Boy George On Gay Marriage

[Queersetti]

I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say in reaction to his remarks.

Are gays buying into a heterosexual paradigm on the issue?


Boy George Slams Gay Marriage as Outdated
02.22.06

By Ross von Metzke

(London, UK) – Former Culture Club front man Boy George has come forward and slammed same-sex 'weddings', saying that the traditions of marriage are outdated and have no place in modern or gay culture.

The “Karma Chameleon” singer denounced Elton John and David Furnish's decision to have a civil ceremony last year when the United Kingdom legalized same-sex unions.

According to the Evening Standard, he said he predicted many gay marriages are destined for the divorce courts.

“Gay unions, what is that all about?,” he said. “I haven't been invited to any ceremonies and I wouldn't go anyway. The idea that gay people have to mimic what obviously doesn't work for straight people anymore, I think is a bit tragic. I'm looking forward to gay divorces.”

Boy George, who is currently facing drugs charges for cocaine possession in New York, went on to praise Brokeback Mountain for bravely focusing on intimacy between two gay men. He said contemporary society continues to view gay relationships as purely sexual and sordid, and was amazed the film dared to dig deeper.

“We live in a culture that pretends to accept and understand, but which doesn't want to deal with the finer details of gay culture,” he said. “I have asked a lot of straight men about 'Brokeback Mountain' and they said they couldn't relate to it. I cried in my trailer, I was like, ‘Oh my God, that is my life.’ It deals with intimacy, which is far more shocking than sex.”

© 2006 GayWired.com, All Rights Reserved

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

In almost every respect I would have to agree. Not to say that we as a GLBT nation do not deserve the same exact rights as our non-queer counterparts but the idea of gay *weddings* gives me the willes.

I just don't believe that we can prove our selves different from the norm if we are steadily buying into the misconception that only *marriage* will put us on par with others in our particular homelands.

(This is not to say that I think the idea of civil unions or other partnerships are a bad thing..just that I don't buy the relevancy of *marriage* to us as gay people who can not viably procreate and in my mind *marriage* has more to do with legalising children born in wedlock and the property thereof.)

 

[Queersetti]

In almost every respect I would have to agree. Not to say that we as a GLBT nation do not deserve the same exact rights as our non-queer counterparts but the idea of gay *weddings* gives me the willes.

I just don't believe that we can prove our selves different from the norm if we are steadily buying into the misconception that only *marriage* will put us on par with others in our particular homelands.

(This is not to say that I think the idea of civil unions or other partnerships are a bad thing..just that I don't buy the relevancy of *marriage* to us as gay people who can not viably procreate and in my mind *marriage* has more to do with legalising children born in wedlock and the property thereof.)

Isn't it ironic that "conservatives" are so ofteb hostile to the gay rights movement, when, in fact, the main issues that movement has focused on have been attempts to fit into a conservative hetero paradigm?

Getting married? Serving in the military? Those aren't radical left wing desires, they are conservative.

Are we losing something essential if we put more emphasis on fitting in than on being ourselves?

 

[Raimondin]

Isn't it ironic that "conservatives" are so ofteb hostile to the gay rights movement, when, in fact, the main issues that movement has focused on have been attempts to fit into a conservative hetero paradigm?

Getting married? Serving in the military? Those aren't radical left wing desires, they are conservative.

Are we losing something essential if we put more emphasis on fitting in than on being ourselves?

Procreation or not, we only have to look at the atrocities heterosexuals themselves have done to the institution of marriage. I tend to agree with BG in that respect. And why do we, or why would we want to fit into, as you stated, "a conservative hetero paradigm?" Conservatives will always be hostile toward us, by claiming we're a threat to the family or the traditional nuclear family structure, when they themselves have already done that. Sort of a double standard or a denial of damages they have already inflicted in their idea of traditional marriage (man & woman).
Maybe it's a fear that our economic system would be threatened by same-sex marriage. Whichever or whatever the case may be, I don't think we need to mimic to be ourselves.

 

[Angel]

Are we losing something essential if we put more emphasis on fitting in than on being ourselves?

Who says being yourself isn't marrying the man you love?

Are we losing ourselves if we put more emphasis on fitting in to the "Gay" community rather than just going with your own personal wants and desires?

 

[DarkAurora]

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who get married and do not plan on having children with thier spouse because they already have children, are not physically able to produce children, are an older couple, or they just simply do not want children.

