Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A Homo's Guilty Gay Marriage Secret

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
daskalos



Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:01 am    Post subject: A Homo's Guilty Gay Marriage Secret Reply with quote

I have a guilty secret. I don't really care if we, as a nation or species, call legal recognition of gay relationships "marriage" or "civil unions." What I care about is that whatever legal recognition we give allows me the same rights as marriage. Call it whatever you want to, if it gives me the legal right to visit my husband in the hospital, if it means I don't have to file a will for him to inherit whatever I pass on when I pass away, if it means he is presumed to own what I do, if it means our relationship can be the basis for my husband's immigration to the U.S., that he can be carried on my health insurance, well, people can call it "banana pudding" if they want to. I don't care.

I suppose the main reason I don't care is that I've never really been one of those people who insist that gay relationships are just like straight ones. I know, I know, there are many gay people and others quite heavily invested in this idea, and I suppose it makes some sense for those gay couples who go through whatever it is they choose to do to have children (adoption, implantation, one-off hetero-sex, turkey basters) to model their relationships on the opposite-sex paradigm, but that paradigm, in my experience, really has only limited application to gay relationships. If we can accept the idea that women and men are different, body and brain, then we must at least be open to the idea that long-term gay relationships have some fundamental difference to straight ones. Two male egos, two male libidos - how can that dynamic (or the lesbian one) resemble, too closely, man and woman? Gay people are different. Our unions are different. Are there commonalities with straight people and straight unions? Sure. But carrots and cattle have commonalities, too. Rocks and lettuce have commonalities, but we are allowed to think of carrots, cattle, rocks and lettuce differently, without needing to vilify any of them. The dynamics behind gay relationships (long and short term) are fundamentally different than straight ones.

In my experience (personal and anecdotal), gay relationships that model themselves on straight ones are the least functional, the least satisfying to everyone concerned. In my experience (personal and anecdotal), the glue that holds together long-term gay relationships is generally far stronger than with straight ones. Adoptions and turkey basters aside, there is no "for the good of the children" to consider. Until recently, there's been no legally binding contract that must be abrogated to get out of a gay relationship, yet throughout history, deeply abiding gay couples have endured, with little press or fanfare. In the last 40 years of openness and acceptance, the numbers of those relationships have multiplied drastically, but in my experience, gay relationships that endure are not so like straight marriages that I must insist on everyone calling them marriages.

So I don't care what you call my relationship, but I do care that it's currently, widely (though no longer universally) held in contempt, legally.

You may, however, have noticed that I refer to my husband as "my husband." That's the flip side of this, for me. You can call my relationship whatever you want to, the state can call it anything it feels comfortable with, the church can ignore it completely, but I call it a marriage, and if you don't like that, I don't care. In fact, I call it a marriage even in the absence of any legal recognition of it at all. I call it a marriage even though the lack of legal recognition of it is why it's been ten years since I have lived in the same house, the same country as my husband. In that time, my marriage has been conducted by way of mostly annual visits and daily phone calls.

And I have noticed that lots of people, either by way of principled belief or political expediency, are deeply invested in giving me my rights but calling those rights "banana pudding." I've noticed that there are lots of banana pudding-ers. And I wish the gay people fighting on the front lines of this battle were a little less concerned about langauge, a little less strident in their insistence that gay people are just like straight people, and a little more invested in practical realities.

That said, Bravo to Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Mexico City. Bravo to Britain, Washington DC, and any of the states, nations and municipalities anywhere that have chosen to accord equal rights, even if they do see, as I do, a difference between gay people and straight people. There is nothing wrong with being different, and there is nothing wrong with calling different things by different names. But there is something wrong with making laws denying fundamental rights on the basis of those benign differences.

At any rate, I just needed to say all this, but as I said, it's my guilty little secret, so please don't report me to Gay HQ for not toeing the line that only by calling it Marriage is it Equal. (I find the "separate but equal" condemnation somewhat specious.) And yes, some day I do hope my husband and I are permitted to be legally pronounced "Banana Pudding." Or whatever. I'm just not all that particular about what you call it.

Das
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daskalos: don't let them get you down. The Constitution is on your side -- whether America realizes it or not today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bibbitybop



Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The US government should not recognize religious arrangements.

