The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby acpro » 28 July 2019, 02:45

jimbo_xix wrote:
acpro wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:
acpro wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:
acpro wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:Bravo. But my only comment here is to say that it was a "commitment ceremony" not a "marriage". It's only recently that gay males have been trying to ape heterosexual marriage.


lol not for nothing but I don't think anyone, including the article, or the title, which I plagiarized, used the word "marriage" which you're right is a legal contract.

I think you might be conflating "wedding" and "marriage" as the same thing, but since you quoted the word "'marriage,'" may I ask where you saw that term used? I don't see it. I see "wedding" which isn't a contract but rather the ceremony.


A wedding is by definition a marriage ceremony. The point here is that LGBT hacks will try to change the history of the queer struggle to fit their current campaign for monogamy and sexual exclusivity. That was never the goal of the gay rights movement.

Dictionary

wed·ding
/ˈwediNG/

noun
a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations.
synonyms: marriage, marriage ceremony, wedding ceremony, nuptial ceremony, marriage service, wedding service, marriage rites, wedding rites, matrimony, holy matrimony, nuptials, union; More


I think in this example you knew what the LGBT center meant. They were using the term loosely and either way, you misquoted them by literally quoting the term "marriage" when you put it in quotes, while the term had never been used once. So HA. Criticise the LGBT center all you want but I wouldn't dare correct them, when I think they're doing a great thing...and like I said they never used the word "marriage" ... I know tons of people who hold "weddings" without an official piece of paper for a "marriage" and I think that's what they were going for. I get what you mean, but I don't even think it holds water, see my edit below, but it's just not the time or place to bring it up. We all know in the 1950's there weren't same sex weddings and the Center even used the term "commitment ceremony" so why go at them? I don't have a horse in the race, I merely copy and pasted what they wrote, I just think they shouldn't be subject to criticism, when doing a good thing, and technically you misquoted them by literally putting quotes around a term that they didn't use. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

EDIT:

And from Marriam Webster a Wedding is:
- : a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities : NUPTIALS

So the wedding is the marriage CEREMONY, not the marriage, which are two very distinct things. It's like saying a reception = marriage. But it's just a ceremony for a marriage, not the actual marriage.


Jeezus christ, such duplicity from the crowd who want the government in my queer ass bedroom. I put "marriage" in quotes for emphasis, because that's exactly what is implied when this commitment party is mislabeled as a wedding. No, that was not a wedding. We gay males have committed to our partners for centuries. But it was never an attempt to mimic breeders and marriage. Sorry, two strong independent males who commit to each other are not playing house and pretending to be hubby and wifey. That's a very recent attempt by monogamists and the anti-sex league to force us to conform.

The real issue here is discrimination by a homophobic society which refused to process photos of two men kissing. Our struggle is still to free ourselves from gay bashers with baseball bats and discrimination in and out of the workplace. How dare you try to make this part of your push for monogamy and sexual exclusivity in MY community. THAT WAS NOT A WEDDING.


Well I don't know too much about anything but I use italics for emphasis.

And you're right the real issue is the fact that the photos were not given to the grooms. However, not to be stickler for semantics, but they were processed and developed, just not delivered back. And honestly, we don't know why. In those days the photo place was a middleman. They sent the photos to a lab usually. In this case, the photos were even crimped. There's a lot of reasons why these photos might not have ended up in the hands of their owner....but all go back to homophobia.


Fair enough. Sorry if I became obsessed with the same-sex marriage issue. But I believe it's the greatest threat to queer liberation since sodomy laws.


agreed! All discrimination is a serious threat.
User avatar
acpro
 
Posts: 2110
+1s received: 330
Joined: 23 December 2012, 05:18
Country: United States (us)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby Jryski » 28 July 2019, 08:09

jimbo_xix wrote:
Eryx wrote:Have you got any mirrors in your house? Want me to look for one on Amazon for you?


I'm very familiar with the tactics used by status quo gay fools on this issue. Sorry, some of us believe it's a mistake to have government-sponsored monogamy and sexual exclusivity foisted on us from the top down. You expect all gay people to agree with you and if they disagree you use disingenuous tactics to try and silence them. Sorry, every gay person doesn't have to agree with you.

