equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[deep]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions. Doesn't mean we want to call that union a marriage however.

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

Aeon? No
Indy? No
The citizens of California, Maine and all the other states that voted in support of traditional marriage? No

When Maine voted against Gay Marriage by a 53 - 47 margin
Washington voted for Gay Civil Unions, it was called everything but marriage - all the same rights and benefits, by a margin of 52 -48.


Aeon, Indy and people that think like them are not the ones that are preventing gays from having equal rights.

If California and Maine had the same ballot as Washington, very good chance at least 2-3 per cent would have been swayed to vote the other way and gays would have equal protection.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

that is very kind of you, thank you, same back at you.





firstly, i reject that either of these is critical to a marriage, or that they are mutually exclusive.

however, i would actually say that sexual fulfillment is more important. why? sex creates children, and sexually fulfilled people are likely to be happier people, and happier people tend to be better parents, citizens, etc. the earth is overpopulated as it is, and as people tend to become wealthier and more educated, they tend to have fewer children. quality over quantity, imho.

as another thought: we all agree that children do best in stable households. would it not be an unambiguous positive if there were more gay people, unable to have children of their own, who are in stable, committed, protected marriages who might then be more inclined to adopt children in need of homes.

in fact, don't we all benefit when adults -- especially, dare i say it, adult males -- have an investment in their own stability?

(this is not to say, however, that one can't be perfectly happy and productive as a single adult, or that one can't be the same without children -- there are many, many ways to live, and there are many for whom societal conventions aren't a good fit).

I thought you would give at least a few kudos to the biological function of reproduction, but you don't seem think this is important.

Do you think it is possible, that society "thought it prudent" (as Melon would say) to incentivize marriage in order to encourage the survival and stability of the society? In other words, it is not that other relationships are necessarily denied anything, they are simply not incentivized. Therefore, there is no violation of any civil rights.

If it is no longer prudent, as you seem to point out above, then perhaps you would contend the fair solution is just to remove the incentives?

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

Since we cannot productively discuss my spiritual views on this particular matter (I'm not belittling that - you wish to keep this tangent on a social, legal, and biological level and I will try and respect that), I would like to ask you - which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?

Gay marriage does nothing to interfere with successful biological production, nor is it an inherently superior form of personal sexual fulfilment over heterosexual sex. As such, I call "false dichotomy."

[INDY500]

Very simple. Write a law that replaces all current legislation that makes reference to marriage as "a man and a woman" and replace it with "two people."

All related state concerns regarding marriage ages, the permitted degree of cousin marriages, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. are already addressed in other laws, so by merely amending the basic marriage law to be gender neutral, no further cans of worms are opened. If future generations wish to alter laws to contract or expand how close of a cousin you can be or to even legalize polygamy across the board, for instance, then they would have to amend those laws specifically at a later time and would cover everyone equally across the board. Gender discrimination in marriage, however, is increasingly unacceptable in light of contemporary revelation.
Melon

The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue). Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue).

But, apparently, some argue that the lesson of "Loving v. Virginia" is that marriage is only a universal human or civil right when it involves interracial marriage.

Jest aside, there is Supreme Court precedent that marriage is more than "state privilege."

Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.

And "legal affirmation" is all that it is, considering that child bearing is not a requirement of heterosexual marriage, and no amount of gay bashing or wishful thinking would make it so.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I thought you would give at least a few kudos to the biological function of reproduction, but you don't seem think this is important.

what? where did i say this? you've surely put words in my mouth here.

Do you think it is possible, that society "thought it prudent" (as Melon would say) to incentivize marriage in order to encourage the survival and stability of the society? In other words, it is not that other relationships are necessarily denied anything, they are simply not incentivized. Therefore, there is no violation of any civil rights.

yes, i absolutely thinks that society thinks it prudent to incentivize marriage, it encourages stability and provides the potential for an optimal environment to raise children. i think marriage is a good thing. i've been saying this over and over.

but, yes, AEON, i, a homosexual, am DENIED access to these benefits on the basis of my sexual orientation. therefore, that becomes a violation of my civil rights. it's not that i have the civil right to get married, the government does not need to find me a spouse. but i should have the civil right to marry a person who also chooses me.

as for fertility, that's entirely moot. we have infertile people who get married, and those who choose not to have children, as well as people who get married later in life. these relationships are surely granted the same privileges as anyone else who enters into the institution.

If it is no longer prudent, as you seem to point out above, then perhaps you would contend the fair solution is just to [i]remove[/] the incentives?

no, i have contended, and continually contend, that all gay people want is to be allowed into the same tent.

stop putting words into my mouth and ascribing theories that i have not even come close to offering.

[phillyfan26]

AEON and INDY: Do either of you think allowing gay marriage to occur will somehow cause a problem with population shortage?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by melon

As such, I call "false dichotomy."

which i also pointed to, but AEON took my humoring the question and ran with it into a direction that was entirely disingenuous.

Originally Posted by INDY500

The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue). Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.

i look forward to your support of marriages not being granted until a couple produces a biological child belonging to the two parents.

as such, i am denied, on the basis of an immutable characteristic that harms no one, barred from ever being considered for said "state interests."

upon what grounds, INDY, is it not in the state's interest to provide Memphis and myself with the title of a marriage?

if you do nothing else tonight, INDY, please answer me that.

what is it that's so awful about us?

