Last night my husband was viewing a video clip for a friend who had competed in a snowboarding competition on EXPN. She had gotten the bronze medal, but wasn't able to bring up the clip on her own computer. In the closing minutes of her run, the commentators were saying how much better the front runner was. In fact, they said, she was so far out ahead of the other girls, she could almost compete as a man.
Normally stuff like this goes right over my head. But hearing it about a friend, and one who hasn't necessarily heard it yet, kind of got to me. My husband said "So, girls seldom are as strong and fast as boys". I know he is right, but I am also glad that they are allowed to compete in separate categories.
If there were only one best picture award, how often do you think it would go to a documentary? If there were only one best actor award, how often would it go to a female? I'll tell you, because we only have one best director, and I can only think of a couple of times it has gone to a woman.
I think civil unions can give homosexuals protection and benefits without forcing them to compete with heterosexuals. There is already competition among heterosexuals for the adoption of newborn babies of desired race. If homosexuals are married in every full sense, they will have to compete in this same arena. (Keeping in mind there have been moves to prevent the adoption of racial minority newborns by majority couples).
There could be provisions giving a civil union partner legal preference over a biological parent's claim on a child, due to the unique situation that homosexual couples have of always needing either a surrogate or a donor.
I am just concerned if it is really true that homosexuals want "what we have". Because what we have is not due to our piece of paper. What I have comes from not have sexual gratification as my primary value. My happiness comes from a balanced outlook of life in which sexual preference alone does not have the power to make me or break me.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Good post pooka.
I've often thought about the separate but equal thing from a woman's perspective. It's easier for me, given I'm competing in an academic field: so there is no reason any man should be better at what I do than I am.
And a lot of them aren't.
In terms of directors: I wonder how much that has to do with how many women directors there are. It is only this generation that women are starting to be professional as much as (or at least in the ballpark with) men: the women who went to college in the 80s and 90s are professionals now. In most business there is still a *huge* gender imbalance in the top jobs. I'm sure a big part of that is due to inherent gender attititude still in place, but I'm also sure part of it is due to the fact that, until now, there haven't been as many female candidates as male candidates.
quote: My happiness comes from a balanced outlook of life in which sexual preference alone does not have the power to make me or break me.
Pooka, I agree with the setiments of your last paragraph. But I wonder whether the reason so many homosexual couples seek marriage is because for them, it is not a piece of paper. Marriage is a symbol of acceptance. Of tolerance. Of equality.* And maybe sexual preference does make or break homosexual people because they have been discriminated against solely on that ground.
___
* An oldie but a goody springs into mind here. Equality does NOT mean that everyone is equal. So saying that homosexual people and couples are not equal to heterosexual people and couples is in no way justification for a lack of equality between the two.
Posted by Chizpurfle (Member # 6255) on :
Separate but equal laws might seem fine and dandy for a number of you particularly now in this point in time, but truth be told I fail to see how this, aside from more worse facilities, is any better than the "separate but equal" laws of the past.
The term "separate but equal" is a bit misleading. True, the physical components of equality is there, but the main ingredient: acceptance and acknowledgement as an equal to heterosexuals, is not. The mere fact this would separate the heterosexuals from the homosexuals, implies that homosexual couples are somehow more inferior to heterosexual couples. Somehow their love is inferior to your love. Therefore, this renders the term "equal" in "separate but equal," a misnomer.
The sad thing is, I do not see homosexuals being allowed to have the complete rights anytime soon. I can see that you have your heart in the right place, Pooka. However, I fail to see why homosexual couples should settle with a piece of the pie, when they could just have the whole thing. That might seem greedy to a lot of you folks here, but I don't think of it as greed but rather, it is not settling for anything short of 100%.
[ February 29, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Chizpurfle ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I think civil unions can give homosexuals protection and benefits without forcing them to compete with heterosexuals.
Yeah, that's what Jim Crow said, too. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, I'm telling you that is exactly the same reasoning that got such laws passed (despite the racist origin of the laws themselves). This is why such a "compromise" is utterly wrong in every way.
