?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Saiyajin Female

Can o'worms? Check.

OK so mauser said here (and a truce has been called, please don't continue the debate in Xian's journal, kthx):

Heterosexual marriage benefits society by producing the nezt generation. The stability provided by a STABLE family develops good and productive members of society. It's not the relationship or the love between two people that Society cares about, but the results.

Is it really?

Lots of homosexual couples last far longer (and are more stable) than heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals do raise children - through adoption or artificial insemination. My own three-parent bisexual family raised two stable, fully-functioning members of society - myself and my sister. Homosexuals are as much a part of his society as heterosexuals, and society has as much to gain by providing them support.

I would very much like to see a study that shows children raised by a comitted homosexual couple are any less stable than those raised by comitted heterosexual parents. And it would be greatly beneficial to the pre-existing homosexual family units today to obtain the recognition - and Bennies - of marriage.

Personally? I don't care what you call it. So long as it is completely equal in the eyes of the law - it cannot be excluded from something provided to marriage. So long as it is recognized across state lines, gets the same tax benefits and/or hits, has visa benefits, inheritance rights, etc. If it is 100% identical in every way, I don't care what it's called.

Unfortunately, all domestic partnerships I am aware of fall short of this. At the very least, they do not provide visa arrangements for unions where one individual is a foreign national. And including every single marriage benefit in a contractual agreement is similarialy problematic - you're going to leave out something, and especially when it comes to visitation and inheritance, they can be trumped by situations that wouldn't faze a marriage.

I know you said that when you asked couples why they wanted to get married, it was all about the bennies, not about love or raising a family or comittment. But no one ever questions why a hetero couple wants to get married, not with the same inherent doubt of legitimacy. Of COURSE couples who want to get married wish to solidify their comittment in the eyes of the law and/or their God. Of course they want to be a family.

But these things are implicit in simply saying, We want to be married. So they skip over that and go for something more concrete, more accessible. Feelings and dreams are too easily brushed aside. Besides, technically, you CAN love one another and commit and raise a family without getting married. It's just more difficult, and vulnerable, and painful. Benefits are something you can point to and have it stand up as a solid obtainable goal of marriage recognition.

Comments

We don't get equal rights by capitulating to people who want to play semantic games and crank up "tradition" as a reason for bigotry. Tradition is the worst argument for anything, it's the argument one uses when all arguments fail. If tradition is truly an issue, then keep tradition in the home and out of secular law. Tradition is for Christmas dinner, snowball fights and rear wheel drive in BMWs, it should be eradicated the instant it thwarts equal rights.

Chandler's statement that we're "attacking" their way of life is indeed true. But remember, interracial marriage was once an attack on tradition and a way of life as well, and it was "attacked". Seperate but equal as a "tradition". Their way of life is bigoted, if it does not provide the exact same secular legal protections for gay couples, and that's just the way it is.
I'd just like to applaud you on how you worded your thoughts and feelings on your response, mharpold8. I did my best to try and stay logical from the start - but I think the most logical solution would have been to not even try to point out the meaning of equality in the first place.

And as you say - these are dangerous times. I don't think mainstream society realizes just how powerful of a hold Republicans have on the (Judiciary, Executive, Legislative) branches of government. I know I daydreamed a lot in history - but I still recall the checks and balances system - how one branch is in essence supposed to keep the other in check.

The sort of stuff that some senators are saying - while in the positions of power that they're in. It's some pretty scary stuff. Federal government should be there to protect and safeguard the rights and safety and liberties of all its citizens - not just a specific faction - and when you have senators in government with a modus operandi that is based on morals that hinge on religious beliefs - you no longer have a government that is fully geared towards protecting all of its citizens equally.

Sorry about the long winded response - but I guess I just don't want to seem like I was arguing for the sake of arguing in that thread. I take this subject personally because I'm transgender - and I was once called an abomination by a very religious individual. Anyhoo...
The gays!

Alright, seriously now.
If a gay person gets married in a church, by a priest/whatever, how is it any different from any "normal" straight marriage that is supposedly based on centuries of religious belief? (Which is a lie, depending on how you look at it and define the word itself)
My slightly more aggressive commentary on this subject:

I'm gay. I'm married. I call it 'gamarried'. It was all a big laugh for a while, and I knew it was gong to be reversed. The rules of engagement in this debate have changed slightly.

I used to try to get through to these people. These are the new rules for dealing with them:

There will be no compromise.
There will be no civility.
There will be no understanding.
There will be no respecting of your faith.
There will be no coming together in the middle.
There will be no valuing you as a person aside from your political beliefs.
There will be no more chances given.
There will be no contact between us if you voted as you did in order to 'maintain morality'.

You will not speak to my children.
You will not sit at my table.
You will not have any opportunity to earn my respect.
I will not break bread with you.
I will not abide your filth any longer.

What there will be is hate for hate.
There will be total disregard for your feelings.
There will be removal of your person from my presence if you voted against my best interests.
There will be attacks on your character.
There will be joy taken at your distress.
There will be more division, more rage, more pain, more fury.
There will be no end to this until I get what I want.

We tried King. Now let's try X.



(this only applies to the gay thing, not the Bush thing. Bush ain't that bad... it's his supporters.)
Your one answer:

If you think I'm one of "Those people" you're mistaken.

Way to alienate potential allies. You're REALLY gonna get votes that way. Guess What, King got a lot more results than X ever did. Brilliant strategy.

I think your sense of persecution is more important to your identity that results are.

The problem is actually pretty simple to understand...

