Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Thu May 28, 2009 10:43 am

draque wrote:The point you raised about marriage being a construct for raising children feels like a weak answer to me, though. That seems a much greater redefinition of marriage (within modern Western culture which, as you pointed out, has the very new standard of marriage for love) that one which allows for same sex marriages. In addition, it seems disingenuous unless you would be willing to say that couples unwilling, unable or uninterested in bearing children be prevented from marriage as well.


I personally have no desire to ban anyone's rights. I think what I mean is it's my instinct to think of marriage first as an environment for bringing kids into the world, and that other purposes strike me as secondary. I've explicitly said that I know that is probably my own peculiarity, and that I can't honestly rationalize that as some kind of agenda. At most, I'd say I'm reacting to the fact that (1) married people get a set of special benefits and privileges (like tax breaks) that single people do not, and (2) marriage has traditionally been associated with procreation. In this era there are entirely too many children growing up in homes without two parents in a loving, committed relationship (be it due to unwed pregnancy, divorce, dead-beat dads, what have you). I don't care whether the parents have a formal contract, I don't care whether they commit forever or plan to call it quits when the kids reach adulthood, I just want those kids to survive and thrive. I have this feeling that "marriage" was invented by early cultures as a crude mechanism to encourage or even, in some cultures, force parents to do the right thing, with religion getting into the mix to make the coercion even stronger. (Only later getting co-opted to promote patriarchy, etc.) Well marriage long ago lost all of its moral force, people do whatever the heck they want now, and the kids get short shrift. So I suppose we have to find some more sophisticated way of cajoling parents to be good parents. I guess what I'm groping for is that, if you're going to dole out special societal privileges and benefits to certain people, and you're going to do it with the sanction of government, give more of those privileges and benefits to people willing to commit to the long-haul of raising kids together. Beyond that vague notion, I honestly don't know where to go with it.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Thu May 28, 2009 12:36 pm

draque wrote:If we're using the "marriage as a contract" model, I do believe that the majority of its benefits represent fundamental rights under the philosophy of US constitutional law. I believe that I have a fundamental right to dictate who may and may not make life changing medical decisions for me in the case that I am unable to. I believe that I have the right to decide who should inherit from me when I die. These and like benefits to marriage are of primary importance in terms of forming a legally recognized relationship with a partner, whether of opposite or same gender.


I'm not a lawyer, so I'll pose this as a question: Is it possible to get all of these "contractual" rights and privileges we've been mentioning, right now, without marriage (and without civil unions)? I can see how marriage stitches them all together into a convenient little package, and lets you get them all at once with one quick trip to a justice of the peace. But can they all be done piecemeal? Partly, answering that could help out committed gays who don't happen to live in places like New England. Partly, understanding what would be missing might help folks like me get more ... sympathetic to your cause. Also, how successfully do current domestic partner/civil union laws bridge those gaps?

For instance, a will seems an obvious way to make sure your partner inherits on your death. Well, okay, if the will wasn't rock-solid, then I suppose biological family members could contest it, leaving your partner high and dry, whereas a spouse is considered your next of kin and would be more protected from that. (I can see how gays may suffer a greater incidence of bad blood in the family if their relatives are narrow-minded.) Do civil union laws establish a stronger inheritance claim?

Would something like a Durable Power of Attorney or Health-Care Proxy document let you visit your partner in the hospital and make health-care decisions for you if you're incapacitated? I know of married folks who have assigned the latter role to someone other than their spouse because they knew their spouse would be too emotional to make a rational decision, or to follow their pre-stated wishes. Then again, does a legal spouse have the right to override or challenge such an instrument? If so, is that a "fundamental" right that's important to you?

What about adoption? How much more complicated is it for two individuals to adopt a child than for a married couple?

What about divorce? How fundamental a human right is it to be able to get a shyster lawyer and gouge your former partner for everything they're worth? (Heh.)

Wow, this could go on forever... How many silly young couples ever even think about all these things when they get hitched... I sure didn't ...

Heh. Is it a fundamental human right to be able to to get into a legally-binding lifetime commitment without knowing what the hell you're doing? ;-)
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby draque » Thu May 28, 2009 1:15 pm

Monocheres wrote:I'm not a lawyer, so I'll pose this as a question: Is it possible to get all of these "contractual" rights and privileges we've been mentioning, right now, without marriage (and without civil unions)?
[..]
Would something like a Durable Power of Attorney or Health-Care Proxy document let you visit your partner in the hospital and make health-care decisions for you if you're incapacitated? I know of married folks who have assigned the latter role to someone other than their spouse because they knew their spouse would be too emotional to make a rational decision, or to follow their pre-stated wishes. Then again, does a legal spouse have the right to override or challenge such an instrument? If so, is that a "fundamental" right that's important to you?


