QuoteA quiet voice for gay marriage
Legalization could avert doomed relationships, straight ex-spouses say
By Theresa Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009
If anyone could have talked himself out of being gay, Kimberly Brooks said, it was her husband.
He wanted to be straight; she wanted him to be straight. She once followed his gaze across the beach to another man but quickly dismissed the thought. No, he couldn't be. Then he started spending more time with one particular friend, and an unease pushed Brooks to ask the question that ultimately confirmed her fears: Was that friend gay?
"He said, 'I don't know.' And in that moment, I knew," said Brooks, who is a therapist in Falls Church. "That day, the marriage was over."
As the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in the District grows louder and more polarized, there are people whose support for the proposal is personal but not often talked about. They are federal workers and professionals, men and women who share little except that their former spouses tried to live as heterosexuals but at some point realized they could not.
Many of these former spouses -- from those who still feel raw resentment toward their exes to those who have reached a mutual understanding -- see the legalization of same-sex marriage as a step toward protecting not only homosexuals but also heterosexuals. If homosexuality was more accepted, they say, they might have been spared doomed marriages followed by years of self-doubt.
"It's like you hit a brick wall when they come out," Brooks said. "You think everything is fine and then, boom!"
Carolyn Sega Lowengart calls it "retroactive humiliation." It's that embarrassment that washes over her when she looks back at photographs or is struck by a memory and wonders what, if anything, from that time was real. Did he ever love her?
"I'm 61 years old," said Lowengart, who lives in Chevy Chase. "Will I ever know what it's like to be loved passionately? Probably not."
Discovering the truth
She gave her husband 31 years, just a little less than she gave the State Department. Because of her job, she bought a home computer, and on that computer she got the first hints that her husband was gay. Once, she said, she glimpsed gay pornography on the screen; another time, she found a printout of an e-mail about a rendezvous.
In 2002, she said, she asked her husband for the truth. He told her. They separated that year.
"I said, 'When did you know?' " Lowengart recalled. "He said, 'When I was a teenager.' I said, 'Why did you marry me?' He said, 'Because I didn't want to be.' "
For her, devastation blended with relief. The devastation: Raised Catholic, she believed marriage was forever. The relief: For three decades, while she struggled with her weight, she thought it was her fault that they weren't intimate.
Lowengart's ex-husband could not be reached to comment, but Carolyn Lowengart has spoken publicly about their marriage through the Straight Spouse Network, which organizes support groups across the country.
"We want people to have the right to be who they are," she said. "If that were the case, people like me wouldn't exist."
People like her wouldn't question every memory. "In a regular divorce, you don't question whether you were loved or desired at the beginning," Lowengart said.
The author
He was her first love and promised to be her last, Joy Parker said. They had met in high school but had lost touch for decades, until she received a message from him through Classmates.com. It came a day after she'd been looking nostalgically at prom photos of the two of them.
"It was like we were meant to be together," Parker said. In 2004, at 43, she traveled across the country, from California to Virginia, to move in with him. By the end of that year, they were married. "He seemed like the perfect husband, buying flowers, gifts."
Then, as she tells it, came the night she decided to check her husband's voice mail. "There were two messages from a guy calling him 'Baby' and telling him how good he looked," Parker said. She says she woke him up to confront him. "His eyes got huge, and he said, 'You're going to try to destroy me.' I said: "Destroy you? What about me?' "
Parker, who lives in Manassas, said she became severely depressed by the breakup of her marriage. She and another woman have written a book, "The Straight-Up Truth About the Down-Low," about being married to gay men.
Reached by phone, Parker's ex-husband, who did not want to be identified, denied that a man left him that message and said he is not gay. He said Parker wrote the book because she is hurt.
Parker, an IRS agent for 16 years and an investigator after that, said she wrote the book to help other women. "I used to sit on the bed and count the pills, too," she said. "I didn't want to live. I was just in a dark place I couldn't get out of."
