Going to the chapel

[seaboy4hire]

Well after much thought about this and going back and forth I thought that I would announce here in the mc that on March 16th about 2:30pm pst I will be in SF at the beutiful city hall exchanging wedding vows. I'm not aware if anyone else here at the mc has done so but I thought that it is time for me to take the plundge of merital bliss hehehehehehe. I'm very much looking forward to this moment even if it only lasts a few days, months or yrs. Please keep your fingers, toes, eyes and such crossed that the courts don't making up their minds before the 16th of March.

 

Hugs,

Greg

P.S. No I'm not giving up on the biz just yet so don't worry.

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[duke37]

So where is the gift registry for the happy couple?

 

Pleasure Chest?

 

Abercrombie&Fitch?

 

Mr.S Leather?

 

Just teasing. Congratulations, as cool as you are I hope your man knows how good he has it.

 

Anybody in SF up for a bachelor party?

 

Jeff

[Doug69]

>I'm very

>much looking forward to this moment even if it only lasts a

>few days, months or yrs.

 

That's a really great sentiment to have as you get married. Never mind "till death do us part." "I'm happy if it just lasts a few minutes or days" is just as good. Who said that some people are exploiting the gay marriage issue as an opportunity to degrade the meaning and importance of marriage? How could anyone ever think that?

 

>P.S. No I'm not giving up on the biz just yet so don't worry.

 

Yeah - forget that whole annoying "forsaking all others" business. There's absoulutely nothing wrong with announcing that you intend to continue your "career" as a prostitute in the same announcement where you proclaim your intent to enter into marriage.

 

It's good to see that we are working so hard to enable people like you to enter into the solemn commitment of matrimony. It's so moving to see how much you cherish the institution and are so eager to join it. Congratulations to you and your soon-to-be husband on your marital bliss - even if it only lasts until next Tuesday.

[seaboy4hire]

LOL Were not registered anywhere just yet. Due to the cold weather up here in Seattle there wont really be any party or reception till this summer (the joys of living in Seattle). Mr. S does sound fun. I visited the store in SF a couple yrs ago but for some reason I don't think the family would find that very um proper hehehehe.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Rick Munroe]

>Yeah - forget that whole annoying "forsaking all others"

>business.

 

Is "forsaking all others" really a part of the wedding vow? All I know is that Derek is looking forward to hearing me promise to love, honor and obey (emphasis on obey). }(

 

>There's absoulutely nothing wrong with announcing

>that you intend to continue your "career" as a prostitute in

>the same announcement where you proclaim your intent to enter

>into marriage.

 

Oh, cool. So escorts can be married. That means that Derek and I don't need to get fitted for our McDonald's uniforms just yet. :+

[seaboy4hire]

Doug although escorting is a job I enjoy doing what I do and it helps fund outside activities that I enjoy like traveling, seeing shows that might not be coming to my area and helping to put a little bit away for retirement. My other half knows and fully supports what I am doing and would rather see me doing something that I enjoy rather then be unhappy chained to a desk or cubical from 9-5. Also when I stated that I would be happy if this lasts for a week, months or yrs is what I meant was the legallity of the piece of paper not the relationship cause I know that will last with or without the paper. I hope this clears some up the confusion.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Doug69]

>Doug although escorting is a job I enjoy doing what I do and

>it helps fund outside activities that I enjoy like traveling,

>seeing shows that might not be coming to my area and helping

>to put a little bit away for retirement.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with escorting at all. In fact, I think you're smart to capitalize on the fact that you're hot (and you ARE hot - glad you have so many pictures online - I've (ahem) looked at them all), and to the extent that the money you make doing it creates possibilities for you that you wouldn't otherwise have, that's also smart, and more power to you.

 

I was just reacting to the combined announcement that you're getting married and still escorting. I think that straight people have basically ruined an important extremely institution by having so many of them enter into and then violating all of its defining terms (the only one they seem willing to stick to is the one about how you need a man and a woman). I just hate to see gay people win the right to marry and then desecrate the institution the same way straight people have.

 

>Also when I stated that I would be

>happy if this lasts for a week, months or yrs is what I meant

>was the legallity of the piece of paper not the relationship

>cause I know that will last with or without the paper. I hope

>this clears some up the confusion.

