• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

It Could Happen To You

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
That's not what I said was "extremely unlikely".
ummm.. what? o_O

What nehalem256 wrote:
And everything you describe could just as easily happen to 2 straight friends
What you wrote as a direct response to that specific quote:
Extremely unlikely, to the point of irrelevance.
What I wrote:
Actually, every consequence listed in the OP happens to unmarried straight couples ALL THE TIME!
So, how is what I wrote not EXACTLY what you said was extremely unlikely?
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
ummm.. what? o_O

What nehalem256 wrote:
What you wrote as a direct response to that specific quote:
So, how is that not EXACTLY what you said was extremely unlikely?

It is extremely unlikely that everything in the video is going to happen to two people, gay or straight, who are just friends. You said straight couples.

Just friends != a couple in a romantic relationship.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
It is extremely unlikely that everything in the video is going to happen to two people, gay or straight, who are just friends. You said straight couples.

Just friends != a couple in a romantic relationship.

Literally every situation where the family of the deceased is not on good terms with the significant other will play out as in the story in o/p. Gay problems not found.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
It is extremely unlikely that everything in the video is going to happen to two people, gay or straight, who are just friends. You said straight couples.

Just friends != a couple in a romantic relationship.
uhh, I'm pretty sure nehalem256 was simply using the word "friends" in place of "unmarried"... but ok, whatever.

That said, this thread (and gripe) is still pointless given the extremely high number of gay-specific legal resources that exist just one click away on the Interwebz. Everything in the video, with the exception of the family's hatred, could have been avoided using the widely known legal resources. /thread.

Literally every situation where the family of the deceased is not on good terms with the significant other will play out as in the story in o/p. Gay problems not found.
^^this.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Literally every situation where the family of the deceased is not on good terms with the significant other will play out as in the story in o/p. Gay problems not found.

No, all or most of those situations don't end up with guns to the head.

I also never said this was something limited to gay people.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
uhh, I'm pretty sure nehalem256 was simply using the word "friends" in place of "unmarried"... but ok, whatever.

Given his history on SSM, no, he wouldn't use "friends" in place of "unmarried".

That said, this thread (and gripe) is still pointless given the extremely high number of gay-specific legal resources that exist just one click away on the Interwebz. Everything in the video, with the exception of the family's hatred, could have been avoided using the widely known legal resources.

Apparently not pointless enough to prevent you from posting in it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No, all or most of those situations don't end up with guns to the head.

I also never said this was something limited to gay people.

Tom Bridegroom was in a committed relationship with Shane Bitney Crone for 6 years, they started a business together, bought a house, and were the ideal couple until an untimely accident took Tom's life and the violent/threatening reaction from Tom's family to him coming out resulted in Shane being totally cut off from Tom after his death. They didn't have wills and couldn't get married, so Tom's family was able to take all of Tom's stuff, the hospital denied Shane access to Tom's information, and Tom's family threatened Shane if he showed up to Tom's funeral.

Anyone who knows your posting history would easily conclude that this thread is suppose to be an argument for gay marriage by showing what happens to the poor gay couples who can't get married.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Save your rage for legitimate gripes, man. I wholeheartedly support your desire for 100% equal rights -- everyone should be allowed to suffer the "joys" of marriage -- but, you're really doing yourself a disservice when you try to make stories like this one into something they're not.

I'm sorry for the guy's loss, and the subsequent legal dramas and hatred, but he and his partner simply should have been better prepared -- end of story.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Anyone who knows your posting history would easily conclude that this thread is suppose to be an argument for gay marriage by showing what happens to the poor gay couples who can't get married.

Someone asked for a synopsis of the 10-minute video, and I provided it. This thread is neither an argument for gay marriage nor an advocacy piece. It's just a sad situation that I wanted to share.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
There is no common "gay marriage" contract that exists.

The idea is to create a common one that couples can easily use instead of having to go to all of the trouble to draw up all the agreements you would need.

An aggregation of all of the legal documents and agreements isn't really a "gay marriage contract" as much as it is a metaphorical paper clip.

Its not the legal talks. It is the popularizing the idea that gay people get "married" anyway. So why not let them get actual marriages?

Popularizing the idea that there's a bunch of legal stuff you can do to be "married" is, yes, trying to popularize legal matters... and that never makes an impression like an appeal to the heart and common human decency/dignity.

Im not sure what your point was.

That your new advocacy for a "gay marriage contract" is dishonest. You don't like using "marriage" to in any way describe gay relationships.

I think you mean accurate. The essential argument for gay marriage is that gays want to get married and anyone who is opposed is a big poopy head that wants to deny gays their civil rights because they are a bigot.

No, I mean dumb. The essential argument for gay marriage is that gay relationships can be just as deserving of the same special recognition, termed "marriage, that is offered to straight relationships because some gay relationships have all of the good qualities commonly associated with and attributed to marriage.