Parker, who was raised in a church where she was taught that homosexuality was wrong, said she goes back and forth on the issue of same-sex marriage. Even if it is allowed, she said, there will always be men and women who deny they are gay and who marry heterosexuals. It'll take much more than changing the law to alter perceptions about homosexuality.
"Socially, we'll just have to see it as normal," she said. "That's the only way."
The therapist
Kimberly Brooks calls people whose marriages ended like hers "collateral damage."
"I think straight spouses are the nameless, anonymous victims," she said. "We're not ignored -- because that sounds intentional -- but unseen."
Brooks, who lives in Arlington County, was 28 when she met Robert Webb on a blind date. He was perfect: tall, handsome and a lawyer. As a husband, she said, he treated her "wonderfully," celebrating with champagne the day she got her master's degree. They talked about having children.
Webb said he never meant to hurt her.
"I married her because I loved her," said Webb, a lawyer in Orlando whose firm has an office in the District. "I married her because I wanted us to spend the rest of our lives together. We had lived together, and things were fine. I thought I had conquered that thing I didn't want to be."
But then he met the man he's been with since. "And there was this incredible overriding basic attraction that drove everything else out of my life," he said. "It was no longer a matter of mind over matter."
Webb, who views his 23-year union with his partner as a marriage even if it's not recognized in Florida, said that even if same-sex marriage had been legal at the time, he still would have married Brooks. "I didn't want to be gay," he said. He estimates that he lost two-thirds of his friends when he came out, including one who sent him a Bible.
"You want the things you're taught to want," Webb said. "You want the life you're taught to want."
Brooks, who is starting a therapy group for straight spouses, said that for a long time, she neither favored nor opposed same-sex marriage. But as the D.C. Council prepares to vote on the matter next month, she thinks about her former husband.
"It would be heartbreaking if in Rob's final days his partner was not allowed to be in the hospital with him, was not allowed to make decisions for him," she said. "And he's the one person Rob would want there."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602953_3.html
I know - another gay thread. :rolleyes:
Still I decided to post it because I thought it is an interesting point of view - pretty much a no-brainer to me, but still one that is not often raised in gay rights debates; of course it would not work for the fundies blinded with hatred, but could open some eyes.
This has always been one of my most selfish reasons for supporting gay rights: protect straight people from being tricked by in-denial gays.
Quoteincluding one who sent him a Bible.
I am always amazed how that one sentence is so much more important to them than the rest of it. I mean do people stop being friends and send people bibles when they lie, blaspheme God, or not obey their father and mother?
I'm surprised by that reaction - is it common for people to send Bibles to gays in the US? Poland is a deeply religious country but this seems so bizarre, socially speaking.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
I'm surprised by that reaction - is it common for people to send Bibles to gays in the US? Poland is a deeply religious country but this seems so bizarre, socially speaking.
Among crazy people? Hugging the Bible seems to be something the insane do alot over here. My Cousin is a liar and master manipulator and total sleezeball...not to mention dillusional and insane...but man does he ever force the Bible on people. If I came out he would so send me a Bible...nevermind he steals and lies and screws with his family on a daily basis.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 12:10:22 PM
This has always been one of my most selfish reasons for supporting gay rights: protect straight people from being tricked by in-denial gays.
Quoteincluding one who sent him a Bible.
I am always amazed how that one sentence is so much more important to them than the rest of it. I mean do people stop being friends and send people bibles when they lie, blaspheme God, or not obey their father and mother?
The ultimate "selfish" reason for supporting gay rights remains: more chicks for us. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 09, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
The ultimate "selfish" reason for supporting gay rights remains: more chicks for us. :cool:
That is just a different way of saying what I was trying to get at :P
I certainly would never want to put up with the humiliation of having my wife discover she is a Lesbian and leave me either. I have actually come around to like Lesbians well enough but I still wouldn't want to be married to one.
