h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh dear! Yes I avoid Hastings when possible! Still, at least you aren't living there all the time. Brighton's a much more fun place

>>Society (ie heterosexuals) has made it clear that we cannot get married and that CP has been introduced in such a way to make clear that CP is NOT marriage and holds none of the social acceptance that marriage has<<

I don't think we're ever gonna convince each other of our opposing positions here. I disagree with you very strongly, but maybe that's because I spend far too much time in the company of heterosexuals, maybe not.

Babs, cheers for supplying some great debating material, I should go now too - the porters are starting to give me the 'get out, we want to go home' look

Iago

I think you are right. Our views on this are poles apart.

What is yuor view on CP in general?

Also, the fact that I try to avoid heterosexuals as mucha s possible probably is one reason for our difference. I see heteorsexuals as a threat to my existance because they deny me the most basic norms and force me to always look over my shoulder and stop me being myself. Ina ddition, I have had nothing but disapproval and disrespect from heterosexuals and have only been treated as an equal by gay people.

If I wanted to marry my partner, which I don't, I'd accept a civil partnership and call it a marriage, as many queer couples are already doing.

The discriminatory thing is that the fact that it was a civil partnership would out one of us as a transsexual because - to all apearances - we are a straight couple. (Or can transexuals get married? - I don't know because marriage / civil partnership is not on our horizon).

The "for the procreation of children thing" will increasingly be seen as the massive red-herring it is when (a) more children are born and / or raised out side marriage (b) more straight couples choose not to have children and (c) more queer couples do.

Personally I would lay folding money that CPs will have the same rights and status as marriages either as a result of case law or because of new legislation in the next 12 years.


>> After all, you "enter into a CP" whereas heteroswexuals "get married." Very very different.

Most gay couples I know who are doing it are "getting married" and I "entered into matrimony" over twenty years ago when I "got married". Truly. The phrasing being used is very blurred already.


>> This will mean that mixed sex coupels will be able to get married, join in Holy Matrimony and enter into a CP but same sex couples will only be ablt to enter into a CP.

Now that IS interesting. And depressing. I find myself wondering if civil marriage will end up falling by the wayside and we end up with the legal agreement of "civil partnership" (queer or straight) and "holy matrimony" (or its equivalent in other religions). Interesting stuff.....


>> non-consumation would count as a reason for divorce anymore,

Doesn't it count as a reason for annulment though?


>> We should have an H2G2 M2M2 meet

That'd be interesting


>> with 5% being heterosexual,

Heterosexuals, or couples with a stealth transsexual? Are the gay community actually isolating other queers here? I'm used to it. I'm not even trans. I'm not gay. Not bi, (well I am, actually, but not *just* bi). I am excluded by the LGBT community - I am just some random queer bird who shags a transman.


>> The legal aspect of it whilst being there is basically invisible.

Um. No. Say that if you have a straight marriage and want a divorce. The legal aspect of it is NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY invisible.


>> but sometimes it'd be nice if the GT admired the world outside of its own backside




>> was just making the point that Holy Matrimony is another thing denied to us.

Yes, but it is denied by the *church* NOT by the state. We need to be precise here, or holes will be picked in our arguments.


>> but the point is is that Cps are nothing more than a legal document and should be seen as that and treated as such accordingly.

How dare you tell me what to do, Rillington? I would not dare tell you what to do, so what gives you the right, as a gay man, to tell me, a queer woman, what to do and what not to do?

Not shouting. Not ranting. Just curious to know where you get on and where you get off.



>> and holds none of the social acceptance that marriage has.

It may not among the straights that you know, but it does among the queers and straights I know. Honest. You yourself say you don't know many heterosexuals. I do.


>> In addition, I have had nothing but disapproval and disrespect from heterosexuals and have only been treated as an equal by gay people.

Not true Rillington. I have seen you treated with courtesy, patience and respect by hets here, though it is true that a lot of them got impatient with your heterophobia.


Ach well. This one will run and run. Though I would like to know how many of that 5% are actually stealth transsexuals.

Rising Tide / Girl Three

The deleted post was a cut and paste from Tatchells site, let me see if I can find the link:

The next list is dated 2001.

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/hardlabour.htm

It was removed, with superb irony, because:

Postings to BBC Communities will be removed if they:

* Are considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
* Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
* Contain swear words (including abbreviations or alternative spellings) or other language likely to offend

Discussions considered likely to have been started with the intention of provoking others or disrupting the Community (for example by being off-topic) will be removed.



I've replied to the email asking exactly how the post could be considered homophobic. It'll be interesting to see what reply I get.

Thank goodness there is a court of appeal when the Mods make lunatic decisions.

Ben

Plenty to reply to here:

To me, the best idea would be to scrap marriage altogether and call them all Civil Unions. Therefore, no discrimination and everyone would be equal.

