Gays/Lesbians - Committed relationships and marriage

[privyjo]

Been a while since I have looked at this thread until I saw the new post this morning. Good points have been made by many.

Marriage requires serious commitment regardless of sexual orientation !

Can't argue with this, Pred. Relationships do take a serious commitiment. However, marriage, as currently defined by many people and being translated into law by many states, is still pretty much limited to those individuals who are in seemingly traditional Male/Female relationships (regardless of the individuals' sexual orientation). Of course, if you were in a FF relationship and still living in Boston - you would still be allowed to "marry". More power to you! My state will more than likely ban same-sex marriages in an amendment to the its constituition after voting this fall.

As a side note, the biggest counter-argument (not that I believe this to be valid mind you) is that a marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. However, its a religious institution. Marriages are for churches; let the religions of the world figure out how they want to handle marriages. If the religions want to continue defining it as such, thats a matter for the religion and its congregation and it can get out of the political news cycle for good.

Pa-guy - well - while I do note your disclaimer that you don't believe the counter-argument and I do agree with you that government should stay out of the business of defining words, I am always curious when the definition of marriage comes to the foreground in the debate of same-sex unions. I remember from my high school and college days I was instructed by my English teachers and professors to never assume I knew the definition of a commonly used word and to always read every recorded definition of a word so I may understand exactly what meaning the author/writer intended - and not to limit myself to one dictionary or source. So I have pulled out my trusty Merrian-Webster's dictionary and looked up the word marriage - seems people stop at the first definition provided for marriage without reading the 2nd definition - see below -

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

My second source is the dubious Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! But I am always surprised by what I learn when I take time to do my research.

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise, can make it difficult to characterize.

No mention of the gender of the inidviduals in the opening paragraph - that comes later in the write-up provided by Wikipedia. But I find it interesting that the traditional male-female union is not the primary definition of marriage. And I do not see from either of these definitions that "marriage" is owned by religion.

So even as the debate continues, the lexicographers are busy with trying to keep up with what different societies mean when they use the word "marriage".

Hell if you're a single parent and your parent is living with you to help raise the kids, why shouldn't you get the same benefits as a "married" couple?

*tongue in cheek*

I don't know pa-guy - I currently live with my sister and I help her out financially by buying the groceries and covering other bills for our kids and in return I have a place to stay til I hear about a possible job I have applied for - but jeez! I really don't want to be married to her! And I do think she would kick me out of the house if I were to ask her to marry me!

Many thanks for your post, pa-guy! Gave me some food for thought.

 

[pa-guy]

*tongue in cheek*

I don't know pa-guy - I currently live with my sister and I help her out financially by buying the groceries and covering other bills for our kids and in return I have a place to stay til I hear about a possible job I have applied for - but jeez! I really don't want to be married to her! And I do think she would kick me out of the house if I were to ask her to marry me!

lol...well if you're from one of the boonie states she might accept

 

[pa-guy]

Oh, and I don't own that dictionary. i do however own two different Webster's dictionaries one entitled Webster's College Dictionary (2000) and Webster's new World Dictionay and Thesaurus (1996)

Both of which do not have the type of statement that says ": the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>"

Both refer to marriage as between husband and wife(New World) and man and woman (College Dictionary).

I can transcribe the entire definitions if you like, or you can take my word for it.

But regardless, the counter-argument is still valid. Marriage has always been defined as Man and Woman. Its only been since the dawn of this debate that the definition has been expanded by some.

 

[privyjo]

Oh, and I don't own that dictionary. i do however own two different Webster's dictionaries one entitled Webster's College Dictionary (2000) and Webster's new World Dictionay and Thesaurus (1996)

Both of which do not have the type of statement that says ": the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>"

Both refer to marriage as between husband and wife(New World) and man and woman (College Dictionary).

I can transcribe the entire definitions if you like, or you can take my word for it.

But regardless, the counter-argument is still valid. Marriage has always been defined as Man and Woman. Its only been since the dawn of this debate that the definition has been expanded by some.

But language evolves, pa-guy - that's what the differing definitions indicate me. Look in your dictionaries - see the word "gaydar" in it - mine has it. Wasn't there when I was a kid. So what concerns me is since when do we need a Federal law or state law to keep language from evolving and where will it stop?

 

[pa-guy]

I completely agree that language evolves. My entire point is that the argument is that "traditionally" marriage is defined as man and woman. In theory those making such an argument view the expansion of the definition more as mutation than as evolution.

 

[privyjo]

I completely agree that language evolves. My entire point is that the argument is that "traditionally" marriage is defined as man and woman. In theory those making such an argument view the expansion of the definition more as mutation than as evolution.

yeah - thought that's what you meant - just wasn't sure if you are a "traditional" kind of guy or someone that believes that the only thing we humans can have certainty in is change. i find it hard to establish any kind of "tradition" in my life unless one can consider being non-traditional a tradition ... change seems to be a constant in a lot ways for me.

anyway - i did enjoy our discussion. always learn new something i do!

hope you have a good day and see you around lit.