QuoteThey had met in high school but had lost touch for decades, until she received a message from him through Classmates.com. It came a day after she'd been looking nostalgically at prom photos of the two of them.
"It was like we were meant to be together," Parker said. In 2004, at 43, she traveled across the country, from California to Virginia, to move in with him. By the end of that year, they were married. "He seemed like the perfect husband, buying flowers, gifts."
Then, as she tells it, came the night she decided to check her husband's voice mail. "There were two messages from a guy calling him 'Baby' and telling him how good he looked," Parker said. She says she woke him up to confront him. "His eyes got huge, and he said, 'You're going to try to destroy me.' I said: "Destroy you? What about me?' "
That's fucked up. Clearly by that point who knew he was actually gay. <_<
I'm all for gay marriage, but I doubt that the availability of the institution will do much in and of itself to normalize homosexuality to the point where people will no longer be in denial.
It's more a symptom than a cause - gay marriage succeeds in those places where the homophobic stigma has lost ground; it does not cause homophobia to lose ground.
Gays are manipulating bitches. Film at 11.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 12:31:14 PM
It's more a symptom than a cause - gay marriage succeeds in those places where the homophobic stigma has lost ground; it does not cause homophobia to lose ground.
Iowans love gays more than Californians? :(
It's not just a gay thread. It's another gay thread by Marty about the USA.
I call bollocks.
Gay marriage isn't going to make some gays not wish they were straight and enter into straight relationships.
It will only help those who are already utterly confirmed gays.
I don't see gay marriage giving much to overall acceptance of gays either. Straight folk aren't going to suddenly realise gays are alright afterall just because of one increasingly meaningless word.
This has got to be the lamest reason ever given for gay marriage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:33:59 PM
This has got to be the lamest reason ever given for gay marriage.
The lamest reason I've seen is because gays will go on a rampage and break people's knee caps. Much lameness there.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
The lamest reason I've seen is because gays will go on a rampage and break people's knee caps. Much lameness there.
At least that one has entertainment value.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:33:59 PM
This has got to be the lamest reason ever given for gay marriage.
Are you smoking crack? That is a serious problem that effects many many people. Homophobia leading gays to get into straight marriages, have kids, do the whole thing then it all comes out and ruins the family.
Lamest reason my ass. Fuck you.
Give me a shout when you've settled down.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:33:59 PM
This has got to be the lamest reason ever given for gay marriage.
Are you smoking crack? That is a serious problem that effects many many people. Homophobia leading gays to get into straight marriages, have kids, do the whole thing then it all comes out and ruins the family.
Lamest reason my ass. Fuck you.
Those are reasons for society to be more tolerant of gays, not for gay marriage.
Gays don't marry straight people because they are ok with being gay, but REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be married.
As others have already pointed out, I don't think it's the same issue, though the two issues are (obviously) related.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 12:06:10 PM
I know - another gay thread. :rolleyes:
You don't have to rolleyes--just use the gay megathread that is gay.
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 03:37:14 PM
Those are reasons for society to be more tolerant of gays, not for gay marriage.
Gays don't marry straight people because they are ok with being gay, but REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be married.
Well that's true. I guess I just see them connected in my mind.
Alright then Yi I see what you are getting at I withdraw my Languishite flame. I still disagree with you though.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 02:14:15 PM
I call bollocks.
Gay marriage isn't going to make some gays wish they were straight and enter into straight relationships.
It will only help those who are already utterly confirmed gays.
I'm not sure I agree that it is meaningless. After all, one of the reasons it took me a while to come out was because I thought being gay was something shameful. If there had been government recognize partnerships, that would have gone a long way for me.
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 03:37:14 PM
Gays don't marry straight people because they are ok with being gay, but REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be married.
You would be surprised.
One of my exes (who is either bi and tending gay or gay in denial) actually decided to try his luck with a chick because he thinks marriage is a stable institution and whatnot. Of course you may then say that he is not ok with being gay but it is a chicken and an egg dilemma and it is clear both things are related.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2009, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 02:14:15 PM
I call bollocks.
