Originally Posted by let me tell u
Freudian slip there?
Freudian slip there?
He does not address the issue of so called 'gay' so-called 'marriage'. The fact is some people who are, to use a label, 'homosexual' choose a long term partner, to the exclusion of others, or not. Whatever, it is their choice. It is tragic that if one were to die then pension rights, etc., do not accrue, or did not accrue. This is inequality. Human Rights legislation forced this change. Human Rights legislation is a good thing. I know what SNB means for I too belonged to his lost world. It is not so much that things have gone though, rather, they have changed. Frankly, I would not go back. I know of people from those days, decent people, who spent time in prison or suffered nastiness which could not happen today. I think on the whole his remarks are merely personal, anecdotal, and I would go to the barricades to protect his right to making them. But I do not have to agree with them. Long live the New Order.
"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," but it's never greener than the grass on the side of the fence you were on when you finally make it to the other side and are looking back at where you came from.
(And if there's a prize for convolutedness the above sentence has to be a contender.)
Sometimes I just can't stand me either!
or it was when I was young. Much more fum without the spotlight.
I can't imagine why fags or dykes want to get married apart from maybe a few financial reasons like superannuation.
But I can see why David Furness got Elton down that aisle asap..shared ownership of assets. Oh Yes !
Oh Edith honey, that was fabulous!!!
SNB's comment cannot be a serious thought on the subject of legal equality for gay men.
It can be a fascinating piece of nostalgia for the lost "twilight world of the homosexual".
Too many men spent their lives in fear, being blackmailed, trapped and imprisoned, and their lives in prison were not an endless porn film, but endless fear of violence and pain. Nostalgia is a dangerous set of "rose-tinted spectacles".
For me, at last I have real hope that my boyfriend will have the chance to come and live with me in my home country, if we choose to use the partnership law in the UK. That is something to celebrate, and something the people of the UK can be justly proud of. As for the twilight world of the United States of America, I can only say I wish you could be free and respected in your own country too.
No one and nothing has been able to prevent gay men from loving and or having sex with anyone they desired. Marriage is not an obstacle or a hindrance to the 'fun' some may have found in obscurity. Same-sex marriage is not a proof of fidelity, and I am certain that same-sex partners married or otherwise might still enjoy 'illicit' sex. Marriage for me is really about the for-life legal stuff.
Okay, maybe not 'marriage' but some kind of legal acknowledgemnt of the ties that bind. And an acknowledgement of the attendant rights of life-partners regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
I would like to know without the shadow of a doubt that when the time comes, I and my partner would have the unquestionable right to be beside each other in a hospital room for example, or to be able to make important decisions for each other should either one of us become incapacitated, or to know for certain that my bequests would go, unchallenged, to my partner should I so wish it. And that we would have the right to live where we wish and raise and protect a family. IMHO. =)
The only long-term relationship to which I am wed is the one with the radical lesbians who state that the gay marriage notion is simply another form of assimilation. Come on, Surfcrest, tell us all about assimilation and its virtues. Domesticate a queer today
deleted
Congratulations, Baziel. You live in Belgium, don't you? Is it a fully legalized same-sex marriage there? I live about 150 miles from Vermont, which is one of the few US states that has such a thing. Please do post wedding pics in your blog or personal album.
Anything that gives legal precedence of my estate to my partner over my sister and the taxman has to be progress.
Most of my friends have not led lives in any way similar to the that of Mr. Bell. Most would not like their partners to have to sell the nest after their demise, as did Lord Montague's Japanese partner. I wonder how much this Bill is owed to that debacle and Lord Ali's knowledge of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote