Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Reading through that article, my primary impression is that he thinks that the same sex marriage movement is about making marriage mandatory for same sex couples. Otherwise, as others have said here already, his argument simply doesn't seem to make much sense.

Al, I would be interested in hearing more about what you think about the points that he made, other than that you think he makes an interesting point. What about what he says do you find interesting? And if you disagree with what I said, or what others have said, why do you think we are wrong?

[narya]

It is not clear what the author wants - does he want the status quo and does he assume everyone else does, too? Is he obliquely suggesting polygamy or open marriage?

He asks to be consulted first. The droves of gay and lesbian couples who are voting with their feet and getting married now that they can in some parts of the US should say something to that.

He states that he wants equality under the law, yet doesn't want traditional marriage. But that is what is being fought for - the right to have an economic unit of two adults with the same legal status and social approval of traditional economic units.

Imagine the sleepless nights that benefits providers would have in a loosely organized but legal "marriage" of 5 adults (gay or straight) and a few kids, with members coming and going with some frequency. I don't think the mainstream is ready for that yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Túrin Turambar]

I think that everyone else has responded to his argument, but I also had serious reservations about the whole thing from the by-line: "What we need are laws that celebrate our differences, not laws that make everyone the same". Laws are not for 'celebrating difference', or, for that matter, for celebrating anything. They are for laying down what is and is not permissible and how the permissible may be achieved. I always get a little on edge when people start phrasing their arguments using that language.

I also don't see how you make the argument that a law that does not compel someone to do something can be said to 'make everyone the same'. Otherwise I think everyone else is right on the substantive point.

Fortunately this fellow can avoid being made the same as everyone else by not getting married, so there really isn't all that much of a problem. Indeed, I am yet to actually find someone who is any way actually restricted in anything by the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

[JewelSong]

My impression is that nobody is engaging with the argument at all...

I read the article initially and didn't get much from it. I have re-read it and basically feel the same. I am not sure what "the argument" IS, really. He seems to be saying that gay people (well, gay MEN) are inherently different than straight people (men) in how they choose to live their lives...and because of this, gay marriage is not a good thing for the gay "community."

I am honestly not sure what his point is at all. He doesn't give examples of what "laws" should be. And I find the phrase "laws should celebrate our differences" to be really odd.

My impression is that he is uncomfortable with the notion of same-sex marriage, for whatever reason, and wants to make a definitive statement about it that somehow encompasses the general gay/lesbian population.

But I am not sure what that "statement" really is.

[Alatar]

I'm put in the unusual position of trying to explain what I think someone else thinks, but I'll try. I'm gonna bullet point it rather than try to make an argument on his behalf.

He believes that the "gay community" is not representing him or his views in this. He has no problem with gay people getting married if they choose to, and agrees they should have that right, but feels that the gay community are attempting to mimic a heterosexual convention, rather than define a gay norm.

He states that, despite this, if he tries to frame the argument in terms he prefers, he risks being accused of being anti-reform, or an apologist.

His basic premise is that Marriage is a heterosexual construct, designed for heterosexual unions, and is by its very nature a bad fit for gay couples. He doesn't think gays should be precluded from participating in that, should they so choose, but also believes that the gay community would be better to took for acceptance of their differences rather than the right to conform.

At least, that's what I got from it.

[yovargas]

Your post made more sense than his. Still, without any sense of differences he thinks deserve more focus or what views he thinks aren't being well represented, there's not much to say about it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm put in the unusual position of trying to explain what I think someone else thinks, but I'll try.

I'm much more interested in what you think, than what you think he thinks.

So what do you think?

[Alatar]

As I thought would have been obvious, I see his point. More importantly, I find his point of view interesting. Its great that we have become so accepting of the right to marry, but I never once stopped to ask whether the outcome was the correct one or not. In simple terms, yes, I think everyone (well most people) would agree that gays should have the same rights as straight. The question thats being asked is whether they should desire to emulate heterosexual ideals instead of homosexual ones. I find that interesting.