Gay marriage isn't going to make some gays wish they were straight and enter into straight relationships.
It will only help those who are already utterly confirmed gays.
I'm not sure I agree that it is meaningless. After all, one of the reasons it took me a while to come out was because I thought being gay was something shameful. If there had been government recognize partnerships, that would have gone a long way for me.
Seems to me there is a big difference between not wishing to publicly announce one's homosexuality because of a fear of prejudice (perfectly understandable IMO) and going so far as to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The latter indicates real identity issues which I would imagine would not be remedied by access to gay marriage.
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Oscar Wilde was pretty sure he prefers boys, yet he married a woman.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Oscar Wilde was pretty sure he prefers boys, yet he married a woman.
Oscar Wilde lived in a very different society than today's - for example, he spend some time in prision for liking boys.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:52:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Oscar Wilde was pretty sure he prefers boys, yet he married a woman.
Oscar Wilde lived in a very different society than today's - for example, he spend some time in prision for liking boys.
The social change is not as big as you think. You are arguing from a perspective of a white upper middle class educated secular Canadian - it's quite different in Alabama or Poland, or among Latino or black homosexuals (one of the biggest causes of black female HIV infections, I believe, are guys who fuck men but marry women). The concept of being "true to oneself" is a rather recent phenomenon, and one that is not universally embraced, even in the West.
From the sounds of it, Alabama is a lot closer to Canada than to Poland.
From looking at a map too. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2009, 05:58:13 PM
From the sounds of it, Alabama is a lot closer to Canada than to Poland.
From looking at a map too. ;)
Why do so many black or Latino MSM in the USA marry women then?
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
Seems to me there is a big difference between not wishing to publicly announce one's homosexuality because of a fear of prejudice (perfectly understandable IMO) and going so far as to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The latter indicates real identity issues which I would imagine would not be remedied by access to gay marriage.
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Like Mart just suggested, I think it is a matter of location. From liberal Massachusetts I really had little to actually fear (perhaps some taunting at school) as my family had given me no indication whatsoever that they'd reject me. However, for someone in a different situation, it isn't implausible. In fact until sometime near 16 or 17, I'd succeeded in convincing myself that I was a bisexual (not as bad as a homosexual, surely!).
Plus, if you couple this with a lot of lies being repeated about sexual orientation (like claims about successes of "reparative therapies" or praying the gay away etc.), it is a little surprise that in the absence of a stable homosexual marriage (and thus the idea that the opposite of a stable heterosexual marriage is the uncertain state of homosexual promiscuity) many homosexual guys, especially in more conservative and rural areas, marry straight girls hoping that if they try hard enough they will grow to like it.
Again, a lot of public figures, in the US or outside (politicians, pastors, even some "scientists") claim that one can change one's sexual orientation - how's then that a case of identity issues, as you suggest, Malthus, that someone believes them?
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
Again, a lot of public figures, in the US or outside (politicians, pastors, even some "scientists") claim that one can change one's sexual orientation - how's then that a case of identity issues, as you suggest, Malthus, that someone believes them?
But they believe them becasue, for whatever social or psycological reasons, they want to be straight. giving them the option to marry men won't change that. They'll still marry women in the hope that will make them straight.
Quote from: HVC on November 09, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
Again, a lot of public figures, in the US or outside (politicians, pastors, even some "scientists") claim that one can change one's sexual orientation - how's then that a case of identity issues, as you suggest, Malthus, that someone believes them?
But they believe them becasue, for whatever social or psycological reasons, they want to be straight. giving them the option to marry men won't change that. They'll still marry women in the hope that will make them straight.
Not being able to marry another guy is one of the contributing factors though - even if not the only one - to their motivation - and it also convinces them that these people are right, because this is a clear sign from the society that gay love/relationships are inferior.