Unfortunately, many of them aren’t available to nonmarried couples through normal contracts. In terms of medical decisions, there’s a strict hierarchy of the order in which those related to a person get to make medical decisions on their behalf. Family comes well before “roommate,” which is what a same sex partner is labeled as in many states. In terms of the rights to make decision that do exist, I’m less well versed, but ultimately, I think they should be the same for both same and opposite sex couples. If the rules themselves are flawed, they should be revised, but that seems like a separate issue to me. In the case of inheritance, it’s even more hairy. Although you can leave a will that specifically outlines who gets what, they are remarkably easy to overturn in court. Television tells us that a will is the end all in terms of who gets what, but in most states, the person who adjudicates the will can override things listed as they see fit, and a court can appoint an adjudicator other than the person that the deceased had chosen.

Also, how successfully do current domestic partner/civil union laws bridge those gaps? […]Do civil union laws establish a stronger inheritance claim?


In terms of the success of domestic partnership laws as a bridge to the gap, some are better than others. That varies by the region that passed the laws, but as I mentioned before, inheritance is one of the biggest problems.


What about adoption? How much more complicated is it for two individuals to adopt a child than for a married couple?


Again, that depends on the area. In Florida, there’s actually legislature outright banning anyone gay from adopting, and in some areas (currently Utah, while other states are examining similar legislature), gay marriage is banned, while all non-married individuals are considered ineligible to adopt, effectively making it impossible for them.


What about divorce? How fundamental a human right is it to be able to get a shyster lawyer and gouge your former partner for everything they're worth? (Heh.)


Divorce is divorce... I think it should be the same for both same and opposite sex couples. Long story short: “Make a pre-nup, even if you think you’re going to be together forever.” I have exceedingly limited sympathy for people who don’t, then run into trouble because of it later.


Heh. Is it a fundamental human right to be able to to get into a legally-binding lifetime commitment without knowing what the hell you're doing?


Why yes, student loans are still legal in the US... |:3
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Kosmonauta » Thu May 28, 2009 1:28 pm

Monocheres wrote: (...) and you're worried because I admit to a forum that I think we should focus on what's best for kids?(...)


Now, I haven't seem anyone address this issue. I wonder why.

Monocheres, you seem to believe that raising a kid solely happens through heterosexual marriage when such is not true. First off, let's get back to the very beggining of things... You do not need marriage to have sex. And a result of heterosexual sex without careful planning or prevention is a kid. Now, even back in the old days when the catholic church was more powerful than kings, there was no way of preventing people from having sex before marriage. Many marriages then and today happen after the 'dishonored' girl learns that the little adventure gave her a pregnancy. Some do not marry, thou. There is abortion, and there is adoption (please prefer the second, by the ways).

Adoption, then and today, would be a solution for couples that could not by themselves have kids. Gay couples cannot have their own kids (eeeh... kinda. science is taking some kinda care on that), therefore, they also have been know to fight for their right to adopt children. By the way, singles (if straight - and gay in some states and countries) are allowed to adopt kids as well. Now, would it not be in the best interest of the orphans to be able to be adopted by those who would give them a much better and closer to normal environment than a state facility? Hence, many states and countries do allow the adoption by gay couples. Many of these kids grown up and, look at that, not half of them became gay themselves (as many feared). They may get bullied at school (but then again so did I, though life, get over it), and other little details, but at least they have a family.

Now, funny enough, if a straight couple with a kid, married legally, divorces, there is a bunch of laws protecting both parents their right to see the offspring. The not legally married gays that have kids (either by adoption or other possibilities), however, do not have such protection. Which means that these kids are usually bounded legally to only ONE of the parents, and this one can pretty much disappear from the face of earth and never again allow the other to see their child. Ever. Again. I personally know of such cases.

Now, for the sake of the children, would it not be better if we definitely grant the absolutely same rights to both straight and gay families? Would we not be protecting those kids?