Perhaps its your age or perhaps you bought too many items made in China. The lead poisoning must have gotten to you and for that I apologize but hearing you talk, I feel like a black person in the movie Get Out. We are entitled to our own opinions but we are also responsible to educate ourselves. Hitler and the rest of the historical atrocities all had an opinion but what moved us forward were the educated minds. I understand that you have went through your share of shit but it does not mean that people should have to go through what you have went through in order to be recognized as legitimate. It is foolish to think that way.
Last edited by Jryski on 29 July 2019, 02:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jryski
 
Posts: 517
+1s received: 284
Joined: 6 May 2019, 10:00

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby mxguy01 » 28 July 2019, 17:32

acpro wrote:
Eryx wrote:I love it! Surely there must have been many communities of gay guys all over the world even then. I remember reading something about people in the Army finding out about each other and having private parties back in WWI. I have a book here called My Queer War that I bought in Miami and talks about a soldier for Vietnam who had a lot of adventures with marines and soldiers in bars catered to gay army men back then.

They probably had to be more discreet than nowadays, but I'm sure there were just as many of us as there are today. Pretty cool! I hope they led a happy and fulfilling life.


Man, I feel so bad for them, having to hide like that. That's so cool about the WWI soldiers having parties and stuff with each other. Think of all of the people though who were too afraid to come out back then? I feel so bad for them.

But I love these pics and I hope someone recognizes these guys and they're still alive, so their pics can be returned.

I also love that there are organizations out there that are dedicated to LGBT history and archives. Growing up I never learned about any gay leaders or history and even today, I know very little. I hope schools start teaching more LGBT history!


I hope so too. I think it is pretty important that it not fade into the past.
---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 4447
+1s received: 2128
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby Eryx » 29 July 2019, 01:45

jimbo_xix wrote:I'm very familiar with the tactics used by status quo gay fools on this issue. Sorry, some of us believe it's a mistake to have government-sponsored monogamy and sexual exclusivity foisted on us from the top down. You expect all gay people to agree with you and if they disagree you use disingenuous tactics to try and silence them. Sorry, every gay person doesn't have to agree with you.
:toogay:

Do you want the mirror or not? Be quick about it, if shipping's free it's still reasonable for my third-world currency.
Image

Image Image

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 2150
+1s received: 1116
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby jimbo_xix » 10 August 2019, 02:14

Yeauxleaux wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:We gay males have committed to our partners for centuries. But it was never an attempt to mimic breeders and marriage. Sorry, two strong independent males who commit to each other are not playing house and pretending to be hubby and wifey. That's a very recent attempt by monogamists and the anti-sex league to force us to conform.
You're fucking crazy.

Marriage is now an option for gay men if they want it. Nobody is "forcing you to conform", don't be so fucking ridiculous. You don't want marriage or a monogamous relationship? That's good for you darling, don't have one. There's more than enough gay men on Grindr who just want to fuck around for you to eat your heart out, and they're not going anywhere.

However marriage and monogamy IS the long-term goal some gay men want as individuals, who you do not speak for. That doesn't make them wrong, it doesn't make them "less authentically gay", it doesn't mean they have "internalised homophobia". If they wanted to mimic "breeders" then they'd actually do what "breeders" do and have a traditional straight marriage.

I never thought I'd see the day a gay man would oppose the option of marriage for gays who want it... like we say to straight bigots who oppose it... who does that harm exactly? Are you pressed that a gay man you wanted "got away" and is monogamous with someone else? I can't think of another reason you'd have to be this pressed.

Also all this talk about how "not every gay has to agree with X viewpoint" is undermined, when you accompany it by calling the ones you disagree with "status quo fools" who "want to mimic breeders and be anti-sex" or whatever. Again nobody is saying you can't fuck as many guys as you wanna fuck, go fuck 50 in one night if you want, I don't give a fuck, but marriage as an option for gays who want monogamy doesn't hurt you in looking for that. There's still going to be gay men who don't want serious commitment, just like there's straight men everywhere who feel that way.


Last time I checked there was no prohibition on gay couples drawing up a domestic partnership contract. We don't need the church nor state for that. So pull your silly bridal veil over your face and ignore reality.