It seems many Languishites have a problem with grasping the concept of multiple contributing causalities.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2009, 05:34:01 PM
I'm not sure I agree that it is meaningless. After all, one of the reasons it took me a while to come out was because I thought being gay was something shameful. If there had been government recognize partnerships, that would have gone a long way for me.
I find that odd.
I've always been a bit 'in the closet' even as a straight man because...I just have one of those families. They would be all in my buisness and going 'oooohhh Tyr has a girlfriend, Tyr has a girlfriend' and ripping the piss out of me.
That it is totally acceptable in the broad scope of society to marry a woman doesn't change that.
I have to admit that yeah, being gay is still seen as something quite shameful, back in my teenage years I did wonder if I was gay and was really quite 'I bloody well hope not' about it. I don't see how gay marriage would change that though. If anything it would make it even worse- increased visibility of the 'sissier' aspects of homosexuality.
Even with straight relationships its seen as a bad thing for the man to talk too much of love, commitment and all that with his peers.
I think waaayyy too much emphasis is being put on the importance of marriage here.
Sure, gays should have the right to equal rights as everyone else, fair enough. But...its really not that big a deal. Straight people increasingly don't bother with marriage, its becoming an increasingly outdated institution.
Its quite a petty argument really; of course gays are still on the side of right here but whether its called civil partnership or whether its called marriage isn't the end of the world.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:41:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 03:37:14 PM
Gays don't marry straight people because they are ok with being gay, but REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be married.
You would be surprised.
One of my exes (who is either bi and tending gay or gay in denial) actually decided to try his luck with a chick because he thinks marriage is a stable institution and whatnot. Of course you may then say that he is not ok with being gay but it is a chicken and an egg dilemma and it is clear both things are related.
You'd be amazed how much better a relationship functions where there are adults involved, rather than junior high girls.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2009, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
Seems to me there is a big difference between not wishing to publicly announce one's homosexuality because of a fear of prejudice (perfectly understandable IMO) and going so far as to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The latter indicates real identity issues which I would imagine would not be remedied by access to gay marriage.
Maybe it could be argued that enacting gay marriage would be a social signal that would reduce homophobia, to the point where less folks would have such issues. But I think the better position is that its effect would be marginal. People in such denial as to actually go out and marry a woman, are not going to suddenly decide not to be in denial because they could now marry a man.
Like Mart just suggested, I think it is a matter of location. From liberal Massachusetts I really had little to actually fear (perhaps some taunting at school) as my family had given me no indication whatsoever that they'd reject me. However, for someone in a different situation, it isn't implausible. In fact until sometime near 16 or 17, I'd succeeded in convincing myself that I was a bisexual (not as bad as a homosexual, surely!).
Fair enough; the question though is whether having gay marriage as an option would change that, if it were (say) available in Alabama.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
Plus, if you couple this with a lot of lies being repeated about sexual orientation (like claims about successes of "reparative therapies" or praying the gay away etc.), it is a little surprise that in the absence of a stable homosexual marriage (and thus the idea that the opposite of a stable heterosexual marriage is the uncertain state of homosexual promiscuity) many homosexual guys, especially in more conservative and rural areas, marry straight girls hoping that if they try hard enough they will grow to like it.
Again, a lot of public figures, in the US or outside (politicians, pastors, even some "scientists") claim that one can change one's sexual orientation - how's then that a case of identity issues, as you suggest, Malthus, that someone believes them?
Again, the issue is whether having gay marriage available would change that, so people would not be attracted to such notions.
To my mind at least, the best argument would be that it would be a factor in making homosexuality slightly more publically acceptable. If the general population has backwards attitudes, it isn't going to change that much.
Thus the 'damage done by people denying their own sexuality to marry women' isn't a particularly strong argument for gay marriage, since having gay marriage is only weakly linked to such damage.
Don't challenge Marty's contention that gay marriage is a panacea!
We REALLY need a gay sub-forum.
