equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I threaten you?

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

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

No. I didn't express my impatience with your long-winded non-answers before this. I think.

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

I've had a few hours to think about things, and I'm leaning toward entirely removing incentives for marriage.

That old Vietnam strategy? Destroy the village in order to save it. Irvine and melon offend you that much? You're willing to eliminate the option of courthouse marriages for straight couples who don't need a church for a "legal affirmation of their romance" just so they can't get hitched to their beloveds?

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Child bearing may not be a requirement for heterosexual marriage

I'm so relieved that you acknowledge this. I thought for a minute there that MY marriage was also up for a vote.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 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.

Excellent post.

I hear a lot of fear in some of these posts, fear of losing their status, I think there are some white straight males that are scared they will not play the same role in society that their fathers had.

They don't honestly fear that procreation will change, in fact I'm pretty sure most know that the family structure won't change all that much, but they do fear that it's one more advantage that they are going to have taken away from them.

[martha]

Originally Posted by BVS

I hear a lot of fear in some of these posts, fear of losing their status, I think there are some white straight males that are scared they will not play the same role in society that their fathers had.

They don't honestly fear that procreation will change, in fact I'm pretty sure most know that the family structure won't change all that much, but they do fear that it's one more advantage that they are going to have taken away from them.

This is a lot of it. Anything that challenges the hegemony of the ruling group is suspect. The same kinds of comments were made when women were attempting to get the vote. It was going to be the end of the world as we know it as well.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

don't be ridiculous. so come down off the cross AEON, we need the wood.

society loves children, loves marriage, loves it when people get married, and yes, the government should absolutely encourage this kind of behavior.

it just should include gay people as well. in fact, gay people can procreate. you've heard of sperm donation and surrogacy? you've heard of adoption? a gay marriage blends families as well as any straight marriage.

again, and no one's been able to answer this for me, what can straight people do that gay people can't, and how does this tie into the critical definition of marriage.

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

i was pointing out INDY's hypocrisy. he talks endlessly about how health care reduces choice by increasing government in our lives and thus becoming tyranny, but he's perfectly happy to create and maintain an entirely separate category of relationship. the small-government thing to do is simply to open up marriage to gay people.

and we get all these contortions from you two, and very little substance -- you still have not answered the question about what it is that straights can do that gays cannot.

i am sadly becoming forced to conclude that, for all your words, you have nothing to offer on this front other than the following: all straight relationships are better, in all ways and always, than all gay relationships.

so just come out and admit it?

Originally Posted by INDY500

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 know some lesbians who are about to bear a child. many gays adopt. many gays have children from previous relationships.

all those gays have more children than martha, and yet she's married.

you've also glossed over the infertile, the post-menopausal, those who marry late in life, and those who choose to have no children.

by your own logic, INDY, we need to divorce them all, post-haste.

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.

but you just did?

do you at least now realize that these traditional understandings of how gender functions in a marriage is now incomplete to address reality? while childbearing often goes with marriage (just as people often marry people from the same race), it is not a requirement of marriage.

and, further, gays and lesbians can and do have children. why should those children be deprived of married parents?

can we please think of the children?

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.

do you even know what postmodernism means?

yes, at the ballot box, you are right. it is something new, and the pace of progress has been swift, but not perfect. but considering this was unimaginable 10 years ago, and considering it was almost 10 years from Selma to the Civil Rights Act, and considering that there's no way that the voters of Alabama would have voted to desegregate the University, do you really think that mob rule over minority rights -- itself hugely suspect, and the reason why we have courts to begin with -- is a particularly admirable model to hold up as some sort of validation of your position?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

don't be ridiculous. so come down off the cross AEON, we need the wood.

Funny. But I am serious. I think removing government incentives for marriage is truly the best compromise. I do not need the state to tell me I am married to my wife. If incentives are removed, there is no legal, secular reason to continue this debate.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

society loves children, loves marriage, loves it when people get married, and yes, the government should absolutely encourage this kind of behavior.

I am not a behavior!

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it just should include gay people as well. in fact, gay people can procreate. you've heard of sperm donation and surrogacy? you've heard of adoption? a gay marriage blends families as well as any straight marriage.

Like you just said, you can procreate and raise healthy families on your own - as can I - there is no need to have the government encourage/discourage through incentives/penalties.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

again, and no one's been able to answer this for me, what can straight people do that gay people can't, and how does this tie into the critical definition of marriage.

People can point to Natural Law, religion, biology, traditions - some accept this, others do not. In the end, I am now convinced that my definition, the one I share with Barack Obama and others, ultimately comes from a spiritual source that is best left outside of the government's interference. It does not need incentives any more than it needs protection. It is a responsibility I have to God - and this should not be legislated.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Irvine and melon offend you that much?

Not at all. They are usually polite, if passionate. Given the topic and their admitted homosexuality, I can understand their passion.

You're willing to eliminate the option of courthouse marriages for straight couples who don't need a church for a "legal affirmation of their romance" just so they can't get hitched to their beloveds?