Since the Canadian government began trying to enforce gay marriage in 2005, fewer than an estimated 3% of gay adults have taken the bait and gotten married. It makes no sense in the lives of 97% of gay people who will never have biological children and don't want the state regulating their relationship.

No, you can't fuck anyone other than your partner under marriage law. There is a penalty and your partner can sue you for divorce and take 50% of your assets. Do not try and tell me the government is not trying to penalize non-monogamous gay sex.

Yes, gay marriage is a cancer on my community. And I have every right to speak out against it just as you have a right to defend it. The difference is I'm not telling you not to advocate your position. You're trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

They're imitating heterosexual marriage. And they're endorsing patriarchy. The Stonewall Revolution is about us being equal on our terms, not theirs.
User avatar
jimbo_xix
 
Posts: 142
+1s received: 12
Joined: 16 July 2019, 03:59
Country: United States (us)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby Yeauxleaux » 10 August 2019, 13:20

Again... nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage. Does that statistic you pulled from somewhere that only 3% have chosen it sound like anyone is trying to beat you over the head with it? If you're not interested in having a gay marriage then simply don't have one, you're not being held at gunpoint. Nobody is trying to silence you for not wanting to get married, nor are we trying to silence you for saying you think gay marriage is some agenda or conspiracy against gay culture. We're just saying we think you're making a stupid baseless argument. People disagreeing with you is not tantamount to censorship, you can say as many times as you want that gay marriage is some conspiracy, you have a right to feel that way and to refuse marriage based on that. However we don't have to just sit here like "ok I think you're right!" just so you don't feel SiLeNcEd.

Also if that 3% statistic is true then, again, why are you so pressed? If it's just 3% then it's hardly some phenomenon of gay men getting married that you should be this bothered by it.

Yeah I agree it's fucked up that someone (and this happens in straight marriages too) can divorce you and rob you blind in the process, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vet people and choose better. Or at least get pre-nup.

And omg "pAtRiArChY", you really are a parody.... I'm not interested in discussing it further anyway. You seem like the kind of simple-minded person who thinks that any in-house constructive criticism of dysfunctional behaviour is ReSpEcTaBiLiTy PoLiTiCs. People who think that simply don't have the range or IQ for me to tolerate talking to them at this point.
User avatar
Yeauxleaux
 
Posts: 1554
+1s received: 666
Joined: 27 November 2015, 21:06
Location: United Kingdom
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby jimbo_xix » 10 August 2019, 17:25

Yeauxleaux wrote:Again... nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage. Does that statistic you pulled from somewhere that only 3% have chosen it sound like anyone is trying to beat you over the head with it? If you're not interested in having a gay marriage then simply don't have one, you're not being held at gunpoint. Nobody is trying to silence you for not wanting to get married, nor are we trying to silence you for saying you think gay marriage is some agenda or conspiracy against gay culture. We're just saying we think you're making a stupid baseless argument. People disagreeing with you is not tantamount to censorship, you can say as many times as you want that gay marriage is some conspiracy, you have a right to feel that way and to refuse marriage based on that. However we don't have to just sit here like "ok I think you're right!" just so you don't feel SiLeNcEd.

Also if that 3% statistic is true then, again, why are you so pressed? If it's just 3% then it's hardly some phenomenon of gay men getting married that you should be this bothered by it.

Yeah I agree it's fucked up that someone (and this happens in straight marriages too) can divorce you and rob you blind in the process, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vet people and choose better. Or at least get pre-nup.

And omg "pAtRiArChY", you really are a parody.... I'm not interested in discussing it further anyway. You seem like the kind of simple-minded person who thinks that any in-house constructive criticism of dysfunctional behaviour is ReSpEcTaBiLiTy PoLiTiCs. People who think that simply don't have the range or IQ for me to tolerate talking to them at this point.


This is a social agenda being forced from on my community the top down on. There is almost no desire among gay males to get married.

And you haven't refuted my points. You've just made ad hominem attacks which is tantamount to a concession that you've lost.

