They being gay is not intrinsic their situation.
There are many heterosexual, both married and un-married, where one side of the family dislikes spouse/partner and have taken means to ostracize or cut-off said spouse/partner from the family relations.
Why is this story any special or different?
How is being gay not intrinsic to the situation? A gay couple cannot get legally married, marriage gives you special benefits in situations like this. For example, if they had been legally married, he would have been able to sit with him when he died, he would have been able to choose where he was buried, he would have been able to attend his lover of six years funeral. And this is not an isolated issue in the LGBT community, and this films serves the purpose to bring awareness to this issue, to stop it from happening to others.
You clearly have not seen the film, or you would not have used such a flippant statement 'ostracize or cut-off' they threatened to physically harm him if he showed up at his lovers funeral, they did not mention him at the service, they completely cut him out of their lives in the few days after their son died. They, or at least the mother, was friendly towards them, visited, loved them. And then she turns around and does this when he died.
Where does it say 'this is a special and different story' it is a story that needed to be told. I mean, what makes all the films about straight love special or different? What makes films about racism special or different? I mean, we have seen it done a million times before, is being black intrinsic to a racism story? I mean racism can happen to white people, hispanic, asian...
So in short, yes they made a documentary about this. And yes, it needed to be made.
There are numerous parents who hate and ostracize heterosexual spouses because of various reasons.
You missed my point, I shall repeat:
There are many heterosexual, both married and un-married, where one side of the family dislikes spouse/partner and have taken means to ostracize or cut-off said spouse/partner from the family relations.
OMG you've missed the point completely. This isn't about being cut off from family. This is about the lack of protection for this couple purely because they were not allowed to be married because they were gay.
I'll break it down for you again. They could not get this protection, not by choice, but because their country would not allow them to purely because they were gay, thus allowing this evil to happen.
He was not able to go to his life partner's funeral. Now if you pretend for a second that everyone involved is human and has emotions, do you think a legal battle is gonna be the foremost on his mind or the fact that this *beep* is happening to him and his partner's body is not even a few days cold?
Think man.
Do you think the parents would have done different if they were (legally) married?
"Oh, now these gays are legally married, we can't do anything agains them."
People act upon feels, thoughts, and opinions regardless legal standing.
The parents wouldn't get a say if they were married, that's the point.
"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."
And you think, given what the parents had done, the law or legal status was going to stop them?
There are many married heterosexual widows who have experienced same, if not worst, treatment from the immediate family because of (whatever reason for their dislike e.g. wrong religion, wrong ethnicity., etc).
Being gay -- marriage or not -- would not have altered the parents' will to do what they wanted.
If legally married, then the parents would have done like some many others, done some legal maneuvering to exclude the gay married partnered.
Could you provide me with some examples of people being banned from their own spouse's funeral? I'm having trouble finding any such cases. The parents can have the will to do whatever they want, but they wouldn't have had the legal right to do what they did.
"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."
I refer you to the family law cases for one.
Read a few -- I had read a couple (exactly two) on two random occasions in the Rant & Rave section of Craigslist in two different cities.
I am not being paid to give for free law citations. That is one of the duties of a paralegal.
The funnier and entertaining ones may be seen on those daytime TV shows like "Judge Judy" or "Judge Brown".
Of course, you can stand outside almost any Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas and wait for the other proverbial shoe to drop.
When you seek, you shall find.
I.m not sure about the law in all the US states but usually a hospital or a coroner would release the body to the legal spouse (male or female) and that spouse would make all decisions about funeral home, donation of organs etc.
shareWell, it is not just about the body. It is about personal property and opportunity to attend funeral.
In the US, it is the next of kin, whoever that may be, spouse, family, or kids.
While I'm not saying that you don't make a point in other ways, their being gay is intrinsic because Tom's family cut-off Shane and his family BECAUSE he was gay.
It's not as if they didn't like his personality as with the other cases you brought up...it's because of him just being born a certain way.
AND another reason the gay aspect is important is because in all straight married situations Tom's mother and family wouldn't have been able to railroad Shane after Tom died.
So, considering all that, I would say them being gay was absolutely intrinsic to the situation that was presented to us.
----------------------------------------
"Live every week like it's Shark Week."
Being gay is just a reason.
He could have been Jewish or not Indian.
Again, the title of my thread questions why make a documentary about this, when there are hundreds of heterosexual married couples who have suffered similar if not worst.
There is nothing special about being gay or wishing for legalized gay marriage. Documentary of Shane's situation is neither unique or special just because he is gay.