Same sex couples should NOT call it a marriage because it isn't a marriage. Marriage is what mixed sex couples have and we do not. I know of two couples who have entered into a CP. One caleld it a marriage then other did not. The couple that caleld it a marriage did the legal minimum required and literally just signed the forms.

As for the legal invisibility, I am talking about the getting marrie dbut and not the divorce part. The process about getting married is all about telling the world you are doing this and the only legal bit is when the couple goes away and signs the forms.

An m2m2 meet would be fun but it's bound to be in London.

I'm not telling you what to do, or not what to do. I'm simply saying that gays should not see CP as marriage becuase it is NOT marriage. That's all.

True, I don't know many heterosexuals, As I say, I deliberately ensure this is the case for the reasons I gave. Why would I want to be around people who do not accept me as me? Tell me to stop behaving as a gay man? I didn't ask for heterosexuals to treat me as a nobody. i didn't ask them to be nasty to me and to abuse me. i didn't ask them to give me hassle and I didn't ask them to deny me the basic rights they have. Therefore, why would I want to associate with people who deny me those basics and stop me being myself? I don't think that's heterophobic in the slighest.

Finally, why are you excluded from the LGBT community? You identify as "queer" but you say you are neither gay or bi which therefore means you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex which means you are heterosexual. Not that it's any of my business but am slightly confused.

PS I should have made it clear in post 43 that I meant in person and not on an internet messageboard when talking about heteros treating me as an inferior. A MB setting is obviously very different because it is a nickname and a series of words to which you are respnding. people have said on MBs that I am way off-beam with what I say that hets treat gays as inferiors but in my life I have never been treated as an equal by any het to whom I have had personal contact.

>> Finally, why are you excluded from the LGBT community? You identify as "queer" but you say you are neither gay or bi which therefore means you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex which means you are heterosexual. Not that it's any of my business but am slightly confused.

It isn't that complicated. I'm in a relationship with a post-op FtM transsexual. I have previously had sex both with women and men, but most bi's don't take the next step (if you like) and sleep with transsexuals. There simply isn't a term for it, and I really don't see where I fit into the LGBT community. Not L. Not G. Bi, but more than bi. Not T.

*shrug*

It's ok, it's just that like assexuals we are a category of queer that is invisible to other queers and more or less invisible to straights too.

I think you and I aren't going to agree about Civil Partnerships. I think - given the changes that we've already had in my life-time - that we will end up with full equal rights under the law within the next couple of decades, and full matrimonial rights (other than religious rights) within the next dozen years or so. That is a reason *for* campaigning, of course, not a reason against it.

I just find it terribly terribly sad that you haven't met any straights who aren't aggressive. Your experience is your experience, and I cannot deny it, but I still find it very very sad.

No need to assume that a meet would be in London. I live about 30 miles from Manchester. It's just a question of finding out where is convenient for people and making the arrangements.

I admit, I was shocked by the information no Tatchell's site.

Hey ho. Onward and onward.

Rising Tide / Girl Three

Thank you for the reply and for your honesty. Am still puzled as to why sleeping with a trans-sexual deos not mean you have a sexual orientation though apart from dientifying as "queer."

I agree that we won't agree on CP like others disagree with me on this issue. Maybe it is my problem but I want to lvie as an equal in this society but am not able to do so because heterosexuals do not 'allow' me to do so. Ys it is sad that I have never been tollerated by a heterosexual in 30+ years of living but that is what has happened and I have to accept this and live accordingly and the only people who have ever treated me as equals have been gay men.

>> I want to lvie as an equal in this society but am not able to do so because heterosexuals do not 'allow' me to do so.

Ah, I get it now. It will come though, I'm sure of it.


>> Am still puzled as to why sleeping with a trans-sexual deos not mean you have a sexual orientation though apart from dientifying as "queer."

Well, how would you categorise my orientation? (Just curious, really).

R.T. / G-Three

I don't know in truth as I can't recall if you are a man or a woman but one of the problems with society is that we are always labelling people and I am as bad as the next man at doing this.

hows about this - "non heterosexual."

Well, the fact I sign off "Girl Three" is intended to be a clue, really. I'm female.

I prefer to categorise myself as "sexual" to be honest or "queer" which covers it pretty well. You see, I'm not just not het, I'm also not LGB or T.

I'm happy without lables, but I am aware that being unlabled makes me invisible, (which is pretty convenient most of the time - I get under a lot of people radar), and it also makes it hard to find other people in my situation. I'm not anguished about it, but I do ponder it every now and again.

R.T. / Girl Three

fair enuff!

I think more of us should be happy without labels. They are sued to make people fit into boxes and we are always trying to fit into boxes rather than being ourselves which is very sad.