[martha]

If I weren't so lazy, or in the middle of trying not to spend $1000 to go see Steve's grandma turn 100 years old, I would do a search and find this exact same conversation with the exact same words and the exact same players from a few years ago. Good gravy. AEON and INDY will repeat their pointless justifications for fear and exclusion, using Jesus and children as shields, and the rest of us will grow impatient with them. Meanwhile, the world will spin forward, and this kind of thinking will fall out of favor.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.

Every intelligent being, including yourself knows the faults in this statement.

[martha]

That's all my husband and I have, a legal affirmation of romance.

And about, what is the figure now, 100 other benefits gay couples in the exact same situation don't have.

[Irvine511]

time for bed. i look forward to answers tomorrow.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

If I weren't so lazy, or in the middle of trying not to spend $1000 to go see Steve's grandma turn 100 years old, I would do a search and find this exact same conversation with the exact same words and the exact same players from a few years ago. Good gravy. AEON and INDY will repeat their pointless justifications for fear and exclusion, using Jesus and children as shields, and the rest of us will grow impatient with them. Meanwhile, the world will spin forward, and this kind of thinking will fall out of favor.

Oh yes, and if it doesn't fall out soon enough to satisfy martha then, "we know where you live," right? What's a little implied violence to keep the world spinning forward*?

* Definition of forward is not subject to debate, dissent or vote

[diamond]

What about what Barney Frank said?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

What about what Barney Frank said?

What about it?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

I would do a search and find this exact same conversation with the exact same words and the exact same players from a few years ago. Good gravy.

Is that the same thread were you repeatedly said "lazy" and "answer the question"?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what? where did i say this? you've surely put words in my mouth here.





yes, i absolutely think that society thinks it prudent to incentivize marriage, it encourages stability and provides the potential for an optimal environment to raise children. i think marriage is a good thing. i've been saying this over and over.

but, yes, AEON, i, a homosexual, am DENIED access to these benefits on the basis of my sexual orientation. therefore, that becomes a violation of my civil rights. it's not that i have the civil right to get married, the government does not need to find me a spouse. but i should have the civil right to marry a person who also chooses me.

as for fertility, that's entirely moot. we have infertile people who get married, and those who choose not to have children, as well as people who get married later in life. these relationships are surely granted the same privileges as anyone else who enters into the institution.






no, i have contended, and continually contend, that all gay people want is to be allowed into the same tent.

stop putting words into my mouth and ascribing theories that i have not even come close to offering.

Sorry, Irvine - I thought I was summarizing your view.

I've had a few hours to think about things, and I'm leaning toward entirely removing incentives for marriage. In the present state of affairs - it is time I accept that I live in a society that generally does not "think it is prudent" to encourage stable procreation and maintain that "bridge" between generations. Let’s just move to some sort of flat tax model and I’ll be happy.

Leave marriage up to churches and cults or whatever group wants to perform the ceremony to mean whatever they want it to mean. The state should have no role in either granting, recognizing, or denying marriages. In the end, I believe marriage is not a civil right, but a God ordained responsibility. The last thing I want – is the state messing with it. I think of the scene in “Braveheart” when William Walllace got married in secret. It helped me understand that I need not worry - marriage will survive with or without the government.

Irvine, you mentioned the need to limit government’s role in marriage – how will that work for you?

[phillyfan26]

Which is all well and good, but will never get implemented. So, knowing that marriage will remain in its state, are you still on the side of preventing gay marriage simply because you don't want regular marriage either?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by melon

And "legal affirmation" is all that it is, considering that child bearing is not a requirement of heterosexual marriage, and no amount of gay bashing or wishful thinking would make it so.

Child bearing may not be a requirement for heterosexual marriage but it IS, if not the whole point of, quite often the result of such a union. The same cannot, however, be said of homosexual unions and no amount of wishful thinking would make THAT so.

I don't say that to be mean or to suggest that the inability to reproduce in any way speaks to the individual worth of a person. It most certainly does not, but it does illustrate why many feel gender -- "male" and "female," "husband" and "wife" -- is not insignificant in defining marriage the way ethnicity, religious creed, et cetera, ultimately is.

Now I know the meme that says gender roles are interchangeable goes all but unchallenged in feminist theory, postmodern philosophy, pop culture and in liberal circles today, but the majority of Americans remain very skeptical of the idea.

And 30 some times that skepticism has been reflected at voting booths in every region of the country.

[BonosSaint]

Just an observation--and an obvious one at that--people tend to support a status quo when they benefit by it and are in some way validated and honored by it. They are protective of it. Protection of status seems to be hardwired. The dirty side of that is that it allows them to see those who are not in the status quo as "other" to be diminished in some way, to be limited in ways they would never seek to limit themselves, to define others in ways they would never accept being defined, to close doors to others that have always been opened to them, to use difference as a weapon to exclude whatever justification they give themselves. Or to put it simply, "I am worthy. You are not."

Gay marriage, women's rights, racism, for sure. But it extends throughout all facets of society--right and left--jockeying for position, to make sure you are included in that better realm (however you define it) and it doesn't feel as sweet unless someone is excluded. "I am better for what I am. I don't have to worry so much about what I do."

That doesn't include everyone, but that lowest common denominator is certainly prevalent.