It has nothing to do with imposing on others our perspective of what marriage is. That argument is even offensive, after all, we are not the ones making your perception of marriage impossible by the law. It's not in our 'agenda', we are not proposing an amend that says only same-sex couples can marry. So i think you should seriously rethink your argument.
This is about trying to protect all, make the life of all as good as we possibly can.
In fact, I would fight for the rights of mormons and muslins to have polygamic marriages with legal benefits and protections just as much as I fight for the right of gay people.
Kosmonauta
Aw, they grow up so fast!

  Offline
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Thu May 28, 2009 2:07 pm

draque wrote:
Monocheres wrote:if you could have everything you want in the way of civil liberty protection and financial/contractual rules, etc, but it was called a "civil union", and "marriage" was reserved for those who wanted to connect it to their religion, but it would be nothing but a semantic nicety with no real difference in legal effect -- would you be satisfied?


I would be unsatisfied in that it would not be representative of religions that accept male-male marriages. Moreover, I am uncomfortable both with the concept of separate-but-equal and of having any kind of language in legislature that makes specific concessions to religion like that.


Actually, what you quoted there would represent the end-state of total separation of church and state. The government would only be in the business of granting "civil unions", to straights and gays alike. Only churches would be in the business of granting "marriages". But a "marriage" would have absolutely no force in law, it would just be an arrangement between you and your god(s)/goddess(es) (with a hefty check thrown in to your pastor). Only "civil unions" would have the force of law. Most people who wanted to "marry" at their church would also register their relationship with the government as a "union", in order to get all the legal protections (and obligations). Non-religious people could opt for just the civil union. I suppose in theory there would be the case of people who only "marry" in their church but choose not to make it "legal" with a union -- but you can sort of do that today. If you were a same-sex couple in a U-U church or some other religion that recognized same-sex "marriage" you could of course be "married" as well as in a "union".

I know, I know, it would all be a semantic shell game. But maybe it would be just palatable enough for the religious majority that they could live with it. As long as you don't force their churches to call your union a "marriage", maybe they could agree to live and let live.

Before that end-state, so long as "marriages" were still recognized as legal entities, side-by-side with "civil unions", then I agree, we'd be talking about a separate-but-equal situation. If the "equal" part wasn't truly "equal", so that "unions" were second-class citizens compared to "marriages", you could consider it discriminatory. But just as I suggested for the California case, enough laws passed over time might remedy that situation. Once it got to the point where the list of rights and obligations under the heading "marriage" was identical with those under the heading "civil union" (or maybe even before that), you might start seeing a movement of sympathetic non-religious straights opting for "unions" rather than "marriages", as a fashionable political statement. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that the "civil union" laws didn't discriminate against straights!) At that point, a Supreme Court could take a look at the situation and finally tumble to the fact that recognizing "marriage" was a state recognition of religion -- and only some religions, at that -- and they'd take us all right to the end-state.

In the meantime, there would be an extended period of time where "married" straights would be seeing "united" gays acting just like them ... and get used to the idea.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Thu May 28, 2009 2:24 pm

Kosmonauta wrote:Monocheres, you seem to believe that raising a kid solely happens through heterosexual marriage when such is not true.


! ! ! Quite the contrary! Really, you can't imagine I'm that dense, can you? ;-) Look a couple posts back -- I bemoaned the great rise in out-of-wedlock births as well as divorce, and wished that more parents would commit to raising their kids together. Marriage used to be a tool of social enforcement, that at least compelled more people to stick together for their kids. (Heh. In theory. Did it ever really work, though?)

Does any of that have anything to do with what the definition of "marriage" should be? Eh, probably not. I'm willing to drop it as a wild tangent ...
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Wizard CaT » Thu May 28, 2009 4:58 pm

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:Marriage is, first and last, a civil contract. It is no different in principle to any other legal contract, and it acts in a very similar fashion to the incorporation of a business. Indeed, the primary function of marriage is to contractually bind two (or more, depending on cultural acceptance) individuals to a position of shared wealth, which is not limited to finances, but which can include property and material goods. It also provides for legal access to each other, in circumstances of duress, and legal guardianship with regard to each other when decisions are made. There are over a thousand such components, and they ultimately are concerned with two things: access and distribution of resources.

Marriage has always been a civil, secular institution, only recently has religion sunk its claws into the matter with intent to control and own, perhaps within the last 80 years or so. Perhaps less.