Legal affirmation of romance is not necessary when there are no legal incentives. However, if any two (or more) people want to draft any sort of "contract" regarding property, inheritance, money...etc. - they a free to do so and the court system can and should be used to protect these contracts just like any other contract between people.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Funny. But I am serious. I think removing government incentives for marriage is truly the best compromise. I do not need the state to tell me I am married to my wife. If incentives are removed, there is no legal, secular reason to continue this debate.

Sorry, but in a way this sounds like a selfish child that didn't get his way so he's taking his stuff and going home.

So how do you propose the state handles your relationship? Hospital visits, taxes, etc...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Legal affirmation of romance is not necessary when there are no legal incentives. However, if any two (or more) people want to draft any sort of "contract" regarding property, inheritance, money...etc. - they a free to do so and the court system can and should be used to protect these contracts just like any other contract between people.

I'm glad not everyone is as selfish as you, for this is just ridiculous.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

So how do you propose the state handles your relationship? Hospital visits, taxes, etc...

Hospital visits should be handled by the individual hospitals and/or the agencies that regulate them. Concerning taxes, I am in favor of a flat tax across the board for every adult - married or not married.

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

However, if any two (or more) people want to draft any sort of "contract" regarding property, inheritance, money...etc. - they a free to do so and the court system can and should be used to protect these contracts just like any other contract between people.

Roll over and tell the state of Virginia the news!

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

If incentives are removed, there is no legal, secular reason to continue this debate.

Because that's all you got. Get rid marriage so the homos can't do it. Nice.

After dozens of pages and thousands of words, and many still-unanswered questions, you've decided to stop the debate so you can remain unchallenged.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Get rid marriage so the homos can't do it.

Rather rude - wouldn't you say? Just to clarify - I am not proposing ending marriage, just leaving it to private entities to define what it is, how it is performed, and who (and how many) it can include.

Originally Posted by martha

After dozens of pages and thousands of words, and many still-unanswered questions, you've decided to stop the debate so you can remain unchallenged.

We can still have the Biblical definition discussion/debate (which is certainly a challenge), but others asked that this thread remain as secular as possible.My decision to halt government incentives for marriage is a secular/legal one.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Funny. But I am serious. I think removing government incentives for marriage is truly the best compromise. I do not need the state to tell me I am married to my wife. If incentives are removed, there is no legal, secular reason to continue this debate.

i see. so we should burn down the house to save it?

you realize how insane this sounds, and how this is the most homophobic position you've yet

I am not a behavior!

where did i talk about "heterosexual behavior" in regards to fucking? you're the one who has described "homosexual behavior" as being little more than sexual fulfillment between adults.

Like you just said, you can procreate and raise healthy families on your own - as can I - there is no need to have the government encourage/discourage through incentives/penalties.

if that's your position, fine. i find it surprising that same-sex marriage led you to this conclusion.

People can point to Natural Law, religion, biology, traditions - some accept this, others do not. In the end, I am now convinced that my definition, the one I share with Barack Obama and others, ultimately comes from a spiritual source that is best left outside of the government's interference. It does not need incentives any more than it needs protection. It is a responsibility I have to God - and this should not be legislated.

fortunately, most people don't agree with you.

you seem to have been backed into a corner defending an indefensible position and are shutting down. that's fine. i think you should start by refusing your tax breaks and getting separate medical insurance.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Hospital visits should be handled by the individual hospitals and/or the agencies that regulate them. Concerning taxes, I am in favor of a flat tax across the board for every adult - married or not married.

thank goodness the hospital i was in allowed Memphis to come straight up to the ICU to see me. under your system, had we been in a less gay friendly area, he could have been stopped at the door at the whim of whatever hospital. gosh, and maybe a Catholic hospital could have refused to let him on their grounds altogether, since that would have been consistent with doctrine, no?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I threaten you?

i think he's referring to the list of Prop 8 donors that was circulated after the event.

because it was terrifying, releasing public information like that. some businesses could have been boycotted! that's gay terrorism!

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

Hospital visits should be handled by the individual hospitals and/or the agencies that regulate them. Concerning taxes, I am in favor of a flat tax across the board for every adult - married or not married.

What you are proposing is really rather exciting for my profession since lawyers are gonna have LOTS of contract work to do, drafting of wills and POAs, nevermind all the obvious litigation that will arise as a result of private entities like hospitals setting rules which will often be contrary to human rights laws and so on.

The flat tax is a good way to punish the lower and middle classes so it doesn't surprise me that somebody on the right would propose such an idea.

Your system is totally unworkable and completely unrealistic.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

What you are proposing is really rather exciting for my profession since lawyers are gonna have LOTS of contract work to do...

Do lawyers handle prenuptials? Divorce? Wills? I imagine with a divorce rate above 50 percent, you haven't lacked clients.

Originally Posted by anitram

The flat tax is a good way to punish the lower and middle classes so it doesn't surprise me that somebody on the right would propose such an idea.

That's another debate. However, the removal of marriage tax incentives can be removed under the current tax code.