Specifically, mauser has pre-declared several strategies 'cheating' in this debate. Namely that saying Heterosexual couples get more benefits than Homosexual couples is out of bounds, and that Heterosexual couples would somehow have to change their own definition of Marriage if a Homosexual couple could use the term themselves is undebatable.

The problem is, this is defining the playing field to be extremely narrow, with him having a hill on his side and most opposition having a valley on their side, giving him the distinct height advantage for mounting attacks and defending from attacks.

Despite this, as some demonstrated, it's quite possible to use tactics to overcome the battlefield disadvantage to some extent, but the battlefield, of sorts, for this debate he's caused is simply not level to begin with, due to the artificial restrictions he's imposing.

It's a bit like trying to say you can't use landmines, or snipers, to an enemy country when you're invading them, and the country in question is filled with mountains and jungle alternating. Or a bit like the approach the English took during the Revolutionary War of only knowing how to line up across a field, and firing a volley at the other guys, while Americans would simply attacks in tiny groups whenever they could, and move away quickly.

Admitedly, none of the analogies fit exactly, but the point is the same in all of them. Artificial restrictions on a battlefield, be it verbal, physical, or mental, make the playing field uneven. The more subtly placed the restrictions, the more effectively they can cripple one side or the other, and these are surprisingly subtle restrictions mauser has more or less invented to reinforce and shore up their own personal world-view, and seems to flat-out refuse to accept any debate regarding those pillars, or anything that touches those pillars.

Re: The problem is actually pretty simple to understand...

Just attack him personally and be done with it. He's a failure, point that out to him a few times, make fun of his hat, whatever. Do you really give two shits about this beardo's opinion?
Is it just me or do the counter-marriage arguments always default to specific, narrow reasons that individually don't hold any legal foundation whatsoever, but since there's more than one they can just cycle them the moment you demonstrate one of them is bollocks?

"It's tradition!"
Yeah, but that doesn't hold any legal meaning. And how is getting married to be on a TV show traditional?
"Ah, but homosexual relationships are unstable!"
Highly debatable without actual studies. Besides, what about personal responsibility? Do we take away people's right to choose to protect them?
"But, but, it creates a precedent! If this is passed then what's stopping us from marrying dogs?"
What's stopping us now? There, answered.
"But it's breaking tradition!"

And so the circle goes, where it stops... well, it doesn't.
That would be interesting to discuss. IF I had advanced any of those arguments, which I did not.

Not that that stopped anyone from putting them in my mouth. It's easier to argue with people if you pretend they said things you have prepared answers for.

I think Domestic Partnerships would be a stabilizing influence in the Gay community. I even wonder if, had we had it in the '70's, would the AIDS epidemic have been slowed and tens of thousands of lives saved.
´
I would very much like to see a study that shows children raised by a comitted homosexual couple are any less stable than those raised by comitted heterosexual parents.
I seem to remember Newsweek doing an article about that. ^_^;; But I just woke up, so brain no worky.

Another point about that...

"Heterosexual marriage benefits society by producing the nezt generation."

Wonderful, that means if you're single (and particularly if you're long-term single, like me), you're in a not-benefiting society state that shouldn't be allowed? Think about that one for a while.

Maybe we should only allow heterosexual couples to marry if they promise to have kids, too. Can't have couples not adding to an already over-populated planet, goodness no...

(Anonymous)

Re: Another point about that...

And, what of those who are single and have children? They are "contributing to society" too. And those who adopt? They are contributing. And lesbian couples who get pregnant and have children through sperm bank services? That's contributing to the furthering of the species too. And homosexual couples who adopt? Also contributing (and also in another way, since they are giving a needing child a home). Plus, we have SO many children already, SO many without homes or in poor living conditions. What we should be doing as moral human beings is not focusing on how we can "benefit society by increasing/furthering our numbers," but instead on how we can help those already here. We don't need more people, plain and simple. We need to take care of those already existing and THEN, and only then, worry about our continued existence. Saying heterosexual relationships benefit society more than homosexual relationships because they provide offspring is not a strong argument at all.

~Kas~

(Anonymous)

OH... WOW...

I finally get time to come back to this debate and what do I find? Personal insults being thrown around as support for each side's opinions. Guys, this is not the way to get acceptance or agreement. This is the way one forms enemies, opponents, and makes your arguement look much weaker. I've seen this from BOTH sides (even in Jaguar's journal; Mauser, you too said insulting things there). Here, it appears to be an even bigger problem though. Everyone, please, if you are so thoughally disgusted with the other side, to the point where you no longer see a point in making logic and moral based statements in support of your views, please just walk away before you hurt yourself and that which you are trying to defend. Yes, some of you may not care about "making enemies in LJ," but please keep in mind that this is a public forum of sorts and open to many who may become influenced by opinions/statements they view here. True, many are already set in their ways. Still, one needs to think first of the cause they are fighting for and lastly for their own emotions and feelings. If those get in the way, it's time to step back.

Everyone is free to agree or disgree with me on this, which is fine. It is only meant as a statement of my opinion and a suggestion, not intended to start a second debate at all.

And now to get back to the issue at hand...

~Kas~ (yes, Mauser, I realize LJs are free, and I would get one if I had a code, but very few of my friends actually bother to keep/use LJ, therefore no one I know well still has an available code to set up an account)

Re: OH... WOW...

Actually, Codes are not required, they dropped them about a year ago.

Although because of some abuse, there has been some talk about re-introducing them. Go to the main page and check, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Oh, and with regard to me and Iluthian, he's got some issues with me dating way back (I don't recall exactly what, and I don't really much care). I already had to ban him from my journal once before. So it started OFF personal with him, and the issue just gave him an excuse.