 

Yes, I mis-read what you wrote. I thought you were saying that you thought your marriage might only last a few days or months, and that if so, no big deal. I'm glad that's not what you were saying.

[trilingual]

Puh-leeze. What's this "desecrate" stuff? They're getting married CIVILLY. That's the whole point. So please stop trying to impose Catholic values (like the sacramental nature of marriage and the belief that it has to be for eternity) on a civil institution. If they want to get married under those terms, they can have a church wedding if they live long enough to see the RCs get over themselves.

 

As for what they do in terms of marital fidelity, that is a matter strictly between them. Not everyone can put up with it, and not everyone needs it. A marriage that's solid can survive some extracurricular activity because the relationship is based on much more than just sex. Even in the most loving, faithful couples the sexual attraction usually diminishes over time, but the couple stays together for much more important reasons, like friendship, companionship, shared experiences, children, etc. And many people understand the difference between love and sexual attraction, and don't confuse the two. They may find some third party sexually attractive and even act on the attraction, but that doesn't mean they want to spend the rest of their life with that person. In other words, they may not be faithful sexually, but they are faithful emotionally. And in the long run, that counts more than anything else.

 

So kindly go back to drooling over photos and spare us the sermonizing!

[Doug69]

>Puh-leeze. What's this "desecrate" stuff? They're getting

>married CIVILLY. That's the whole point. So please stop

>trying to impose Catholic values (like the sacramental nature

>of marriage and the belief that it has to be for eternity) on

>a civil institution.

 

I didn't say anything about religious dictates. But as a CIVIL institution, marriage has certain rules. That's what distinguishes it from, say, a fling.

 

There are REASONS that society gives out certain benefits to married couples. It's because our society has made the judgment that certain types of relationships, WHICH ADHERE TO CERTAIN RULES, are beneficial for the society as a whole, including its raising of children, preservation of stability, and solidying of commitments between intimate couples.

 

It has nothing to do with Roman Catholic doctrine. It has everything to do with the fact that our society has determined that it wants to encourage monogomous, eternally committed relationships because those have more societal value than other types, and the society as a whole propsers far more from the proliferation of these types of intimate relationships than it does from, oh say, an old guy hiring a whore in a Rio batthouse.

 

That's why under CIVIL law, adultery is illegal. In fact, in many states, it's a crime. It's also why divorce for the first 200 years of our nation was extremely difficult to obtain. Now that there's no-fault divorce laws, and "married" couples break up and change spouses as frequently as you hire prostitutes, we have nothing but pathologies and dysfunction in family units.

 

I know that many gay people like you want to call yourself "married" while still being able to whore around, and therefore hate when anyone says that monogomy is a defining trait of marriage. I'm not saying that the types of relationships you want to have are not valuable or have no worth. They do often have value, especially for the people in them. I don't think that monogomy is a prerequisite for a valuble, extremely fulfilling intimate relationship.

 

But "marriage" isn't about the fulfillment of the parties. The reason society CIVILLY recognizes the institution is because such relationships achieve a social good. It's not that promiscuous couples are worthless. It's that monogomy is a defining trait of "marriage," as that term has - UNDERSTANDABLY - long been understood, not as a religious matter, but as a CIVIL one.

[HooBoy]

IMHO whatever floats your boat is okay.

 

Honesty is the only thing that really matters.

 

I have a friend who has two boyfriends and somehow they make it work -- all living together. Lots of gay lovers hire escorts. As long as they are honest with each other about it, so what?

 

Vows are broken when people of any sexual persuasion begin sneaking around and lying to each other...that's vows of any sort, be they civil, religious or just between each other.

 

Other than benefits, there is really no reason for a gay couple to have a document saying they are married. Unless your name is Rosie and you need to do something to get on TV. }(

 

About once a month I get email from an escort asking to be removed because he's found a boyfriend and he does not want his bf to know that he escorted. Nothing like starting out with a lie.

 

Invariably a month or two later, the escort will write saying he's broken up and wants to be listed as escorting again.