Where do you get that from? An entire religion was founded in England just so the King could get divorced. It wasn't really until America was founded that the true idea of separation of church and state came about, and even now you still need a justice of the peace.
~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of Éa
Damn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!
User avatar
Wizard CaT
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Coda » Thu May 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Let's not forget spousal privilege in a legal sense. A married person is not required to give testimony against his/her spouse in a court of law. There is no other contract that grants that privilege in the United States, and you're going to have a hard time convincing A LOT people that it's a good thing to be able to make more people immune from giving testimony.

To be completely honest, I think spousal privilege is a load of baloney anyway.

Divorce is sort of a big deal to me, too. The fact that it's so easy right now makes it so that one of the most powerful and privileged contracts available in this country one of the easiest contracts to get OUT of as well. Whoever got the bright idea that emotion alone (or lack thereof) is sufficient reason to nullify a contract... *shakes his head and sighs* It's pathetic. Can I go before a court and say that I hate my banker's guts and want to break my contract with him to repay a loan in full with interest? Can I go before a court and say that I no longer love T-Mobile and want to have my cell phone contract annulled?

Tax benefits based on marriage and children also seem a bit misfocused to me, as well. In my opinion, tax benefits should be based on the HOUSEHOLD, not the specific relationships therein. If my elderly grandmother comes to live with me, and I have to change her diapers and spoon-feed her mush, why don't I get a tax credit for that because she's 101 instead of 1? If I lose my job and my buddy lets me live with him and split the bills while I work to get back on my own feet, why can't he benefit from his charity? What about a single mother who lives with her parents because her boyfriend ran off; if she takes maternity leave from her job and has to depend on them, why can't they claim her and her child as dependents? What's so magical about a man and a woman who signed a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace with biological or legally adopted children under the age of 18?

It seems to me that the idea of this contract (whether you call it a marriage or a civil union) is a promise to maintain a unified household for the mutual benefit of the parties involved and those who are dependent upon them for their survival, and in return they receive certain benefits to help them in that pursuit. Why is such a contract one of the easiest things to weasel out of, and why are there such arbitrary restrictions on who is allowed to enter into it? If you pitch it that way, requiring it to be between a man and a woman seems highly sexist and discriminatory -- and discriminatory in a manner prohibited by law!
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Fri May 29, 2009 12:33 am

Monocheres wrote:Let me ask you: if you could have everything you want in the way of civil liberty protection and financial/contractual rules, etc, but it was called a "civil union", and "marriage" was reserved for those who wanted to connect it to their religion, but it would be nothing but a semantic nicety with no real difference in legal effect -- would you be satisfied?


If your racial/ethnic group -whatever it may be- were supposedly given all the rights and privileges expected, but you were not allowed to call yourself a 'man', but had to go by the label 'gollywog', would you be satisfied?

More than this, if you have any knowledge of history, do you seriously expect that, as a 'gollywog', you really, actually, would gain the full benefit of those supposedly equal rights even if they gave them to you? Would the 'real men' actually enforce your 'separate but equal' status as fully -and equally- as those of real men?

Do you really think that as a gollywog, instead of a 'man', you would get the same job opportunities, and not be discriminated against in housing, education, or in every other arena?

Do you think the average person would understand how equal you were, as a 'gollywog', instead of simply as a 'man'? Especially when it comes up commonly in all manner of situations, from hospital to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to tax forms to meeting the neighbors and trying to introduce yourself? "Hi, I'm Monocheres, and yes, as you can see, I am a gollywog, not a man. Pleased to meet you?"

Gay people, dealing with spouses, stand out just as loudly as having to legally identify yourself, everywhere, as a 'gollywog'.

This is the situation. Understand it.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Kosmonauta » Fri May 29, 2009 1:03 am

Monocheres wrote:Does any of that have anything to do with what the definition of "marriage" should be? Eh, probably not. I'm willing to drop it as a wild tangent ...


Aye, wild tangent it might be, but a point remains.
You suggest that the fight for gay marriage is forcing on others our conception of marriage, meanwhile, our conception of marriage is currently banned from state constitution. Banned. Personally, I advocate that such contracts should be as open as possible. Multiple spouses of any gender. I know what marriage means to me, I do not need the state enforcing the model I believe in, I merely need it not to be banned.
(As for the children, there is a limit on how much the state can intervene on the parents decision of what is or isn't a healthy environment).
Kosmonauta
Aw, they grow up so fast!