Ok, the verdict is in from the Italics on the Tatchell post. It remains removed because of copyright infringement.

However, it was clear that it was originally removed because of the use by Tatchell of the word "queer", and it is equally clear - given how the site is moderated - that it must have been yikesedd by someone reading this thread.

*waves to yikeser*

I can only think of a few scenarios which make sense:

1) It was yikesed by someone in order to deliberately make trouble, waste the Italics' time and force them into an ethical dilemma

2) It was yikesed by someone who is so unaware of queer - er sorry - LGBT history that they don't realise just how important Peter Tatchell has been to the gaining of equality

3) It was yikesed by someone who is unaware of the shift in LGBT culture since the making of "Queer as Folk" to embrace the word "queer" specifially in order to include people such as Rising Tide and Ming Mang who are not LGBT and not straight

4) It was yikesed by a cyber-stalker

5) None of the above

The Italics are closer than clams on the details of moderation decisions. All I've been told is that the original reason for pulling the post was that it "might be offensive" and that in addition, it remains pulled for copywrite reasons.

The whole episode has left me very sad. Like Rising Tide and Ming Mang, I self-identify as "queer" and I found it very very frightening to be told that to do so was so offensive that posts including the word would be pulled. I found it pretty offensive myself, to be honest. It seems I am allowed to refer to myself as "queer" in my user name though.

The whole episode has left me disinclined to play here any more. Which is a shame, since I've been here since 2000 and I met my partner here. I've seen too many people leave and come back to say "that's it - I'm off". However, I am stepping outside and I may be some time.

Have fun guys - and take care.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Ben

I think the BBC has offended every non-heterosexual person many times in the recent past in the way we have been treated, and closing down the messageboard for non-heterosexual people last year was one such example.

There is no reason why that posting should have been removed for any other reason that copyright if it had been a direct copy and paste jobby and to remove it because of the use of the word "queer" in a context such as the context you use it is very very different. It can be almost guaranteed that if it had been used in a way to cause us offence it would have stayed.

I am sorry you have decided to leave but I post rarely these days now since they removed the gay messageboard and I know that the majority of gays have done the same. Why not join us at the forums set up as a direct response to the closure of the gay messageboard which are called Twolife - any further direct mention will result in this post being removed.

Right, from what I have seen on the marriage/CP thing, and its only a little from my local council's site, based on the fact I want to get married to my deliciously gorgeously perfect partner.

From what I've seen as far as a legal stand point goes, it gives me all the same legal rights as a hetero marriage would.

Apparently you can only register a CP:

>>Two people may register a civil partnership provided:

They are of the same sex;<<<

Which would put a crinkle in opposite genders/sexes applying.


>>How does civil partnership differ from marriage?

Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

The Government has sought to give civil partners parity of treatment with spouses, as far as is possible, in the rights and responsibilities that flow from forming a civil partnership.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example, a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words. Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure.<<

If you dont give a monkies about the religious aspect, how is this different, so you have to sign a piece of paper to make it official rather than talking about it, its not exactly a hardship.
So we're argueing about whether we say it or sign it? Surely the point is you're legally, publically and emotionally committing to the person you love, isn't that the important part?


At the end of the day, the point of most marriages from what I've seen is two people who are in love, standing before their friends and family and declaring that love publically and eternally. I dont much care what you call it, Im not going into this for the legality or a piece of paper, Im going into it to publically stand up and announce to anyone within hearing distance that I want to be with my woman for the rest of my life.
Call it a marriage, call it a CP, call it knock-kneed, knackered old nosebag. I dont care.

I believe them to be the same in the legal and civil aspects, and aside from having no 'groom', the service I see will be no different to any other union at a registry office.
Also, some churches will perform a blessing on CPs so there is that option if you want a bit of hypocrisy.... I mean, religion in your ceremony.

Anyway, thats my two cents worth.

I think you put it much more eloquently than I was trying to.

Iago.... thats exactly why I like you, you use beautiful words like 'eloquently' in regards to me! Makes me want to put you in my pocket and feed you cheese shapes.

"Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure."


This is actually my second least-favourite aspect of "civil partnerships": the government actively discriminates against the religious beliefs of gay couples alone, while offering complete religious freedom to straight couples.

If you are a Quaker, and want to get married in a church followed by signing the civil partnership registration form, you can't just sign it in the church. Apparently it wasn't good enough to give it a different name; they need to disrespect your religious beliefs, too.

(In fact, I was told that one is not even allowed to have "Angels" by Robbie Williams playing, since it has religious connotations. If this isn't carefully constructed to present the middle finger, what is?)


My biggest grievance is that the expectation of sexual fidelity is not implicit in a civil partnership, as it is in marriage. It makes it sound like we're being given some sort of "training marriage" as we're not ready for the real thing.