 

[AlecBond]

abcde

 

[privyjo]

FWIW:

I am not GLB; however, my uncle and his - I refer to as husband - have been together since 1974. They do not actively support gay marriages (which I was surprised to learn). I am unsure how they have kept things going strong, but they are always the most lively bunch I know. I didn't know what "gay" was until I was probably 11-12, until that point I just had two uncles that always traveled together. In fact, I do remember at one point telling my kindergarten teacher that I was going to have my uncle's job when I grew up because nothing is cooler than sailing around the world on my houseboat with my best-friend.

My wife's uncle and his man have been together for at least 15 years now. They do (afaik) support gay marriages, and are rather active in the local gay community.

My brother is gay and has troubles as well finding other men in his area who are looking for a long-term relationship, and has dealt with all too many hedonists.

I am straight, married, do not have a problem with GLB being married also.

Thank you for your post, Alec! And welcome to Lit.

Not everyone is pro-marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

I think I would love to attend one of your extended family get togethers!

And your brother will eventually find a relationship oriented guy. They do exist as shown by your uncles!

 

[Anniejustagirl]

I was never a marriage wannabe, even when i thought i was hetero. The relationship is the important thing... not the religious or governmental recognition of that relationship. That was my opinion... it has evolved.

A large part of what has changed my opinion is the fact that i now know what love is. I am experiencing it for the first time in my life. I have been in relationships before... one over 7 years and the last nearly 4 1/2 years, but no desire to ever make it legal with either the male or female.

My current relationship is less than 3 months old, but have known her since early 2000. Never thought i had a chance with this fantastic woman. Little did i know... she felt the same way about me... but i digress.

I'm a dyke and i didn't care who knew it.

I've changed some. I'm a dyke and i'm in love and she's amazing and i do care who knows it. I want everyone to know it. And whether they respect our decision or not... i want them legally obligated to give us the same rights and acknowledgments! They don't have to call it marriage... i agree that that is a religious moniker. The name is unimportant to me... the rights and yes, even the responsibilities are of primary importance to me now!

I'm committed to P. I've left my poly ways in the dust and she knows this... i have no interest in symbolic ceremonies with no weight. But a celebration of equal rights in the eyes of the law... that i'm all for and willing to fight for too.

As an afterthought... of the couples that i know... gay and straight... i actually know more long-lasting gay relationships...the longest of which is a shirt-tail cousin that recently celebrated his 53rd year with his chosen! They are wonderful together!

 

[AlecBond]

abcde

 

[privyjo]

I was never a marriage wannabe, even when i thought i was hetero. The relationship is the important thing... not the religious or governmental recognition of that relationship. That was my opinion... it has evolved.

A large part of what has changed my opinion is the fact that i now know what love is. I am experiencing it for the first time in my life. I have been in relationships before... one over 7 years and the last nearly 4 1/2 years, but no desire to ever make it legal with either the male or female.

My current relationship is less than 3 months old, but have known her since early 2000. Never thought i had a chance with this fantastic woman. Little did i know... she felt the same way about me... but i digress.

I'm a dyke and i didn't care who knew it.

I've changed some. I'm a dyke and i'm in love and she's amazing and i do care who knows it. I want everyone to know it. And whether they respect our decision or not... i want them legally obligated to give us the same rights and acknowledgments! They don't have to call it marriage... i agree that that is a religious moniker. The name is unimportant to me... the rights and yes, even the responsibilities are of primary importance to me now!

I'm committed to P. I've left my poly ways in the dust and she knows this... i have no interest in symbolic ceremonies with no weight. But a celebration of equal rights in the eyes of the law... that i'm all for and willing to fight for too.

As an afterthought... of the couples that i know... gay and straight... i actually know more long-lasting gay relationships...the longest of which is a shirt-tail cousin that recently celebrated his 53rd year with his chosen! They are wonderful together!

Thank you, Annie, for sharing! Your post warms my heart.

I am sending warm fuzzy thoughts and best wishes to P. and you. May you two celebrate a long life together!

53 years! I am in a state of awe!

 

[Anniejustagirl]

I am sending warm fuzzy thoughts and best wishes to P. and you. May you two celebrate a long life together!

53 years! I am in a state of awe!

Thank you, Darlin!

I too am in awe of them... or anyone that works at love and committment that long!

 

[privyjo]

I think this sums it up the best.

Sorry Alec! Our posts must have crossed paths - yes - perhaps I am too caught on words - I admit it - but the rights and responsibilities of each must be the same.

 

[pa-guy]

just wasn't sure if you are a "traditional" kind of guy

Well I am a traditional kind of guy in some ways

I think the best way to explain it is modern traditionalist. I hold doors, I'll walk a friend home so she doesn't have to walk alone in the city, etc, but I have modernized views of the world. Does that make sense?

 

[privyjo]

Well I am a traditional kind of guy in some ways

I think the best way to explain it is modern traditionalist. I hold doors, I'll walk a friend home so she doesn't have to walk alone in the city, etc, but I have modernized views of the world. Does that make sense?

oh, yes, most definitely. I understand.