Let’s say, hypothetically, that I agree with you, and that ideally the “institution of marriage” is long overdue to be de-constructed and liberated from all of the negative cultural baggage that is associated with it.
I am not, however, willing to wait around for global cultural consensus to catch on to that idea, while my partner and I and our ilk continue to be treated like second-class citizens for the rest of our lives, and likely for some time long after we’re dead.
I am, however, more than willing to sign up for marriage as it currently exists, with all of the good and bad and the baggage, and then work with you to de-construct it from the inside.
Gay people should not be expected to just settle. We should not be expected to just be patient. It is an insulting and frustrating position to be in, no matter if it is someone yelling “Shut up and like what you get, pervert!” in my face, or someone calmly laying a steady hand on my arm and saying quietly, “All will come in good time.”
Juliet’s opinion makes perfect sense to me (although I don’t think two non-romantically inclined roommates should be able to participate, as you/she suggest- you’d have to have a divorce proceeding every time your college roommate switched apartments, for one thing). We’re not talking about that, though - civil unions would be fine if that’s what all (current) marriages were called.
Instead, we’re talking about people who want to deny same-sex couples the right to use the same word (and therefore, potentially some of the legal protections) that conventional couples get to use.
I certainly don’t think that the “marriage has so much baggage” argument has any merit at all- by that logic, we’d deny everyone the right to marry.
Again I am missing something on all the squabbling over semantics.
Screw the word “marriage”. As I suggested before separate the institution into two distinct aspects. On the one side is the legal aspect. What the government thinks about it. So abolish all reference to “marriage” in the law. Call it civil unions or whatever in its place. Let any two people hitch their wagons together under the law.
Then the “marriage” part can be left to the religious institutions. It is up to each religion to choose how they want to approach same sex marriages. They should not be obligated to support it if they do not want to. If a same sex couple belongs to that church/mosque/temple/whatever and they will not marry them that is their own problem. They can switch religions or see a judge.
As far as day-to-day conversation goes call yourself married. I suspect under the above scheme “marriage” would come to mean “any two people legally bound in civil union” in the popular lexicon.
I guess I see it like this: As a man I am typically bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and look at things differently both as a product of physiological brain differences, and psychological differences ingrained by society than a woman does.
A woman is much more “other” than a fellow man would be. We have a bigger bridge of differences that we have to gap.
With my wife, my bond is our differences.
With my male friends, my bond is our sameness.
I imagine, perhaps fallaciously, that the bond between two gay men is like the bond between me and my my male friends with an added sexual component.
I have female friends, and my female friendships are different than my male friendships.
Not better. Not worse. Just different.
After hanging out on this board for a while I’ve become more aware of gay people, and understand that several people I know personally are gay. Never really thought about it before. It feels to me as if my relationship with them is no different than with other men. They don’t seem particularly different in any meaningful way than any other guys.
So, I imagine that I am correct.
Beyond that, I have nothing really compelling to base this opinion on. What is needed is to sample a bunch of gay men who have been married to women, and are now in committed relationships with men. Compare and contrast their views on their relationships with their partners versus those of straight men.
While maybe not fallacious I think too much of a generalization.
Every relationship is unique. No two are alike. Each person brings something unique to the relationship. I do not think you could find any broad generalization here. What is more there is no right or wrong to it. Only what two people find compatible in a partnership…whatever that may be.
Sure thing, buddy. I don’t disagree in any particulars on that, except to say that I tend toward the insanely serene. My life has not been really hard in the scheme of things, but I learned long ago that I could either go crazy over every new disaster and setback and missed utility bill and insult and horrible disappointment or I could breathe deep and accept and move on. My struggle to pay my student loans and my medical bills is not analagous to your struggle to just be committed to the person you love for the rest of your life, and I don’t mean it to sound that way, but there is this similarity between them: concentrating on what you have rather than what you do not have is more fulfilling.
Doesn’t do a damn scratch of good in improving equality, except in this: that if you approach bigots with a Buddha-like smile, you can seriously piss them off when they try to make you bluster.
Well, just like not every two fuckbuddies oughtta get hitched, not every two people who want to cohabitate ought to enter a partnership. But there’s bonds between friends that go beyond putting Mister Happy in the warm place.
I imagine we could discuss it in a reasonable way, you and I – you know, just as we’re doing – and, while we might never agree, neither of us would be The Enemy to the other. Given the choice between putting the M-word on same sex couples and disallowing it, I’d go for the option that gives people more options. Take it! Go nuts! I hope it works out better for y’all than it does for the fabled 50% of hetero couples!
You’re gonna need two lines on every form (gvmt, school, business, credit) unless it’s something like Mr/Mrs/Miss/Cvl.that’s allowed. Actually calls MORE attention to it, don’t you think?
And think of the prefix “Mrs.”…Children have schoolteachers (and charatcers in books and movies…pre-school) that with their. very. name. exclaim they’re married…AND to a man…AND his family’s name.
Since its SO important to differentiate…I guess we’ll see schoolteachers such as
Dom Thomas…or Sub Cecil* or Butch Barbara or Lpsk Lola.
Or maybe Dom Tom’s Sub. Or Butch Barbara’s Lpsk. (since it’s ok to loose your identity)
I’d think if you’re trying to minimize the controversey, you’ld just call it “marriage” and call it a day.
Gosh, I dunno… wouldn’t it be Mr. Simpkins and Mr. Thomas who got married? And Mrs. Hewitt and Mrs. Jolie are positively radiant. Maybe they’ll take each others’ names, so we’ll have the Messers Thomas and the Mistresses Hewitt. Or maybe they’ll hyphenate. Or maybe who the hell cares, why would this problem exist with civil unions and not marriages?
I swear I did not intend when putting those names down to indicate that Jennifer Love Hewitt and Angelina Jolie were getting married. However: rawr.
The “Marriage Protectionists” are demanding differetiation, tho “separate but equal”, and the prefixs "Miss, Mrs, and even “Mr” have “marriage between a man and a woman” connotations.
So the Civil Union labeled relationships would then need their own, equally connotative prefixes.
Lets face it…if Bob and Steve across the street are “Civil Unioned” or “Married”, it won’t matter to anyone who knows them and knows they’re together. The only time it will be obvious is on forms and such. But calling them Mr wouldn’t differentiate. And the Marriage Protectionists are claiming their relationship not be confused with marriage. So calling them Mr or two women Mrs would be decitful. Otherwise you’d be proposing that it’s OK for Man-Woman relationships to be identified with a simple prefix…but Civil Union relationships must fly under the radar.
Where do you suppose the “Civil Union” label be applied? On forms and contracts? In everyday life? Drivers License? I guess we’ll have to wait for the “Marriage Protectionists” decide what they’ll tolerate and what makes them nauseous.
The term Mr. has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with being male and too old for the honorific of Master, which is about age 13. Ms. is also widely used and is irrelevent to marriage. Although I don’t see why calling two women who are married to each other Mrs. and Mrs. would be an issue. The honorific of Mrs. indicates a married women and two women that are married to each other are married women and I don’t see why they are not entitled to use Mrs. if they choose.
Two women marry. They are Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith.
Or whatever else they want to be; why should I care? I don’t even care about the use of the word ‘marriage’. Other people do. Their opinions are not important to you, I understand that.
But on a scale where 1 is completely homophobic and 10 is gaily gay-loving, frothing at people who rate anywhere under 10 and calling them bigoted homophobes seems counterproductive. I realize reasoned debate doesn’t work with everyone, but it does work with SOME people. I know I personally am less inclined to support people who insult me.