Believe me, I'm not a feminist, I'm a masculinist. But patriarchy is a reality which affects my lesbian sisters and places the heterosexual male "father" in a position of dominance. And that's what marriage has always been about.
User avatar
jimbo_xix
 
Posts: 142
+1s received: 12
Joined: 16 July 2019, 03:59
Country: United States (us)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby rxxli » 10 August 2019, 20:53

jimbo_xix wrote:This is a social agenda being forced from on my community the top down on. There is almost no desire among gay males to get married.

And you haven't refuted my points. You've just made ad hominem attacks which is tantamount to a concession that you've lost.

Believe me, I'm not a feminist, I'm a masculinist. But patriarchy is a reality which affects my lesbian sisters and places the heterosexual male "father" in a position of dominance. And that's what marriage has always been about.

:lol:
Well I am gay and I am male and I definitely have a desire to get married (when I find a suitable partner that is).

What marriage gives you is some rights and security. You get rights to see your injured partner in a hospital, you get inheritance in case of your partners death, in places where true marriage equality exists you get the option to jointly adopt a kid, you get different tax benefits and shit, ...

I don't see why gay men wouldn't be interested in that.
Image
User avatar
rxxli
 
Posts: 4334
+1s received: 285
Joined: 21 December 2012, 21:33
Country: Slovenia (si)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby jimbo_xix » 10 August 2019, 21:22

rxxli wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:This is a social agenda being forced from on my community the top down on. There is almost no desire among gay males to get married.

And you haven't refuted my points. You've just made ad hominem attacks which is tantamount to a concession that you've lost.

Believe me, I'm not a feminist, I'm a masculinist. But patriarchy is a reality which affects my lesbian sisters and places the heterosexual male "father" in a position of dominance. And that's what marriage has always been about.

:lol:
Well I am gay and I am male and I definitely have a desire to get married (when I find a suitable partner that is).

What marriage gives you is some rights and security. You get rights to see your injured partner in a hospital, you get inheritance in case of your partners death, in places where true marriage equality exists you get the option to jointly adopt a kid, you get different tax benefits and shit, ...

I don't see why gay men wouldn't be interested in that.


Draw up a domestic partnership contract as I and my partner have and all your rights are protected. Marriage is for breeders.
User avatar
jimbo_xix
 
Posts: 142
+1s received: 12
Joined: 16 July 2019, 03:59
Country: United States (us)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby rxxli » 10 August 2019, 23:56

jimbo_xix wrote:
rxxli wrote:
jimbo_xix wrote:This is a social agenda being forced from on my community the top down on. There is almost no desire among gay males to get married.

And you haven't refuted my points. You've just made ad hominem attacks which is tantamount to a concession that you've lost.

Believe me, I'm not a feminist, I'm a masculinist. But patriarchy is a reality which affects my lesbian sisters and places the heterosexual male "father" in a position of dominance. And that's what marriage has always been about.

:lol:
Well I am gay and I am male and I definitely have a desire to get married (when I find a suitable partner that is).

What marriage gives you is some rights and security. You get rights to see your injured partner in a hospital, you get inheritance in case of your partners death, in places where true marriage equality exists you get the option to jointly adopt a kid, you get different tax benefits and shit, ...

I don't see why gay men wouldn't be interested in that.


Draw up a domestic partnership contract as I and my partner have and all your rights are protected. Marriage is for breeders.

First of all... these things don't exist everywhere (they don't in my country). And even in the countries where they do they are way more limited. So no - not all of your rights are protected.
Second... when traveling abroad your chances of it being recognized are very slim, while with marriage those chances rise slightly.
Image
User avatar
rxxli
 
Posts: 4334
+1s received: 285
Joined: 21 December 2012, 21:33
Country: Slovenia (si)

Re: The 1950's Gay Wedding Photo Mystery

Unread postby Eryx » 11 August 2019, 05:21

jimbo_xix wrote:Draw up a domestic partnership contract as I and my partner have and all your rights are protected. Marriage is for breeders.
That's so gay :toogay:
Image

Image Image

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 2150
+1s received: 1116
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: acpro, Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot], Jzone, MSN [Bot], Prince_G_24, rogonandi, rxxli, Yandex [Bot] and 84 guests