Only civil unions certified by court appointed servants should qualify for legal benefits. Marriages by pastors/priests/churches should only qualify for benefits within the overseeing religious organization.

Problem solved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that there is a qualitative difference between hetero- and homosexual relationships, and male and female one, too, for that matter. I haven't been able to understand why gays want to imitate straights in marriage. One would think they'd be able to come up with something better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tiger Beer



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
I haven't been able to understand why gays want to imitate straights in marriage.

It's because of visitation rights if one partner is sick or on the deathbed...ah, all the typical legal stuff between two committed partners - houses they bought, if one becomes deceased, life insurance policies, on and on. Basically all the legal rights one gets when recognized as committed in the eyes of the law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think one of the most horrible things must be when two people who have loved each other for years are separated due to illness - with the other not being able to visit a very sick lover in hospital - and hostile family members being able to veto visits. I've heard of some tragic examples. Kind of like the old days when common-law spouses were not legally recognised.

Living overseas must also be scary - when you can't get a dependents visa to keep your spouse in the country, for example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lithium



Joined: 18 Jun 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please direct questions about all things gay to Underwaterbob. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Panda



Joined: 25 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hear ya.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
daskalos



Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big_Bird wrote:
Living overseas must also be scary - when you can't get a dependents visa to keep your spouse in the country, for example.


Granted, this is the one that most grates my cheese, but the other examples you mention are indeed like Pelion on Ossa.

And, Gopher, thanks. Oddly, not much gets me down, except for spasmodic moments like the one that led me to post this thread, but such moments pass, even if the ideas behind them don't, or at least not yet. In any case, thanks, but it's not easy to get me down, at least on this subject. Something, someday, will break our way. Until then, I get to toy with the idea of being a latter day Odysseus.

Lemons into Lemonade, I suppose, but we take what we can get.

Das
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a personal level, I want nothing to do with homosexuality. I see it as having little to no place in my life.

That being said, I think it is abhorrent that many countries do not allow recognition of said unions. While I may want nothing to do with it, their union does not adversely affect me, and they should be allowed all the rights and privileges afforded to 'straight' couples.

Call it what you will... but it needs to be allowed.


Bibbitybop: I also agree with what you said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Underwaterbob



Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lithium wrote:
Please direct questions about all things gay to Underwaterbob. Cool


Oh Spliff, you only wish I were gay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
loggerhead007



Joined: 22 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I heard he peeks into the next urinal quite inconspicously.
Laughing


Who would imply such a thing? My goodness gracious! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bibbitybop wrote:
The US government should not recognize religious arrangements.

Only civil unions certified by court appointed servants should qualify for legal benefits. Marriages by pastors/priests/churches should only qualify for benefits within the overseeing religious organization.

Problem solved.



http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/res_halls/RTK/KRSS/K4/images/bingo%5B2%5D.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OP, I hope you find these new data comforting:
Quote:
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds a "sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage," with 49 percent of respondents saying it should be legal and 46 percent saying it shouldn't. Three years ago, the split was 58 percent to 36 percent in the other direction. This is the first time a national poll has found more people supporting gay marriage than opposing it. Are we witnessing a "sea change," a "tipping point," a "feedback loop," or a "bandwagon effect"?


This is quite a shift in just a matter of 3 years. I thought this would happen. With all of the negative press gay marriage was getting in 2005, it was understandable that would be the opinion. However, once states began allowing Gay marriage, couples, both hetero and gay, would find that their relationships were not adversely affected. I suspect in the future, more acceptance, and even support, of Gay marriage will continue to increase. It's only a matter of time.

LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New Hampshire's libertarian cred increases:

Quote:
Back to Google News
Gay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire

By NORMA LOVE � 2 hours ago

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) � New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch � who personally opposes gay marriage � signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUUXsl3sakXbS8W1AYb4xSxxEMIgD98JFHLO4

An important lesson that many of our reps in the legislatures and federal government can learn from Gov. Lynch which is humility. Some people are opposed to gay marriage & smoking pot, others are opposed to successful enterprise & rights to private property and I oppose many things myself. Indeed, I am all for moral suasion, but I draw the line where coercion must be employed ( save for protecting life and property).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International