  Offline
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Coda » Fri May 29, 2009 8:25 am

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:If your racial/ethnic group -whatever it may be- were supposedly given all the rights and privileges expected, but you were not allowed to call yourself a 'man', but had to go by the label 'gollywog', would you be satisfied?


That's only the better-but-still-undesirable middle state. The ultimate goal is to say that EVERYONE is a golliwog and can choose to call themselves men if they want to.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Fri May 29, 2009 9:15 am

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:
Monocheres wrote:Let me ask you: if you could have everything you want in the way of civil liberty protection and financial/contractual rules, etc, but it was called a "civil union", and "marriage" was reserved for those who wanted to connect it to their religion, but it would be nothing but a semantic nicety with no real difference in legal effect -- would you be satisfied?


If your racial/ethnic group -whatever it may be- were supposedly given all the rights and privileges expected, but you were not allowed to call yourself a 'man', but had to go by the label 'gollywog', would you be satisfied?


That is a very good point. If you interpret my question as representing the separate-but-equal scenario, I have already conceded that that is discriminatory. (It might be useful, however, as a temporary stage.)

My question was ambiguous though, I admit. It could just as easily be interpreted as the "end-state" scenario I've painted, where, if you will, everybody is a "gollywog" in public, and the government recognizes all people as "gollywogs" and only as "gollywogs", and by universal acclaim the term "gollywog" has lost all of its former pejorative connotation, and the appelation "man" becomes a hackneyed term you only use in church on Sunday, or at temple on Saturday, or in the mosque on Friday -- where you have the right to be as bigoted as you please. ("Well, shucks, according to the Good Book here, we're all 'men' but they're 'gollywogs', nyuck, nyuck.") The Greek word for "church" is "ecclesia" which, loosely translated, means "behind closed doors." I look forward to a day, as I'm sure you do, where all sorts of crap like that gets tucked away behind closed doors, and we ask ourselves, how did the government ever get into the business of recognizing "men" in the first place?

Perhaps a more apt analogy for what I meant was:

Business Lunch

AMAZON REPRESENTATIVE: Pleased to meet you, Ms. Reitz ... or do you prefer Miss or Mrs?
CREATRIX: Nice to meet you, too, Mr. Smith ... and it's none of your damn business.
A.R.: Oh yes, of course. Excuse my old-fashionedness. Why don't we order, and then we can go over the proposal...

But as usual, I see I've over-complicated things, and there is of course a much less convoluted, simpler, more direct "end-state".

Let me see if I can articulate some important points more clearly. The first, I think, although mentioned in passing, has been somewhat overlooked:

1. Marriage creates a family. It allows biologically-unrelated people to unite and be recognized by society at large as a new family unit. It establishes socially-approved kinship.

2. This is essential for socially-approved procreation. Children need a family to grow up in. Parents need to be supported in that endeavor by being allowed to treat each other, and not just their progeny, as kin.

3. All the socially- and governmentally-sanctioned rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage derive from this kinship relationship. Most derive rather directly from that simple fact. (Details left as an exercise to the reader.)

4. However, while the original intent might have been to support procreation and child-rearing, it is hardly practical to limit it to cases where the intention and ability and commitment to procreate and raise children to adulthood can be confirmed. Life is just too damn unpredictable. Past attempts to apply onerous coercion have proved more trouble than they are worth.

5. So the best we can do is create an institution that is less like a rifle, and more like a shotgun. (Why, in fact, it sometimes involves a shotgun!) We aim it at the target, hope it hits it more often than not, and don't worry about the stray shots. It's like a lot of things in life, and in biology. Why, it's almost Darwinian.

6. Plus there are a host of secondary cases where a family unit and kinship relationship provide a benefit to society, without procreation. (Details left as an exercise for the reader.) Human civilization is much more complex now than it was for our tribal ancestors. Families are a useful tool in dealing with that complexity. We need as many families as we can get. Families civilize us.

7. Ever since the Romantic Era in the 19th century, as well as the Sexual Revolution of the 20th, people in the West have become obsessed with the notion that "Love is the Answer", and have chosen that as the primary criterion for selecting a mate and accomplishing #2 above. Whereas in the East, the favored strategy is "Your Elders Know Better". Which strategy is more successful is immaterial. The Romantic West is a fait accompli.