Posted by Chizpurfle (Member # 6255) on :
Yeah, I cringed when I saw that particular quote. Separate but equal laws were wrong then and they would be wrong now. It gives me a headache knowing that we cannot just learn from our past mistakes and work from there.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:I think civil unions can give homosexuals protection and benefits without forcing them to compete with heterosexuals. There is already competition among heterosexuals for the adoption of newborn babies of desired race. If homosexuals are married in every full sense, they will have to compete in this same arena.
Are you saying that if homosexuals are allowed to enter civil unions -- but not marriages -- a special category of children only available for adoptions by homosexuals will magically be created as to allow them not to compete with those in marriages, in the same vein as female athletes have there own medals to aspire for without competition from their male counter-parts?
I don't think it would work that way, Pooka.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Maybe an 'Equal but Equal' law instead: the government sanctions civil unions (without any sexual requirement, implied or overt) and leaves marriage (blessing of sex) solely to religion.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Marriage hasn't belonged solely to religion for centuries. "Saving" marriage for "religion" means keeping the term strictly for only a few religions, and would deny atheist and other non-organizational religions the right to "marriage."
Nope, it's still segregation.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Slavery, serfdom, and peonage were also legally enforced by governments for centuries and centuries. Maybe governments make mistakes? If so, "It's tradition" isn't sufficient cause to continue making the same mistake forever.
[ February 29, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That makes the argument against "separate but equal," not for it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As I said: equal but equal. If the government can get out of slavery business, it can get out of the marriage business.
Since the pseudo-religious right apparently believes that governmental sponsorship of marriage is the Hand of God blessing prostitution -- the exchange of goods and/or services (including legal rights) for sex -- the best solution would be for government to cease playing that role.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
If it's not the same, it's not equal. Separate is segregated, thus not equal.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There is no equality except before the Law of government. Removing marriage as a function of government and using civil unions to facilitate transfer of legal rights would guarantee equality. Private organizations can discriminate however they choose. Surely you are not suggesting that the government force eg the RomanCatholicChurch to open up its cathedrals to all marriage ceremonies, or to bless all marriages.
[ February 29, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Private organizations can discriminate however they choose.
No, they are not. Hence regulatory committees.
quote:Surely you are not suggesting that the government force eg the RomanCatholicChurch to open up its cathedrals to all marriage ceremonies, or to bless all marriages.
Insurance and other various organizations are also not strictly the government. Are you saying the government should be totally hands-off in terms of individual civil liberties?
Maybe we should remove the Amendments and other equal rights legislation we've had to make for women and ethnic minorities?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would want the civil marriage to be the only one allowed to be used in commercial transactions, including insurance, hospital visitation, and spousal benefits. Any religious discrimination laws would apply to prevent this because accepting one faith's definition of marriage and not another's would be religious descrimination. I'd want this protection made explicit, however, in the civil marriage enabling acts.
Interesting legal note, the amendments only regulate government action (one reason I'd be vehemently opposed to the lates amendment even if I opposed gay marriage). All the laws that regulate non-government discrimination are enacted under the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment.
Even ones that allow federal prosecution of crimes designed to prevent exercise of civil rights are enacted as protections from State discrimination in the enforcement of criminal laws.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am just concerned if it is really true that homosexuals want 'what we have.' Because what we have is not due to our piece of paper. What I have comes from not have sexual gratification as my primary value."
I can't help wondering if part of the problem is that you're not willing to concede that your typical homosexual couple desires neither the "piece of paper" (which, while possessed of several benefits, can indeed be mostly duplicated) nor the sexual gratification (which they can get anyway) but the actual emotional support and social recognition of marriage.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it should be pretty clear that having "marriage" does not equal social acceptance. Being the product of a biracial marriage and by necessity creating another extraracial marriage, I know that there are still a lot of folks who have trouble with it. But I don't really accept analogies between the two because biracial couples don't need medical help to reproduce, and homosexual couples don't produce children who would be physically different from the features of at least one parent.
But if you want to say separate means unequal, then what are women in the eyes of a gay man? What are men in the eyes of a lesbian? I don't have a problem with people being attracted to the same sex. I have a problem with them being permanently unattracted to the opposite sex.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)