SEGREGATION FOREVER
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 06:44:19 PM
To my mind at least, the best argument would be that it would be a factor in making homosexuality slightly more publically acceptable. If the general population has backwards attitudes, it isn't going to change that much.
You gotta crawl before you walk or run.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 06:32:51 PM
I have to admit that yeah, being gay is still seen as something quite shameful, back in my teenage years I did wonder if I was gay and was really quite 'I bloody well hope not' about it. I don't see how gay marriage would change that though. If anything it would make it even worse- increased visibility of the 'sissier' aspects of homosexuality.
Even with straight relationships its seen as a bad thing for the man to talk too much of love, commitment and all that with his peers.
That was never a problem for me. I was rather open about playing with action figure, My Little Pony, toy guns, and Barbies.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 06:32:51 PM
I think waaayyy too much emphasis is being put on the importance of marriage here.
Sure, gays should have the right to equal rights as everyone else, fair enough. But...its really not that big a deal. Straight people increasingly don't bother with marriage, its becoming an increasingly outdated institution.
Its quite a petty argument really; of course gays are still on the side of right here but whether its called civil partnership or whether its called marriage isn't the end of the world.
Sure, but many places (including most of America) don't have civil partnerships for same sex couples.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2009, 08:54:20 PM
That was never a problem for me. I was rather open about playing with action figure, My Little Pony, toy guns, and Barbies.
I played with Barbies too. Course, they were naked. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:55:34 PM
The social change is not as big as you think. You are arguing from a perspective of a white upper middle class educated secular Canadian - it's quite different in Alabama or Poland
:frusty:
It's not, say, Alabama vs. Massachusetts, but rather rural vs. sub/urban. Why do you think the gay marriage vote in Maine went the way it did despite the fact that Maine is located in "liberal New England"?
New England is not really a liberal as purported.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2009, 08:41:27 AM
New England is not really a liberal as purported.
Especially not in its rural extremeties, which would include nearly all of Maine. Maine's "cities" are towns by Massachusetts standards.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2009, 08:05:43 PM
We REALLY need a gay sub-forum.
SEGREGATION FOREVER
Put Marty in a sandbox! ^_^
G.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 06:32:51 PM
Even with straight relationships its seen as a bad thing for the man to talk too much of love, commitment and all that with his peers.
Well I will listen to a friend talk about that stuff but really it just doesn't interest us much. Men typically bond over common interests instead of sharing stuff about relationships.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2009, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2009, 02:14:15 PM
I call bollocks.
Gay marriage isn't going to make some gays wish they were straight and enter into straight relationships.
It will only help those who are already utterly confirmed gays.
I'm not sure I agree that it is meaningless. After all, one of the reasons it took me a while to come out was because I thought being gay was something shameful. If there had been government recognize partnerships, that would have gone a long way for me.
I think this is a big reason for many gays. They simply want recognition that they are (or at least can be) as dull and boring as all the straight people who get married.
But this basically saying this is a means to an end, rather than the end itself.
And people thinking that if only there had been gay marriage, then my gay spouse would not ahve married me are kidding themselves. They didn't marry you because they wanted to be married, they married you because they didn't want to be gay at all, or at least wanted to hide it.
I would hope that as time goes on, and I suspect this is the case, that this kind of thing becomes much less common. After all, even without gay marriage being legal, being gay is much more socially acceptable today, especially in those places with large gay populations.
I certainly think gay marriage should be allowed, but I don't think a compelling argument for it is to protect straight people from marrying gay people.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 01:30:19 PM
But this basically saying this is a means to an end, rather than the end itself.
True. That was the distinction I missed in my rather undeserved flaming of Yi.
The only way to "protect" straight people from this sort of thing is acceptance of gayness, it is just that gay marriage tends to go hand in hand with that.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 01:30:19 PM
But this basically saying this is a means to an end, rather than the end itself.
It's a bit of both really.