More stories have been written about family disputes and being gay is nothing special -- legal gay marriage or otherwise.
Imagine if Romeo fell in love with Tybalt.
You don't seem to understand what everyone is trying to tell you. If one member of a married couple dies, the spouse, not the parents, have all the rights as far as burial, funeral, etc.
If it was a heterosexual couple, and the parents hated the surviving spouse, there's not a damn thing they could do about it. Legally, the spouse makes all decision about discontinuing life support, funeral arrangements, where to bury/cremate the body, etc. The parents couldn't have hijacked the funeral or buried their child's body and placed their plots on either side. None of that could have happened if they were straight and married.
And you think there are no heterosexual (married) couples who have not experienced similar or worst than these unmarried gay couple?
Family court cases are filled with drama between blood families fighting over property, access, etc.. Being gay or(-inclusive) is not essential.
That is all I am writing.
ok... and?
This documentary doesn't claim that it always goes well for straight married people.
All it points out is the FACT that in THIS ASPECT gay people have it worse BECAUSE OF LACK OF LEGAL RIGHTS which straight married couples have.
Why are you so bothered by this being pointed out?
I do not know about being "worse" just because of not being legally gay married.
I am not bothered by the documentary.
I refute the central premise the documentary makes. I do not know how to make more plain my original post.
They being gay is not intrinsic their situation.
There are many heterosexual, both married and un-married, where one side of the family dislikes spouse/partner and have taken means to ostracize or cut-off said spouse/partner from the family relations.
Why is this story any special or different?
You're either really myopic, stupid, or a troll. Being gay is very much intrinsic to the story because heterosexuals can get married, period. Marriage is a legal binding contract that provides you, as a spouse, among many other things the ability to have control over the treatment your partner gets (should they be incapacitated), control of the body should your partner pass, and control of their estate and burial. Not only that, you aren't blocked from seeing them on their death bed. None of that is true if you live in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, and subsequently have those legal rights.
Citing a CRAIGSLIST ad as a legal source is, for the lack of a better term, idiotic. Spouses have the primary legal responsibility, not the parents. Only in very rare situations is that battled out in court, and 99% of the time the spouse wins. Terri Schiavo is a very good example in which the parents continued to drag out a situation in court (keeping her on life support when she was essentially a vegetable), with the courts siding with the spouse to take her off.
So no, your argument is flawed and incredibly shortsighted.
...Being gay is very much intrinsic to the story because heterosexuals can get married, period.
Marriage provides a legal binding contract that says, as a spouse, you have control over the treatment your partner gets (should they be incapacitated), you control the body should they pass, you also get to be in control of their estate and burial. Not only that, you aren't blocked from seeing them on their death bed. None of that is true if you live in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, and subsequently those legal rights.
Citing a CRAIGSLIST ad as a legal source is,
So no, your argument is flawed and incredibly shortsighted.
Yes but married heterosexual spouses have experienced likewise, thus being gay is not special and certainly not unique to Shane's experienced plight.
That should be the case, but there are instances in which married spouses -- heterosexual -- have experienced what Shane had.
I did not cite Craigslist as some "legal source". Re-read my reply, more careful this time.
I had read a couple (exactly two) on two random occasions in the Rant & Rave section of Craigslist in two different cities.
I made not argument such as it is. I question why the documentary had been made when Shane's situation is not unique just because he is gay and unmarried.
Please, please, read what I write before commenting mindlessly on what you think I wrote.
I know what I write and write what I mean.
P. S.-edit
...Being gay is very much intrinsic to the story because heterosexuals can get married, period.
Yes but married heterosexual spouses have experienced likewise, thus being gay is not special and certainly not unique to Shane's experienced plight.
• I am not comparing apples to BMWs.
I am comparing (married) heterosexual couples to gay couples.
Legal status notwithstanding, Thomas's parents are homophobic, which is no different from being anti-Semitic or racist, depending upon the situation.
• Personal anecdote, only because I recall an instance in which the spouse whose husband killed in a battlefield was denied access to see the body and attend the military funeral just because the husband's parents (mostly the mother I think I seem to remember) had some beef/issue with the daughter-in-law, this despite they were legally married and she had a baby.
If you want legal citation, I refer to the suggestion I made earlier, search for yourself. That is not my job and I am disinterested in the task.
If you want proof from me, then remain silent until such legal citation is presented.
• You must have trouble reading, because I offered an example from Craigslist, but no claim as to the veracity and legal standing of some random Craigslist posting.
Mentioning something is not proof or evidence that I implied legal citation. Where did you learn to read?