Aside from that, there are plenty of homosexual couples who would love to have children and getting married would allow them to adopt. Also, if your partner produced a child by getting a sperm implant (lesbian couples) or using a surrogate mother(gay male couples), marriage would allow you to still have legal rights to your child in the event of a divorce even though they are not biologically related to you.

 

[Samandiriel]

Silly me, I just thought he was being a bitter queen.

 

[Queersetti]

Who says being yourself isn't marrying the man you love?

Are we losing ourselves if we put more emphasis on fitting in to the "Gay" community rather than just going with your own personal wants and desires?

But, being "married", being a partner in an open, legally sanctioned relationship, is a fundamentally new thing for gays in our society. It entails a radical change in gay self identity. Therein lies the question; is there a fundamental aspect of gayness that is lost in that change, and if so, is that a positive or a negative development?

I think your question raises a false dichotomy. The "gay community". generally, is in favor of marriage. So, there is no discrepancy between the two positions you've posited.

I see this issue in much the way that members of ethnic and religious minorities have looked at the issue of assimilation. At what point does fitting into the larger society come at the cost of a loss of self identity?

 

[Queersetti]

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who get married and do not plan on having children with thier spouse because they already have children, are not physically able to produce children, are an older couple, or they just simply do not want children.

Aside from that, there are plenty of homosexual couples who would love to have children and getting married would allow them to adopt. Also, if your partner produced a child by getting a sperm implant (lesbian couples) or using a surrogate mother(gay male couples), marriage would allow you to still have legal rights to your child in the event of a divorce even though they are not biologically related to you.

I suspect that George's response to that would be that he thought raising children was not a "gay thing to do."

 

[kbate]

Gut response: Screw him, he's an idiot.

Thoughtful response: I see no reason two gays should not want to be able to have a legally binding bond between them, just as do heterosexuals. The fact that so many marriages end poorly is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on the legality or desirability of the institution.

As long as we attempt to retain whatever it is that he refers to as "gay culture", how can we expect the government and the rest of the people to treat us as anything but different? Purposefully setting ourselves aside and living as stereotypes is never going to help us in any way.

My Gay Partner in Civil union just rolled in, she'll be wanting to listen to my belly to see if my artificially inseminated child is making noise.

Have good thread.

:emoticon:

 

[Angel]

But, being "married", being a partner in an open, legally sanctioned relationship, is a fundamentally new thing for gays in our society. It entails a radical change in gay self identity. Therein lies the question; is there a fundamental aspect of gayness that is lost in that change, and if so, is that a positive or a negative development?

I think your question raises a false dichotomy. The "gay community". generally, is in favor of marriage. So, there is no discrepancy between the two positions you've posited.

I see this issue in much the way that members of ethnic and religious minorities have looked at the issue of assimilation. At what point does fitting into the larger society come at the cost of a loss of self identity?

I think it was fairly obvious that I was being somewhat of a smart-ass in reversing the statement, but I think all silliness aside my point still stands.

Gay people have been celebrating "marriage" and unions for a damn long time before this latest sweeping movement across the globe. Now that there is an actual fighting chance to gain equal footing all across the board, suddenly it's seen as a bad thing?

Nothing can make anybody "Less Gay", aside from some wild swing in sexual preference. To honestly believe that changing equates some kind of loss of sexuality is astounding.

Everyone changes, society changes, morals change. People grow. As groups grow and make leaps into having equal footing with the rest of society, participating in or "fitting in" them doesn't wash the gay away. Just like it doesn't wash the black away. Nobody can force you to lose your identity but YOU. Of course, what do I know? I'm only half gay.

 

[Queersetti]

So, what people seem to be saying is that there is no gay sensibility that differs from straight sensibility, that there is no such thing as distinctively gay culture, that any notion that gays may differ in outlook from straights is merely self-stereotyping, and that the only difference between gays and straights is in choice of sexual partners.

Is that correct?

 

[kbate]

So, what people seem to be saying is that there is no gay sensibility that differs from straight sensibility, that there is no such thing as distinctively gay culture, that any notion that gays may differ in outlook from straights is merely self-stereotyping, and that the only difference between gays and straights is in choice of sexual partners.

Is that correct?

Not necessarily, choice of sexual partners has little to do with it, I frankly do not give a damn about sex (ok, that's a lie but the point is that sex isn't the determining factor), I care about love.

