Constructive gadfly

For a father of five grown children, trying to fathom the homosexual psyche is as difficult as a traditional lyricist penning the counterpoints of rap. Why, I ask, do two gay guys — let alone two gals — want to enter the tinsel world of marriage? It would seem to me that by definition they are “different” and would prefer not to follow in the mainstream of bridal gowns, tuxedos, flowers, and the prohibitive cost of big weddings unless they are in the catering business and would net a profit in the transaction, provided there are enough wealthy friends that bring along expensive gifts.

Surely, they cannot rely on the good graces of the father of the bride to foot the bill, particularly since one or the other parent would question just which one is the bride and certainly deny that his son is the one in touch with the feminine side. Stereotyping doesn’t help one in the decision since both are supposed to act like ladies, and the only way a decision can be reached, I suppose, is in determining which one shaves his legs. On the other hand, the loving couple could be two hairy palookas who vie with each other on who is the more manly.

Again, then, why would a couple want to complicate their lives by main-streaming into an institution that is not all that great to begin with. I trust that they have been shacking up for quite a while, so there’s nothing to consummate — and why cheapen the relationship by the prospect of an inevitable divorce down the road, or for the sake of a few bucks in tax benefits or social security in the unlikely event one becomes the housewife. As for the cornball of hospital visiting rights, good heavens, they’ve been living a lie for so long they can’t lie their way into visiting hours? As for being denied beneficiary of a loved one’s policy, it is pure bogus in face of all the proverbial idiosyncratic old ladies that will their fortune to cats.

I used to think that coming out of the closet was a courageous act of non-conformity. But now it appears the act is driven commercially to get in on the same financial rewards that the mainstream crassly receives. To me, the courageous act would be for a devoted couple to defy society by agreeing solemnly but without fanfare to exchange vows under the stars.

 

  Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 2, 2004. 


Comments
on Jul 02, 2004
well take it like this gays = AIDS so if we take all the gays to an island in the ocean, then there would be no more AIDS for us straight people. Being gay is gross and those people should be deleted from life.

- Andrew -
on Jul 02, 2004
AIDS was first spread by straight people. The link between the homosexuality and AIDS only came about as homosexual forms of sex have an increased liklihood of infection. AIDS is no more a "gay plague" than measles.

It is uneducated, inconsiderate and ignorant people like yourself Andrew who need to be deleted from life.
on Jul 02, 2004
I think it's rather complicated. The whole being different, yet wanting the same as everyone else. I think many would've chosen to just say vows to each other under the stars, until they were told they couldn't have marriage. It's like women in the military. I don't believe in women in being in the military, but if she wants to, you better not tell her she can't!
on Jul 02, 2004
It is uneducated, inconsiderate and ignorant people like yourself Andrew who need to be deleted from life.


I second that comment!

About the whole marriage thing, gay or straight I think that getting married, and declaring your love for each other is a beautiful thing in a fairytale world, unfortunately, we don't live in a fairytale world. It just means now that it's a piece of paper that signifies very little to people, as the amount of divorces prove. For me I wouldn't need that cerificate, looking into my partners eyes, anywhere, would be enough. But live and let live .
on Jul 02, 2004
the cornball of hospital visiting rights

signing hospital consent forms, having access to records and being present during consultation are more likely the issue. i saw no point in getting married until the girl who i was living with had to be hospitalized for appendicitis. her nearest relatives were 2500 miles away and although she was obviously not thinking clearly* and wouldnt sign off on needed emergency surgery, i couldnt do it for her. that was the first time i saw the difference between living together and being married.

*considering the appendix appears to be vestigial, people dont seem too eager to get rid of them; i know two people who were so out of their heads from appendicitis they had to be restrained after trying to beat hell outta paramedics and attendants
on Jul 02, 2004
signing hospital consent forms, having access to records and being present during consultation are more likely the issue.


There is a long list of legal rights a spouse gains automatically. Sure, many of these (if not all) can be gained through power of attorney and other legal claims, but that requires thousands of dollars in legal fees. A marriage license is much cheaper.
on Jul 02, 2004

It is uneducated, inconsiderate and ignorant people like yourself Andrew who need to be deleted from life.

[moderator hat on] comments like that will get *you* deleted from this site.  Attack the message, not the messenger! [moderator hat off]

AIDS was first spread by straight people.

I wasn't aware that they had proof how it started or originally started spreading.  If they have proof, why are they still coming up on theories of how it started, such as the idea that a polio vaccine using tissue from primates could have been behind the leap made by HIV from primates to humans?  Theories do not equal proof.

Why AIDS is considered mainly a "gay" disease is because that is where most of it is being spread.  Does that mean that all gay people have it?  No.  Does that mean that no straight people have it?  No. 

But, statistics show that more gay people have and transmit it than straight people do.  (From "gaytoday" about a poll in New York): "Gays and lesbians are twice as likely to fear contracting the disease than are straight New York area residents (40 percent versus 20 percent) and four out of five gays and lesbians (85 percent) personally know someone who has contracted HIV or has AIDS and 75 percent have lost a friend or loved one to the disease."

Now, if it is not a disease that affects gays more than straights, then why do so many gay people know people that have it?  I do not personally know *anyone* who has HIV, nor do I know anyone who said that *they* know anyone with it.  However, I no longer have any gay friends, either.  So, to say that gays are not affected more by AIDS than straight people seems kinda' ignorant.  Turning a blind eye to a problem does not fix it.

But, back on topic, I have to agree.  The whole "marriage" issue seems very "traditional" for a "non-traditional" union.  That is why I still believe that civil unions should be available for all people instead of a traditional "marriage".

on Jul 02, 2004
[moderator hat on] comments like that will get *you* deleted from this site. Attack the message, not the messenger! [moderator hat off]


Apologies, the comment....

well take it like this gays = AIDS so if we take all the gays to an island in the ocean, then there would be no more AIDS for us straight people. Being gay is gross and those people should be deleted from life.


In my opinion everyone has the right to lead their life the way they please, I may not agree with everything everyone else does, as I'm sure people may not agree with things I do, having said that, I'm not going to judge people for the way they choose to live their life, just as I'm not going to judge the ignorance and small mindedness of others. So apologies Andrew for agreeing with Peter.
on Jul 03, 2004
I lean toward Karma, why not simply civil union of human couples, rather than having the restriction of husband and wife? After all, even two straight bachelors, bachlorettes or man and woman living happily together should be entitled to the same rights.   
on Jul 05, 2004
why not simply civil union of human couples

im not sure if youre saying that would be sufficient to establish rights and solve the problem or if youre suggesting we dump marriage in favor of civil unions for everyone.
on Jul 09, 2004
statistics show that more gay people have and transmit it than straight people do


It would be more precise to say that gay men have and transmit it at a higher *rate* than straight people do. But women tend to get it through heterosexual sex. (All else equal, it's *far* easier to get HIV from having sex with a man than having sex with a woman--no matter what gender you are.)

Considering *just* the US, the statement is true. But there are far more straight people with AIDS than gay people with AIDS worldwide, and far more new infections. (Remember that the vast majority are in Africa.)
on Jul 09, 2004
Kingbee, Yes, dump marriage for everyone except for those who wish to sanctify it in church, which unfortunately rules out gays because of church dicta.
on Jul 09, 2004
Wise Fawn, the military for women is okay if done the Marine way which is to separate them from the men.