 

So good for you, Seaboy -- I hope your boat not only floats but I hope it is a luxurious yacht with a stunning crew.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I was just reacting to the combined announcement that you're

>getting married and still escorting. I think that straight

>people have basically ruined an important extremely

>institution by having so many of them enter into and then

>violating all of its defining terms (the only one they seem

>willing to stick to is the one about how you need a man and a

>woman). I just hate to see gay people win the right to marry

>and then desecrate the institution the same way straight

>people have.

 

Doug, I really think you ought to give gay people a little more credit. Surely, given time and the opportunity, we will desecrate the institution in new and exciting ways that never occurred to most straight people! Indeed, even if you believe that Greg and his fiance are "desecrating" the institution of marriage, they are hardly doing so in a way that could be called typical. They may not be monogamous, but nor are they utilizing two of the great staples of hetero-style marriage desecration, deception and hypocrisy.

 

And while I don't know, for example, whether Messrs. Ross-Munroe have any plans to get married, either here in my fair city or in Taxachusetts (I'm doing my best to speak your language, here, Doug), having once spent several hours with them waiting to not see Howard Dean, I can report that they bicker with the authenticity of the most committed and devoted of married couples. :+ As I understand it, they have spent part of their relationship monogamous and part of it open, and the decision to open the relationship was a sign both of their confidence in its strength and durability and of their willingness to adapt to changes which I would suggest reflected and supported, rather than undermined, their relationshiop. I'm taking poetic license here because technically I don't know enough about Rick and Derek's relationship to say this, but it seems to me that what they did when they opened up their relationship was to say that their commitment to each other trumped their commitment to their ideas about monogamy. If truthfulness and adaptability are the hallmarks of gay-style marriage desecration, then let's hear it for gay-style marriage desecration, which could be the most refreshing innovation to the institution since allowing wives to own their own property.

 

Having said all that, I see your point, and the issue you're raising reminds me of why I favored giving "separate but equal" a chance to work in the arena of social and institutional recognition of relationships. The kinds of relationships that, respectively, Rick and Derek have and that Greg has with his fiance, ARE valid and DO deserve to be recognized, but I do have enough sympathy for people who feel that such arrangements are so different from what is conventionally understood as marriage that they ought to be called something else. Indeed, you may recall my saying to you that my preference for civil unions was a sign of my willingness NOT to tamper with an institution I wasn't particularly interested in joining anyway.

 

As is rather frequently the case, history chose not to heed my counsel, and on further reflection, so fucking what if marriage does change after same sex couples are allowed to participate? Immigrants have transformed this country over and over again, which is why our relative (as well as deeply flawed, extremely selective and often hypocritical) openness to them has accounted for no small part of this country's dynamism. So, I suspect, will the case be with marriage. Gays will adapt to the proverbial new country while bringing some of the ways of the old country with them. And that will be better than okay. Just as I can't imagine living in a San Francisco without a Chinatown or a Castro, if we're lucky (or, better yet, effective) someday straight people may, in much greater numbers, appreciate gay couples for their unique contributions to the institution they were so belatedly permitted to join.

 

Speaking on a personal level, I also have to admit that although I have never seen myself as "the sort of person men marry" (to crib a Katherine Hepburn line from a movie whose name escapes me) -- there is, among other things, the small matter of being a whore with a blog -- being there and watching real live gay married couples descending the steps of City Hall just a few blocks from my apartment was quite the paradigm shifter for me. No matter how reasonable I may think my views on civil unions were, I now have to acknowledge that they may have sprung partly from a simple inability to imagine marriage as something that could ever possibly pertain to me. But now gay marriage isn't something we have to imagine anymore. It has happened, thousands of times now, and what used to be the impossible is now the possible. I would be willing to bet good money that I am far from the only gay person who had such an epiphany; I suspect it has been replicated, with variations, many times over. I respect your position and that of Barney Frank on what you compellingly present as the legal impropriety the San Francisco government is exercising, and in a way I find it reassuring, since you both are involved in work in which respect for process and the rule of law isn't just a matter of garden-variety good citizenship. (I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that so does Gavin Newsom; I do get it.)