Also not necessarily self stereotyping, but rather living up to expectations of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, probably in what is a futile attempt to be accepted by society at large. As Homer Simpson stated, 'I like my fags flaming.'

My ideal is for us to be permitted to live without having to look around, wondering who will attack next because we are not exactly like they are.

For me, there is no distinctive gay culture, my life is much the same as anyone elses.

 

[LoboBoy]

So, what people seem to be saying is that there is no gay sensibility that differs from straight sensibility, that there is no such thing as distinctively gay culture, that any notion that gays may differ in outlook from straights is merely self-stereotyping, and that the only difference between gays and straights is in choice of sexual partners.

Is that correct?

There is something insidious about the bullshit of gay culture. As a gay man the “community” thing is such a load crap. There is more back biting, backstabbing, friend fucking, bitchiness and ulterior motives all based on sex and position that I encounter in business, entertainment and general conversations and interaction.
I’m part of it, but I don’t like it.

As far as marriage goes: if it is for you, great. If not, then don’t do it. Many people gay or straight have a feeling of ambivalence towards the institution.

I’m not sure why, but I know I don’t need marriage or the like with my boy…If he especially wanted it, I wouldn’t say no. The thing is I am committed to him no matter what. The idea of non-monogamy for example, makes me want to bleed the skull of any man who touches him. I have been in open relationships before. But this guy isn’t for sharing.

What I am getting at is this; there is no ceremony on earth that can make me love him more or commit to him more than I do.

But there is another aspect of legal gay marriage that some have over looked. If your partner is hospitalised for example and they only allow next of kin in to see him/her. In your State, does that include the gay boy/girl friend? If you are married, you can take care of your partner in all situations where you cannot as it stands (depending on the country you live in).

Other things to consider are areas of tax, investment, and superannuation…. a whole host of things that straight couples take for granted that are not open to gay partners. (Again, depending on the laws of your land)

 

[kbate]

Other things to consider are areas of tax, investment, and superannuation…. a whole host of things that straight couples take for granted that are not open to gay partners. (Again, depending on the laws of your land)

Not exactly so.

We filed mutual and full power-of-attorney for medical decisions, granting each other the exclusive right to make decisions. She is the primary on my living will. She is my primary heir in my last will. She is limited co-owner on all of my accounts, properties and major possessions, (meaning I retain 100% should we split up before 10 years together, 75% between 10 and 20 years and after that 50% split).

Granted it took some legal work and a lot of running around to do that which a simple marriage license does for those permitted that luxury, but now, the only place we do not come out the same is that I cannot file taxes as married.

 

[Angel]

Not necessarily, choice of sexual partners has little to do with it, I frankly do not give a damn about sex (ok, that's a lie but the point is that sex isn't the determining factor), I care about love.

Also not necessarily self stereotyping, but rather living up to expectations of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, probably in what is a futile attempt to be accepted by society at large. As Homer Simpson stated, 'I like my fags flaming.'

My ideal is for us to be permitted to live without having to look around, wondering who will attack next because we are not exactly like they are.

For me, there is no distinctive gay culture, my life is much the same as anyone elses.

Can I hire you to say what I mean, only 100 times better and while making much more sense?

Thanks.

 

[Angel]

So, what people seem to be saying is that there is no gay sensibility that differs from straight sensibility, that there is no such thing as distinctively gay culture, that any notion that gays may differ in outlook from straights is merely self-stereotyping, and that the only difference between gays and straights is in choice of sexual partners.

Is that correct?

What I'm saying is, that wanting to participate in aspects of society previously closed to homosexual people does not suddenly negate your gayness. Not that you share this attitude, but I have quite a large number of friends who view wanting equal marriage rights as a betrayal of Gaydom, and anyone wishing to participate is completely shitting all over the gay community in an attempt to "act straight". I disagree. I'm in a relationship with a man, who I am marrying in just over five months. Were I with a woman instead, I would like to be able to do the same thing, because I have a desire to be in that type of relationship with the person I love.

 

[LeahLo519]

I agree...and I have talked to several lesbian women about how they feel and they seem to share his sentiments. I'm curious to see Brokeback Mountain just to see how this intimacy is portrayed exactly...if it's about them being in love, then anyone can relate.

