment.
I brought a point up in this thread, because for me and I suspect others as well have managed to get through some pretty rough spots in their marriage/committed relationship by considering not just themselves but their charges. (I don’t mean this in a context all by itself) Lissa might condescendingly refer to resignation, but not all of us are perfect. I’ve had to work very hard at mine, (same for my wife), but when all is said and done, I married the best chance I ever had at happiness, and there are no regrets.
In summary, I never intended an argument here that was intended to advance some social policy or outlook. I do feel that having children can be very positive experience that falls into the lap of most heteros, but that does not limit others from realizing the full potential of a relationship alternatively
What I meant to say is that if all love has gone, and the people intend to stay married simply to spare the children any trauma of divorce, it’s not exactly commitment in the sense of trying to work on the marriage’s problems. To people in this situation, it often seems that they’ve decided that the marriage is over, and are just trying to tolerate one another’s presence for the remainder of their kids’ childhood. These were the people I was referring to, not those who are determined to make their marriage work for the sake of their family. To be determined to work through all problems IS true commitment. Giving up on the marriage and just agreeing to live in the same house is not.