Exactly. And this is obscured by the term "gay marriage". People get caught up in the "gay" part and fail to see that they'd be getting something out of it, too.
You know, if I were in charge, marriage would be abolished as a federally recognized union. In its place, civil unions would be introduced that give marriage benefits to not only traditional opposite and same-sex unions, but also to multi-partner sexual unions, platonic partners, and more. Marriage rights are definitely not just a straight vs. gay issue. Non-sexual/romantic partners (of the same sex) and poly partners deserve them as well. Of course, I could simply make the legal term "marriage" inclusive of all consenting permanent/long-term unions, whether they are sexual or platonic, but I'd rather do away with it all together.
I agree that we should sematically move from "gay marriage" to "same-sex marriage." I've only considered the distinction in studying same-sex relations in non-modern lit, but politically the framing is very important for both inclusivity and specificity
( ... )
... and two men who wanted the tax cuts inherent in marriage would not be less of a legal marriage if they were heterosexual than if they were in a homosexual relationship.
I saw those guys on TV and they were such assholes about it, trying to make the idea of same-sex marriage look rediculous like, "Look, all you've accomplished is making a mockery of marriage because now I can marry my best friend!" From what I remember, they got married not for the tax benefits, as the article implies, but to sort of 'zing' same-sex marriage, to say that we got what we wanted and now they've found a loophole and we're going to have to live it down.
I know enough bisexuals in same-sex marriage that I tend to call it that when I mean what others call "gay marriage," but what I'd really like is to see legal marriage as a business arrangement that folks make on their own, so whoever someone wants to marry they can marry.
When I was a kid, I used to wish that ‘‘friend marriages’’ were possible. I thought I was the only one who had even imagined the concept. Then, later on, I learned they were in some parts of the world - even accepted by the culture at large! - and my mind was considerably blown.
When I started identifying as lesbian, I felt (and still do, to be honest) really apprehensive about it. It doesn’t seem like it should be a mind-boggling concept to say that I have felt ‘‘in love’’ with males and would still willingly enter a romantic relationship with one, but apparently it is.
Anyway, I'm sorry if this is ultra-creepy, but I occasionally look up the people who go to NHIA and are on LJ, and I thought your email handle looked familiar when I received your short story in my inbox. I'm the talkative, obnoxious one in (well, that’s past-tense now) our short story class. Maybe I am sheltered, but I haven't come across too many people that care a great deal about gender, sexuality, and autism issues, nevermind in a similar light that I do. I
( ... )
Boston Marriages, for one, yeah. I had sort of the same feeling, for a while, with friend marriages. For a really long time, actually. It was like 'So, what if I don't want to be in love or aren't in love or whatever, but still want to share my life with someone in some way?'
No idea how much sense that makes.
And yeah, of course you can friend (not creepy) but I should probably warn you that 90% of my Flocked entries are Flocked due to pure inanity. So.
I had a close friend for whom I felt pretty intensely for a while, and there weren’t many I talked to who believed me when I'd say it was completely platonic. One acquaintance was even trying to convince me that I did actually feel romantically for this friend, because no one feels deeply towards someone else without some sort of sexual attraction (in my acquaintance's words). That was a little bizarre and alienating. But yeah, I thought about friend marriages especially during that time, and also how it'd be wrong to call it a ‘‘gay’’ marriage if we did marry, because my friend identifies as straight.
I've got plenty of my own inanity, so it's a-okay by me.
Comments 9
You know, if I were in charge, marriage would be abolished as a federally recognized union. In its place, civil unions would be introduced that give marriage benefits to not only traditional opposite and same-sex unions, but also to multi-partner sexual unions, platonic partners, and more. Marriage rights are definitely not just a straight vs. gay issue. Non-sexual/romantic partners (of the same sex) and poly partners deserve them as well. Of course, I could simply make the legal term "marriage" inclusive of all consenting permanent/long-term unions, whether they are sexual or platonic, but I'd rather do away with it all together.
Reply
Reply
That happened here pretty recently.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
When I started identifying as lesbian, I felt (and still do, to be honest) really apprehensive about it. It doesn’t seem like it should be a mind-boggling concept to say that I have felt ‘‘in love’’ with males and would still willingly enter a romantic relationship with one, but apparently it is.
Anyway, I'm sorry if this is ultra-creepy, but I occasionally look up the people who go to NHIA and are on LJ, and I thought your email handle looked familiar when I received your short story in my inbox. I'm the talkative, obnoxious one in (well, that’s past-tense now) our short story class. Maybe I am sheltered, but I haven't come across too many people that care a great deal about gender, sexuality, and autism issues, nevermind in a similar light that I do. I ( ... )
Reply
No idea how much sense that makes.
And yeah, of course you can friend (not creepy) but I should probably warn you that 90% of my Flocked entries are Flocked due to pure inanity. So.
Reply
I've got plenty of my own inanity, so it's a-okay by me.
Reply
Leave a comment