Every statistic I’ve ever read about the multiple partners of nearly all gay men seems to indicate that their relationships are not long lasting.

That, my dear, is because you are reading the Camerons and making the mistake of not recognizing that it’s comedy. As best I can tell, there are not any reliable statistics about partners of gay men. And there are undoubtedly those who participate at this site who would provide life examples that refute your “nearly all” presumptions.

The newer definition is misleading and unclear at best, especially for children.

You have decided that because your definition of family is easier for you, then therefore it sould be the sole definition. Marriage, blood, adoption, and that’s it, baby.

OK

I could accept that definition. In Massachusetts I would agree that a family should consist of two married people and their children, natural or adopted (along with the various in-laws, cousins, etc.).

Except that some want exclusions to who can get married or adopt. They work backwards to get to the definition that you want. The definition that they really want is Family = Heterosexuals. THis is obvious from the numerous “family” organizations out there that have no agenda other than opposing any equal access for gay persons. Saying “marriage, blood, and adoption” is just a way of masking the exclusion when you are trying to control who has access to marriage and adoption.

But the reality is, Linda, that same-sex attracted persons develop families that are indistinguishable from heterosexual families (both the good and the bad) and that the only distinguishing characteristic is the sex of the parties. You can dance around it with your “definitions”, but ultimately it is that, Linda, which you find objectionable.

Fortunately, more and more people – including many of those in education – are realizing that you definitions of exclusion are not reality.

I’ll all for gay marriage – no argument here. What I have problem with is the way everyone here is just accepting the idea that gay relationships are less stable than straight relationships. Sez who?!

g

Quite the contrary, they have created an ethic of celibacy.

Yeah, my bad. I’m always forgetting to put the words “sensible,” “rational,” &/or “workable’ as an adjectives in that sentence, thus:

Most existing religious institutions are not at all interested in creating and promoting a sensible, sane, workable ethic for gays and lesbians.

How’s that?

I think there are a lot of other times when recognition is denied. Unfortunately, these are when it is most needed. For example, in most states gay couples run into problems when there is:

a medical emergency,

a child with a problem at school,

an unexpected death when there is not a will,

a contested will from a hostile relative (a second cousin twice removed has more legal standing in most states than a 55-year same-sex partner),

end of life decisions,

immigration difficulties,

and the list goes on.

When the stresses on a relationship are the greatest, that’s when the state (most of them) and federal governments step in and say “you are nothing – and we will punish you for having this long-term, stable, productive, and societally beneficial relationship”.

When the hospital tell you “you aren’t family” it can make you wonder why it is that you are going to be hurting your career by cutting back your hours over the next several months to care for this non-family person. When your state says you cannot have any legal connection whatsoever to the colicy child that you are rocking at 4 am, you can ask yourself what you are doing out of bed.

It tells much about man’s innate desire to find a mate and to love them that any gay couples survive at all.

Quite the contrary, they have created an ethic of celibacy.

If you mean a big party where we’re the center of attention and everyone dresses up and brings presents, well then yes.

But if you mean the recognition of friends, family, neighbors and coworkers that we’re a couple, that our first names at least are always mentioned together,and that we’re in this for the long haul, then I believe you’re mistaken. The only group that doesn’t recognize us is the federal government who would treat my receipt of health benefits from his employers as ordinary taxable income.

One of the things she does mention is the critical purpose of marriage. How it has come from need to obediance to love. With all the social changes, technological advances, greater earning power of women, and newly defined roles of men and women – (and other contributing factors that I am not remembering) the place and purpose for marriage partners and committment have change dramatically over time.

Her statistics for showing that divorce is leveling off again may be a product of fewer marriages taking place Women are getting married at all ages and life stages. Hence choosing one partner for the remainder of her years rather than choosing two or three over a lifetime.

She also notes that we have redefined family ( step families, adopted families, blended families, childless families, families with grandparents/ elderly and aging parents living in the same house etc…) and have imposed new reasons and “terms” for marriage. Marriage today is needs to be more negotiable than it has ever been in history.

With these things in mind – I can see how gay and lesbian couples have more opportunities to define their relationships just like everyone does. Though presures that kept marriages together in times have passed and we all have to figure out who is going to do the shopping, pick up the kids, and have the boss over for dinner. (Real issues of day to day living)

For gays maybe the division of work is more equal, or the communication more open – but there is no public congratulary or recognition of their commitment and it is my opinion that these would help stabilize their relationships.

So while we are all trying to figure it out as we go along, it seems that for gays they are trying to figure it out all alone without the usual support that others recieve.