 

But I'm an artist and as such probably put more stock in the power of symbolism than either you or Rep. Frank, and I think your legitimate grievances with what you see as a misuse of the political process may be blinding you to the cultural significance of what is happening. I'm not sure how lawyers feel about the Stonewall Riots, or the storming of the American Psychiatric Association's offices, but their overwhelmingly positive, tangible impact on our culture has, in my opinion, outweighed that of any gay rights statute that I can think of. (And I do not mean, by saying that, to belittle the importance of the struggle for change in the political arena.) Sometimes, especially, it seems, when it comes to gay rights, outrageous acts of defiance, which is one way to characterize San Francisco's behavior, serve as the spark that ignites meaningful social change. Part of that social change, I believe, will inevitably include gays changing the institution of marriage even as it, it turn, changes them. What you're calling desecration may merely be what has already happened many times over to the institution of marriage: change.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

I second HB's sentiments~

 

I, myself, feel EXTREMELY lucky to have found someone that understands both my profession and the reason i enjoy it so much. After 2.5 years with this guy we're not quite ready to take the vows, but know sometime down the road that it may become a very real option.

 

I'm much too practical though to jump the gun and later blame it on 'true love gone sour', so after a couple more years of pre-marital bliss (...and long after i've completed grad school), it might be time to reevaluate the relationship and where it's headed.

 

Honestly, having the right to marry is one thing, but whether i would actually go through with it is another matter. We already share most everything. For lack of a piece of paper & rice thrown in our face, we already are married in a sense. I'm quite comfortable with our 'Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell' arrangement for now.

 

*grin*

 

In any event, congrats to Sea for taking the plunge and being a part of history. Here's wishing you only the very best for a long, happy & healthy relationship...

 

 

Warmest Always,

 

 

 

Benjamin Nicholas

[BewareofNick]

Doug69: "I think that straight people have basically ruined an important extremely institution by having so many of them enter into and then violating all of its defining terms (the only one they seem willing to stick to is the one about how you need a man and a woman). "

 

You know, Doug, when you actually leave all the vitriol and posturing behind, you sometimes make a lot of sense.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Bouquet

 

Congratulations, Greg.

 

I am sure you and your partner considered all of the reasons for wanting to both affirm and formalize your relationship, including a desire to formalize it, secure both the benefits and responsibilities for it, but also to affirm in public how you feel to one another.

 

I wish you both the very best and all the happiness in the world.

[VaHawk]

"Unless your name is Rosie and you need to do something to get on TV."

 

God, I LOVE HB! I LOVE his humor. Rosie's appearance and all the media attention per se, imo, really, really, really CHEAPENED the whole SF gay marriage licensing phenomena and from henceforth, made it a vulgar, crass, pr circus. Talk about shooting the goose that lays the golden eggs!

 

GO HOME ROSIE, AS YOU ARE YESTERDAY'S NEWS!

[TotallyOz]

>God, I LOVE HB! I LOVE his humor. Rosie's appearance and

>all the media attention per se, imo, really, really, really

>CHEAPENED the whole SF gay marriage licensing phenomena and

>from henceforth, made it a vulgar, crass, pr circus. Talk

>about shooting the goose that lays the golden eggs!

>

>GO HOME ROSIE, AS YOU ARE YESTERDAY'S NEWS!

 

I Totally Disagree. I do not think it cheapened things at all. I think it let others that don't have tons of opely gay friends or who frequent these message boards to make the issue personal to them. Even if she is a TV personality, she is loved by many Americans and I think many will reconsider their view of gay marriage because of her and others that take the plunge.

[VaHawk]

>I Totally Disagree. I do not think it cheapened things at

>all. I think it let others that don't have tons of opely gay

>friends or who frequent these message boards to make the issue

>personal to them. Even if she is a TV personality, she is

>loved by many Americans and I think many will reconsider their

>view of gay marriage because of her and others that take the

>plunge.

 

Well, I Totally Disagree with your opinion, but I sincerely respect your opinion in turn. Speaking for myself, and for many others of my aquaintance, both straight and gay, I HATE ROSIE - ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL!

 

IMO, she is a holier than thou persona, who is a nasty as hell butch dyke who illogically rants at anyone who disagrees with her opinion (see interview with Charlton Heston).