[Frelga]

As so many same sex couples obviously WANT to get married, it seems extraneous to ask if they SHOULD want to.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I thought would have been obvious, I see his point. More importantly, I find his point of view interesting. Its great that we have become so accepting of the right to marry, but I never once stopped to ask whether the outcome was the correct one or not. In simple terms, yes, I think everyone (well most people) would agree that gays should have the same rights as straight. The question thats being asked is whether they should desire to emulate heterosexual ideals instead of homosexual ones. I find that interesting.

Which 'heterosexual ideals' should gays and lesbians not want to emulate? Entering into a long-term committed relationship with one partner that they love? Raising a family? Does being gay have to mean sleeping with as many different partners as possible? Or can it mean different things to different people?

Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[yovargas]

I think it's fair to say that some gays are trying to emulate traditional relationships because they want to be more accepted by society when traditional relationships might not be best suited for them. But.....I'd say the same thing about straight people too. There's lots of people out there both gay and straight questioning the value of marriage or trying out non-conventional relationship arrangements. Which is fine but since nobody's stopping anybody from trying out non-conventional arrangements, it's not a particularly urgent topic. It's only the conventional arrangement of marriage that people try to stop which is why it gets all the attention.

[River]

The ideal of pledging yourself to one partner until death isn't so much "heterosexual" as it is cultural. If you look both around the world in the present day and back through history, you will find a multitude of mating arrangements that are or once were considered the way things are done. Furthermore, the current dominant norm of a single, life long pair-bond is arguably not in the nature of humans. Some of us are certainly inclined towards it. Others aren't. It's very complicated. This why declaring pair-bonding a straight thing and promiscuity a gay thing is both intellectually dishonest and grossly unfair to gays who wish to pair off for life, to straights who want to play the field and rack up a mighty score, and to everyone in between.

[nerdanel]

Exactly what River stated. Monogamy and life partnerships are not "straight values" while promiscuity and casual relationships are "gay values." Some members of each demographic prefer one approach to the other. The Irish column is really problematic because it posits a dichotomy between gay and straight lifestyles, values, and priorities that is not accurate. (The author also seems to be saying that families and children are part of a straight lifestyle but not a gay one. I'm not entirely sure that that's what he's saying because his writing is so unclear, but if that's indeed what he is arguing, it's also obviously false for the same reason: plenty of straight folks don't have kids or don't want to have kids, while plenty of gay folks do.)

At the end of the day, the author would get almost no pushback if he proclaimed that he did not want to get married because he saw it as a failed heterosexual institution from which he preferred to abstain, or believed himself/his relationships too different from straight relationships, etc. The problem is that he seems to think that other gay people should feel the same way - and that the law should draw a distinction between gay and straight relationships (which is what I took from his advocating for laws that "celebrate differences"). That's where he crosses the line.

[Frelga]

I am just cynical enough to wonder if he wrote this article because his partner wants to get married and he doesn't.

My contact with same-sex couples is mostly through my son's activities. School, camp, sports. I don't know the internals of these relationships, but if I were to place a bet I would guess that these women are more interested in stable and normal (relative to straight families) lives for themselves and their children than in counterculture.

Besides, if you are not doing something most people are allowed to do because you are prohibited by law, you are not being edgy, you are being marginalized. Choosing not to do something that is legal and popular, that's counterculture.

[tinwë]

I have a few things to say about the article too, but don't have time right now, but I did want to post this: as predicted the North Carolina gay-marriage ban has been officially struck down and the state will start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday morning.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/1 ... -noon.html

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Also, Justice Kennedy lifted the stay, ending the ban in Idaho. And same sex marriages are already being performed in Las Vegas and elsewhere in Nevada. And apparently also in West Virginia, and at least one county in Kansas.

[Primula Baggins]

True equality at last: same-sex couples can now duck off to Vegas for a quickie wedding.

[yovargas]

[narya]

Alaska, as of Sunday, now has marriage equality.
http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/fed ... titutional

[nerdanel]

Probably a better bet for same-sex couples than a Vegas quickie wedding: a long, romantic hike to the top of a mountain with a scenic vista of a glacier = much more my kind of destination wedding.