 

[none2_none2]

There is something insidious about the bullshit of gay culture. As a gay man the “community” thing is such a load crap. There is more back biting, backstabbing, friend fucking, bitchiness and ulterior motives all based on sex and position that I encounter in business, entertainment and general conversations and interaction.
I’m part of it, but I don’t like it.

There does seem to be a lot to be said about the gay community. That is why I think you have to judge an individual not the group.

I cannot believe all this negativity about gay marriage, etc. It is bad enough that a good portion of str8's don't want us to have it. It is inexcusable for one faction of gays to dictate to another group that we should neither desire it or fight for it. The truth is that gays who want to tell you what your goals should be have too much free time on their hands. Let them stick to their own petty lives and leave the rest of us alone.

One thing I realize is that the older I get the less I have in common with a lot of gays that I encounter -- especially the ones who try to "define" me or what gay is. I use the term gay for myself because people in general want/need/insist upon labels because they don't want to take the time to get to know you individually. A label is a short-cut: just lump us all in together and assume we all have the same wants and desires. I know we all do it to some extent -- perhaps we just don't have the time to really get to know everybody we encounter.

Anyway, you can have a much happier life if you ignore most of the dictatorial people whether they are "fellow" gays or some people from the religious right. Though you may think the dictatorial gays are on your side, they really aren't. They are really on the other side -- control freeks. Don't let any of these types of people set the parameters by which you live -- set your own parameters.

If you want to have a monogamous relationship with someone, you can. Don't buy into the BS that two people (especially two guys) can't to it. You can. Don't buy into the idea that gays cannot raise kids. If that is what you want to do, do it.

Just remember that your REAL friends & love ones are those people who pray that YOUR dreams and aspirations for your life come true -- not THEIR dreams for your life.

 

[Xelebes]

Marriage has never been so much about love than it has been for simple economic means. Arranged marriages come to mind. That is to say, there is legal benefits to marriage. Either the government gets rid of marriage in the books or be open minded with it. However, I think scrapping marriage from the books might end the notion of marriage altogether and only have "engagements".

 

[Queersetti]

Not necessarily, choice of sexual partners has little to do with it, I frankly do not give a damn about sex (ok, that's a lie but the point is that sex isn't the determining factor), I care about love.

Also not necessarily self stereotyping, but rather living up to expectations of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, probably in what is a futile attempt to be accepted by society at large. As Homer Simpson stated, 'I like my fags flaming.'

My ideal is for us to be permitted to live without having to look around, wondering who will attack next because we are not exactly like they are.

For me, there is no distinctive gay culture, my life is much the same as anyone elses.

Is there no aspect of culture that is distinctively gay?

Would Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams have been the same writers if they had been straight?

 

[kbate]

Is there no aspect of culture that is distinctively gay? Would Oscar Wilde or Tennessee Williams have been the same writers if they had been straight?

As to distinctive gay culture - has homosexuality in and of itself added anything to the human condition? I do not know.

I think of the thumping sex clubs I have been to, and my revulsion at such. I think of the several lesbian bookstores I have visited and the unwelcome manner in which outsiders were received. I think of the gay pride marches, and the stereotypical leather boy who led the way at the last I attended. I think to the night I was gay-bashed on the Washington D.C. mall. I think of the outing of Ellen DeGeneres, the deaths of Rock Hudson, Greg Louganis. I think of the books of Ann Bannon. All of this is part of what defines gay culture to me.

Our culture is that of permanent outcasts, the fringe of society, living just below full freedom, sometimes little more than punchlines; partly because we seem to feel the need to identify ourselves as something other than - human, a need to look for something from without to fulfill our within. I think this is why we so often seek the comfort of our own, we know that gay will support gay, when the matter is a homosexual one. (that paragraph is 100% opinion by the way)

Even I, who essentially has everything I need, live in a miasma of doubt over whether I am really good enough, or do I truly deserve the life I have. My neighbours tolerate, like and spend time with me, but I still hear the whispers in the supermarket, "that's them, the gay couple," and for all of my desire to be, I know the plateau is out of reach.

***

As to Wilde and Williams:

I do not believe that Wilde's ability had anything to do with his orientation, but his writings (especially his later writings) were doubtlessly influenced by his sexuality, as well as his studies with Ulrich. Williams life and writings were as greatly influenced by his family and sister as they were by his sexuality. I cannot deny that they are literary greats and were gay, but I also cannot unequivocally state that, that fact was the greatest influence in their careers. Was Williams straight, I believe Streetcar would be the same, word for word, and for Wilde, Erneste likely would not have changed at all, but I cannot say the same for each of their works.