 

She is imo, possessed of little talent but great marketing skills that, for a short time anyway, put her in the limelight, and I certainly don't consider her in any way, a voice of the average gay person. She waited until the acme of the hype in SF, to show up before the TV cameras and bless us "average queers" with her "benevolance" for imo, her own personal gains to put her in the "public eye". I can honestly say that she has always made me want to upchuck and that she is the one person, that I would love to walk up to and punch in the face, full force! From what I have read, I think a lot of her previous employees feel the same way. IMO SHE IS PUKE! Her 20 minutes of fame are up, from which she sucked up millions, so imo, she should crawl back into the black hole from which she arose!

[Donnie]

>IMO, she is a holier than thou persona

 

>She is imo, possessed of little talent

 

>for imo, her own personal gains

 

>IMO SHE IS PUKE!

 

>so imo, she should crawl back into the black hole

>from which she arose!

 

Studies show that overuse of "imo" indicates a lack of oxygen to the brain.

[nate_sf]

>Honesty is the only thing that really matters.

 

This and your examples are so true. My boyfriend and I know a lot of older gay and het couples who have been together a really long time, and I'd say there are a LOT of alternative open situations out there that somehow work under the radar. Maybe all our friends are freaks (certainly possible) but I think there are more complexities and alternative arrangements to long-term committed relationships than might be apparent, and as people's relationships evolve over time they somehow come up with something that works for them.

 

And this isn't just loony PC-liberalism. An aunt and uncle of mine, very conservative politically, used to have nortoriously wild sex parties, yet they were together and clearly committed to each other 'til the end. Somehow it worked for them.

 

Through our seven years together, my boyfriend and I have learned to be honest with each other, and this has made our relationship stronger than ever and allowed us create a way of living that works for both of us together. It sounds sappy to put it all that way, I have to admit, but I think it's entirely possible for people to have a committment to each other without following or trying to emulate conventional models.

[Rick Munroe]

>I can report that they

>bicker with the authenticity of the most committed and devoted

>of married couples. :+

 

We just looked at each other and said, simultaneously, "We bicker??" And then we started to bicker over whether or not we bicker (no, I'm just kidding). Well, at least we never do it in front of clients. :+

 

>As I understand it, they have spent

>part of their relationship monogamous and part of it open, and

>the decision to open the relationship was a sign both of their

>confidence in its strength and durability and of their

>willingness to adapt to changes which I would suggest

>reflected and supported, rather than undermined, their

>relationship.

 

That's exactly right and better than I could have put it myself (when you're good, you're good, Devon). We did spend the first stage of our togetherness completely monogamous (from age 18 & 19 to age 28 & 29), not out of some sort of obligation but just because that's what we wanted. I'm not one to analyze our relationship (nor is Derek) but we've always known that the most important part of it is the friendship and...actually, I can't even call it a "friendship." What we have is much deeper than that, and there's nothing we could ever do to damage what we have. And just like my mother likes to say regarding my father's future demise, if Derek goes first, I'm taking an overdose of pills (I just need to find out what kind). :o

[VaHawk]

Well, at least you avoided the Ides of March by one day! Congrats and best wishes to you and yours! Have a romantic, private celebration between the 2 of you, and then go out the next day, St. Patrick's Day and have a kick asssed celebration!! Erin go bragh!!

[seaboy4hire]

Good evening everyone. I just wanted to say thank you for all the kind words and such. As the big day approches I am getting those wedding day butterflies hehehehe. I will post some pictures in my briefcase on yahoo shortly after I get back from SF.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Rick Munroe]

Forgot to say congratulations, Greg. Are you guys going to get rings?

[seaboy4hire]

Yup were going to get rings. He has his already which was part of his Christmas present from me and I am going on Thursday to Tiffanys to get my ring :-D Only a couple more weeks to go.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Bilbo]

RE: Rosie on TV

 

Interestingly enough, Good Morning America did a good thing when it interviewed Rosie twice in one morning. Once for the marriage, and once for the fact that she had just donated one million dollars American for teaching the arts in public schools. So, she would have been mentioned on TV anyway. What really pissed her off, from the looks of it, and caused her marriage to be legalized as quickly as possible, was the way all of her correspondence, etc., with her wife was admissable in court when it wouldn't have been were they a hetero married couple.