• If I wanted to make an argument, then I would. Arguments is not made "manifest" by your desire to pick a fight where none exists.
• Let's take a different tack because either you are playing the troll game or mentally slow.
If Shane and Thomas had been married, why would Thomas's parents had not done anything if they are homophobic?
My question in the original post is not complicated.
I am not making an argument but question why this documentary was made when Shane's experience is not unique, especially just because he was gay and un-married.
If you cannot accepted that (married) heterosexual spouses and partners have experienced similar to what Shane had experienced, then I cannot help you.
You may disagree but that does not alter the facts that some heterosexuals do not get along with their in-laws in same cases to the point where court room drams ensue.
To imagine that Thomas's parents would have done nothing just because Shane and Thomas had been married is suspecting Thomas's parents only acted because they could and not because they were homophobic.
Insults demonstrate a weak mind.
Name one example where a heterosexual spouse was not allowed to see his/her husband/wife at the hospital and then on top of that could not attend his/her husbands/wife funeral because the parents WITH THE LAW ON THEIR SIDE didn't allow it.
The lack of legal rights for gay people again and again put people in these type of situation. It's important to point this out again and again until the laws are changed. Nowhere is it claimed that all heterosexuals have no spousal or family type of problems... it's just pointing out that in this aspect gay people have it worse.
I have cited from weak memory two errant examples.
There are many more, humourous, cases to seen from TV shows like "Judge Judy".
Again, I have neither the time nor the interest to search myself. That is an exercise left for the reader.
I am certain you can find instances of horrible in-laws or people who do not get along with their relatives (married or un-married).
For some, the law is not an impudent for their exercise in dislike towards another for whatever reason.
You guys have missed one fact:
Bridegroom had nothing to do with marriage. Tom and Shane were never married. Tom and Shane were not planning to get married. Shane only planned to give Tom a promise ring. Not an engagement ring, not a wedding ring, but a promise ring. Although they loved each other very much their relationship was not there yet.
They being gay is not intrinsic their situation.
"situation" is not the same as documentary.
shareFirst, I did read this whole post from beginning to end. Shane and Tom were two men in love. This film, "Bridegroom" show the short time they spent together. They were in love. A documentary was made about their time together. Instead of all of us arguing if it should of been made, or not, is a waste of time. The film was made and it gave all of us a glimpse of Shane and Toms life together. Straight, or gay, who cares. also, who cares if you do not thin it should, or should not have been made. YOU are all adults, if you want to watch, or not watch this film is your choice. Just remember one thing. It is a true story about a person lost someone they loved very much. First, I cannot imagine losing someone I loved. So, please be the bigger person and respect that. Please respect the person who passed even if you do not like the movie, or their life.
shareAnd they probably wouldn't be married if they could, when Tom died. They weren't even a totally "out" couple most of the time. It seems that they were making progresses and then Tom accidentally died, it was a misfortune.
shareI think because we've seen the other situations else play out in movies, musicals, plays, tv shows, soap operas, TV specials, documentaries. We can start with Romeo and Juliet for example, two straight young people in love but can't be with each other because of their social status and they have a tragic ending. I've seen a lot of films and TV shows that play the whole "parents don't like my partner" mostly because the (straight) partner, been from a difference religion, economic status, ethnic background and so on. I just recently saw an MTV Real Life show that aired many years ago, about how the parents of this white chick couldn't accept her soon to be baby's daddy because he was Mexican! They didn't want the baby to be brown, to their surprise, the baby came out light skin. Or how about the whole white and black people getting together. I mean, the list goes on and on.
This one might stand out and might had been released because there are still not very many documentaries about parents not accepting their son been gay. Also, both of these kids were like very good looking, they were not the typical over the top flaming guys. They acted and seem pretty normal and the documentary concentrated on their sentimental relationship rather than the whole "sexual" attraction that is heavily played in the gay world. People associate gay with horny and lustful, often over shadowing the sentimental feeling.
Such ignorance. This documentary was made because of people like you.
shareHe failed. I never watched the movie.
The movie is self-indulgent; that is the thrust of my question -- not objection, not criticism, not antagonism -- but doubt as to the usefulness of having this self-serving project.
As if legalization would change homophobic in-laws. As if his experience is unique, especially with respect to antagonistic in-laws. Dispute with in-laws is so common as to be a trite trope in comedic stories, sub-story in situation comedy series "Everybody Loves Raymond" to pick an example.
The first reply gave to me the answer I should have thought myself: money.
Once again, a rich, White, male is controlling the public discourse and what we the audience (consumers and non-consumers) are discussing and to which we are exposed.