****

The question to me is: Am I to be something because I am gay or am I to define gay by my own being?

****

If this has made no sense or is not on topic, I don't care, I'm not editing, I'm just tossing the thoughts onto the board as they run through my head.

All of it comes to the words - I do not know that I do not know myself.

 

[Queersetti]

As to distinctive gay culture - has homosexuality in and of itself added anything to the human condition? I do not know.

I think of the thumping sex clubs I have been to, and my revulsion at such. I think of the several lesbian bookstores I have visited and the unwelcome manner in which outsiders were received. I think of the gay pride marches, and the stereotypical leather boy who led the way at the last I attended. I think to the night I was gay-bashed on the Washington D.C. mall. I think of the outing of Ellen DeGeneres, the deaths of Rock Hudson, Greg Louganis. I think of the books of Ann Bannon. All of this is part of what defines gay culture to me.

Our culture is that of permanent outcasts, the fringe of society, living just below full freedom, sometimes little more than punchlines; partly because we seem to feel the need to identify ourselves as something other than - human, a need to look for something from without to fulfill our within. I think this is why we so often seek the comfort of our own, we know that gay will support gay, when the matter is a homosexual one. (that paragraph is 100% opinion by the way)

Even I, who essentially has everything I need, live in a miasma of doubt over whether I am really good enough, or do I truly deserve the life I have. My neighbours tolerate, like and spend time with me, but I still hear the whispers in the supermarket, "that's them, the gay couple," and for all of my desire to be, I know the plateau is out of reach.

***

As to Wilde and Williams:

I do not believe that Wilde's ability had anything to do with his orientation, but his writings (especially his later writings) were doubtlessly influenced by his sexuality, as well as his studies with Ulrich. Williams life and writings were as greatly influenced by his family and sister as they were by his sexuality. I cannot deny that they are literary greats and were gay, but I also cannot unequivocally state that, that fact was the greatest influence in their careers. Was Williams straight, I believe Streetcar would be the same, word for word, and for Wilde, Erneste likely would not have changed at all, but I cannot say the same for each of their works.

****

The question to me is: Am I to be something because I am gay or am I to define gay by my own being?

****

If this has made no sense or is not on topic, I don't care, I'm not editing, I'm just tossing the thoughts onto the board as they run through my head.

All of it comes to the words - I do not know that I do not know myself.

Thank you. I throw these provocative questions out precisely to elicit the kind of thoughtful responses you have provided.

I wonder, does being on the fringe of society carry some benefits as well as pitfalls? Are there some ways in which we are freer if we live as outcasts?

 

[kbate]

I wonder, does being on the fringe of society carry some benefits as well as pitfalls? Are there some ways in which we are freer if we live as outcasts?

Thank you. I quite enjoy the exercise of attempting to define gay, and the application of such in life.

As to this latest inquiry, I am having trouble formulating a clear opinion, the ideas are there, but the words are not coming.

The jist is yes, until we choose to exercise such freedom outside of our own element, and run afoul of the well known pitfalls.

Gay pride becomes media circuses, why? Why do we need gay pride in the first place? Are we nothing but entertainment, Brokeback Mountain, the L word, Queer Eye, Ellen, ad infinitum, ad nauseum? A celebrity comes out, World news? We celebrate gayness, why?

We are as free as we choose, limited only by personal tolerance of bigotry, mine is low, thus I retreat to the safety of my relationship far sooner than would one with thicker skin Freer than those living within the social norms? Again, I do not know (a term which is common in philosophical discussion or should be more common).

I have never run into a limit not set by my own tolerance, but I have never tried to enter the military, or to apply for a marriage license. I have been limited in my activities by my unwillingness to confront bigots, or participate in verbal discourse with them, and I am well aware that every time I allow my own personal fears to limit my activity, another piece of me is gone, a chip of pride unrecoverable, the death of a thousand metaphoric cuts.

On a completely irrelevant and off topic note, I just this minute felt the first kick, ½bate is moving. Phone calls await! :emote:

 

[none2_none2]

I like culture club

Do they keep the volume of music down to a reasonable level? Do they serve chocolate malts (of course with zero calories)? If so, I might like culture clubs too.