FANDOM


Farm-Fresh balanceYMMVTransmit blueRadarWikEd fancyquotesQuotes • (Emoticon happyFunnyHeartHeartwarmingSilk award star gold 3Awesome) • RefridgeratorFridgeGroupCharactersScript editFanfic RecsSkull0Nightmare FuelRsz 1rsz 2rsz 1shout-out iconShout OutMagnifierPlotGota iconoTear JerkerBug-silkHeadscratchersHelpTriviaWMGFilmRoll-smallRecapRainbowHo YayPhoto linkImage LinksNyan-Cat-OriginalMemesHaiku-wide-iconHaikuLaconic
  • What exactly was stopping them from claiming to be bisexual? It'd pretty much get rid of all the problems with Chuck having sex with any woman in sight.
    • Haven't you heard? There are No Bisexuals.
    • More importantly, why did they need to act anti-female? No Bisexuals would account for why they would need to pretend to not be attracted to women at all (heck, the best way would have been for Chuck to be the typical Ladykiller in Love, only the "lady" is his Life Partner Larry, who's still got If It's Not You, It's Not OK for his late wife), but to be actually disgusted by an attractive female just because she's wearing very little clothing, especially Chuck, whom the investigator was trying to out as "straight"? It's not like the "Sorry, lady, you're really hot but I love my husband" excuse couldn't work, and if it didn't, that would have been enough evidence to declare the whole case against them invalid due to bigotry (assuming they had enough money to bring it to the courts, which they did at the end of the movie).
  • The entire premise of this movie is weird. Since when do you have to love someone to get married? Yes, that's the normal reason these days, but their reasoning of using it merely for their own personal gain is how marriages worked for ages. Is love really relevant on a legal level?
    • Well yes, actually. For example, when immigrants apply for green cards/citizenships/whatever based on a spousal relationship, the government demands evidence that it is a "real" marriage, i.e. one based on love, rather than a marriage for personal gain. And if they aren't convinced, they can assess a fine of $250,000 or five years in prison. The government stance on love marriage versus "sham marriage" is quite clear and unequivocal. This has the side effect of exposing the rampant bigotry in laws against gay marriage...at least to anyone who isn't blinded by personal prejudice.
    • Actually, love is only one criterion by which a marriage can be considered genuine (for the purpose of immigration). The most important factor is whether the couple have a genuine desire to build a future together. Arranged marriages, for example, are not usually based on love but can pass immigration scrutiny.
    • While that's certainly understandable and valid for immigration marriages, what about for people who are already citizens of the United States? In that case is love relevant on a legal level?
    • Okay, so... You've got arranged marriages where at least one and sometimes both people have American or dual citizenship. They have literally never met prior to the days leading up to the marriage ceremony. And the court still uses "you don't actually want to have sex all the time with just each other, so you don't love each other, so your marriage is fraudulent"? Even if the court still insisted that you can't get married without being in love (unless you have it annulled), I should have liked to have them watch Denny's "marriage, non-sexual love, legal and economical benefits, yadda yadda" speech on Boston Legal, and have the whole case thrown out due to biased judge if they still stuck to their original argument (or moved to something completely different). (Context for non-Boston Legal watchers: Denny and Alan, both males, get married under a Massachusetts license because they're already Heterosexual Life Partners and Denny doesn't want to mess around with inheritance taxes or the loopholes in non-spousal power of attorney. He brings up my anullment point and says that refusing them marriage is just a sexuality-flipped version of refusing gay marriage.)
    • Not to mention, there is no shortage of straight people--both natural-born citizens of their home country--who marry for insurance benefits.
  • How the heck are they revered as gay icons at the end of the movie? At what point does faking a sexual orientation, manipulating the system, and trivializing love for the sake of financial security = a proud moment in the history of gay rights?
    • Probably because (sham though they were) they were open about it, participated in gay society, and emboldened two coworkers to come out of the closet and changed their workplace into a gay tolerant one. I mean, they did fight/suffer the gay predicament despite not being gay, and positively changed the system. That earns them some get out of jail point fractions/sympathy, anyway.
      • Although they could get a point for changing their workplace, the other points are pretty achievable for any gay person who's a bit active in the community. Remember that the LGBT community is an extremely active one that has achieved loads of impreovements for their members in the past 20 years. Why Chuck and Larry would be icons with this in mind is a real headscratcher.
      • Oddly enough, that makes sense in retrospect to me. For some reason though, it makes sense in real life and not within the context of the movie. Something about being a "phony" making all the good deeds not count. It's like that part in Ratatouille where Linguini reveals the rat was doing the cooking. Like, sure, he just brought relevancy and popularity back to the restaurant, invented new recipes, won over old enemies and generally brought the whole kitchen back from the dead, but aside from Collette, apparently no one cares about all the good stuff because it wasn't completely legit. (sorry if I'm derailing with the example)
      • How about Was It All a Lie?, Can't Get Away with Nuthin', Sweet and Sour Grapes, or some sort of Well-Intentioned Extremist + The Same but Less? Any of them ringing a bell?
  • It bugs me that the premise of the movie required complete idiocy on the part of the lawyer. The two were being prosecuted for fraud, but fraud requires an attempt to steal or otherwise defraud the plaintiff (in this case the city). However, at no point did Jessica Biel's character mention that there was NO THEFT of city funds or benefits occurring, as all they wanted was to change the beneficiary of the life insurance, a benefit which existed prior to the "marriage."
    • You underestimate the greediness of insurance companies.
  • Chuck also has at least two women hanging around him who think he's pretty great. Why couldn't he just persuade one of them to marry Larry for a month or so? That way he's still helping Larry out, and they don't have everyone on their case.
    • Larry also wanted someone he could actually trust to look after the children in the event of his death. If he had married some random chick, we can't say for sure how she would have treated them.
  • Why exactly were the Heteronormative Crusaders protesting at the ball? I mean, in the 2000's. In New York. New York, the San Fransico of the East Coast. The scene of the Stonewall Riot, and birthplace of the moder LGBT movement. A city that has at least 100 gay bars. Those protestors must be really busy covering all of them, and really lucky that no-one had clocked them out before.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.