8. There is a category of people who, through no fault of their own, have been caught in a trap of Darwinian imprecision. They share all the same brain structures and hormonal pathways as other humans, they have the same capabilities and desires and urges, but because evolution conservatively reuses so many of the same elements for different purposes, and because biology is so sloppy, these people find themselves activating biological programs other than the customary ones for their gender. Their lives have substantially different outcomes , despite the fact that the differences that triggered the cascade were so slight. To judge them on the superficial differences rather than the internal commonality would not only be inhumane, it would be ... wasteful.

9. In particular, these people share the same urge to form kinship relationships. They share the same Western obsession with Romance. They wish to create families, and pursuant to point #6, we sure as hell could use them.

Therefore, I concede. If you could do it for the issue "War is Sometimes Necessary", then I can do it for the issue of "Gay Marriage".

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:This is the situation. Understand it.


Thank you for not swearing at me. I heard you better this time.

You will find, I think, that as other strangers enter your domain, they may not be familiar with the territory either. You may need to walk them through it...
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Kosmonauta » Fri May 29, 2009 1:26 pm

Someone linked fans in another topic here, so i will link another fans page to this one.
http://www.faans.com/index.php?p=1835
Kosmonauta
Aw, they grow up so fast!

  Offline
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Tychomonger » Fri May 29, 2009 3:06 pm

Monocheres wrote:*bullet points*

I think your list there would be far more coherent if you removed the explicit focus on procreation. You spend half of the time after that compensating for and making exceptions to that point. Your first point is great: Marriage is about creating a new family. You take parts that fit together well, and assemble them into a new object, one that is built to last for a lifetime. Bearing children is only one expression of the functionality of this new family, a particular feature of the product. Other families may not have that feature, and you may consider them to be lacking because of this, but they still have plenty of other features.
Hello!
Aealacreatrananda wrote:When I envision a far far future.... I don't fuck around.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.
--The Doctor
User avatar
Tychomonger
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: Beside myself

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Fri May 29, 2009 6:24 pm

Tychomonger wrote:I think your list there would be far more coherent if you removed the explicit focus on procreation.


Well, I was concentrating more on the evolutionary origins of things than trying to characterize their current state. The "exercises for the reader" would have been whole dissertations in themselves so I telescoped them for space.

EDIT: One of the phenomena of evolution is that a feature originally developed for one purpose could get co-opted for another purpose if the environment changes. Or if the environment gets more complex, a feature could wind up getting reused in multiple ways to meet multiple purposes. So to say that marriage might originally have been about procreation in a simpler, tribal world is not to disparage its reuse to meet a lot of societal goals in our more complex, civilized world. In my previous post, I used the word "secondary" to describe those new goals, and that was probably inapt, though I'm not sure what word would be better. "Derivative"?

Tychomonger wrote:Bearing children is only one expression of the functionality of this new family, a particular feature of the product. Other families may not have that feature, and you may consider them to be lacking because of this, but they still have plenty of other features.


Unless there's scientific evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume same-sex couples experience the urge to raise children with the same frequency as straights. Okay, so they may be disadvantaged in the procreation department, but so might some straights. There's always adoption, of course (especially if that can be promoted by recognizing gay marriage). Although I'd say lesbian couples do have an advantage here -- they could always just go to a sperm bank. (I personally know of one such couple.) Bottom line, unless somebody tells me that gayness somehow creates an odd aversion to kids, I expect child-rearing could certainly be as much a motivator for same-sex marriage as for opposite-sex marriage. Get rid of the ban and we'll see. (My state'll be a test-case for that, I guess.)

Hmm. If you're same-sex and married in Mass can you file your 1040 with married status? Or does the DOMA get in the way?
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby draque » Sat May 30, 2009 8:21 am

Monocheres wrote:Hmm. If you're same-sex and married in Mass can you file your 1040 with married status? Or does the DOMA get in the way?


It does. While states are permitted to recognize marriages however they wish, the federal government is forbidden to do so. Since the 1040 is the Federal Income Tax form, a gay couple marking themselves as married on it would be making themselves vulnerable to charges of tax evasion or even fraud.
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Sat May 30, 2009 6:32 pm

Separate is not equal.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Coda » Sat May 30, 2009 7:16 pm

Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:Separate is not equal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Prop 8 upheld

Postby Monocheres » Sat May 30, 2009 9:08 pm

Coda wrote:
Jennifer Diane Reitz wrote:Separate is not equal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is.


@,@
Didn't I concede already?
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Previous

Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron