posted
Zotto!, I'd like to see if we can make some of this more specific. Which of the benefits of marriage should not be available to same sex couples?
Here are a few general categories:
1) Default relationship benefits - absent instruction to the contrary, a spouse is generally able to give consent for medical procedures, inherits from the other at death, etc. Many of these are available to any couple if they do a lot of paper work, although the intent of the parties is easily thwarted if hospitalization or death occurs in a different state than that for which the documents were drafted.
2) Eligibility for benefits - health insurance from employer group plans, survivor benefits from social security/pension/disability payments, etc. Many of these are simply not available absent the voluntary choice of an employer (a choice the employer does not have with respect to spouses), and some states actually prohibit employers from offering them. Many are not available at all, ever.
3) Access to services - a comprehensive set of rules for terminating the relationship and dividing property, protection for non-property owners whose contribution enables accumulation of wealth, easier adoption of the spouses child (when the other parent has died or waived parental rights).
4) Taxes - joint tax returns, tax free inheritance at death, doubling of many limits such as the personal residence capital gains exemption. Not available at all to same sex couples.
5) Miscellaneous - the right to refuse to testify against ones spouse, the right to have private marital communications privileged, the duty to care for the other spouse, standing to bring tort claims for wrongful death, loss of society, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Privilege and immunity are not available at all to same sex couples; the tort claims are available in some states but in a much more limited form.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to thank Dagonee for that post. That's probably the first time I've seen such a well stated list of marital benefits.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I almost didn't see your post because I'm running out the door here, but those are excellent questions, exactly the kind that I'm trying to work through myself. It's so friggin' complex.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that quite a few of the benefits of marriage should be exclusively part of the marriage package in the first place, such as some default sickbed concerns, some services for comprehensively terminating the relationship, etc. The thing is, I'm still at a loss to say what should replace what we have now; most things I can think of would take immense reform of the system, which might very well be just what is needed.
I've got to run, but I'll be back in a few hours and see if I can't organize some thoughts towards a rational compromise.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll second what Karl said, both the thanks and that it's the best, well stated list I've seen on here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure,
I think this kind of thinking is putting way too much weight on sexual orientation. I think there are likely to be no fewer differences between any two given homosexuals than between any given homosexual and any given heterosexual. You seem to believe the contrary. Aside from sexual predilection, what other "different types of qualities" do you believe homosexuals, as a group, possess?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's much the same as if we were to agree that people who are not disabled have the exact same right to the best parking stalls as the truly disabled.
The problem with this analogy is that the best parking stalls are a limited commodity. The benefits of marriage are not.
Edit:
quote:It's unfair because they don't fit the definition of what we've agreed "disabled" means.
No, it's unfair because disabled people wouldn't have the accommodations needed, because of the limited number of close in parking stalls.
Dagonee's response puts this into words better than I think I can, but still doesn't quite capture all of it for me, so I'm going to try anyway. You've listed your reasons who you think it's important to give the benefits of marriage exclusively to heterosexuals, and that's fine. . . everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't find your reasons compelling, but I'm not interested in addressing that. I'm only interested in your statement that it would be unfair to heterosexual couples to expand marriage rights to homosexual couples, and your reasons why it's "necessary" don't address/apply to why it's "fair." Basically, what you seem to be saying to me is "it's unfair because we've agreed it's unfair."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure...
What more is required to consider someone an "Other" in addition to recognizing in him "different types of qualities" than in "other people?"
There's also an additional benefit to marriage that Dag didn't list, probably because it's not a legal benefit: social recognition of the value of your partnership. This is in fact precisely what I understand you to be saying we should not extend to homosexuals, for fear of cheapening the recognition we extend to heterosexual couples, because you do not believe that homosexual relationships are as valuable to society as heterosexual relationships and thus shouldn't be entitled to any additional recognition. Am I correct in this restatement of your opinion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I daresay I hope they never learn what causes homosexuality. Because if it's genetic, they will eventually find the gene. And what's to stop groups such as Focus on the Family from creating an initiative to genetically "switch off" the gay gene for anyone who wishes to make sure their kids aren't gay?
Short question: Whats wrong with that?
Long question: I think that it is inevitable that science will discover what causes homosexuality, it may be a long time from now because its mix of controversy and lack of profit, but it is inevitable due to the amount of rapidly advancing state of knowledge in biology. Compared to say, curing cancer, or reversing aging, homosexuality seems one of the simpler problems.
Going forth from this (IMHO, reasonable) assumption, it would seem that there is no pragmatic stance you could take to stop people from screening* for homosexuality. After all, in the most extreme case, people could just choose to do in vitro repeatedly and just not choose to implant an embyro with it "on."
Furthermore, I'm not sure what moral stance you could take against the practice in general. Say people did have the capability to make sure they had no gay children, what is wrong with that? If being gay is truly equal to being a normal couple, and akin to a different hair colour or eye-colour, then what is wrong with parents choosing to only have straight children?
* It would kinda have to be done through screening. Science is far from being able to really turn on and off genes in a kid, but well within grasp is the capability to identify which embryos have the trait present.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Addition: As a thought experiment (since I believe that the science is far far far away from doing it).
Say parents had a serum that could turn off the homosexuality gene and they used it on their kid before it went through puberty. What would be the harm? Would it be any worse (morally) than a serum that would change a kid's hair colour?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think so. Especially considering that people change their hair color on their own for kicks.
I have a friend whose mother dyed her hair blonde in third grade so that she would look more "American" (her mom was an Asian immigrant who was very concerned that her children fit in with the culture). Is that morally right? I don't really think it was, and even if that were the case, changing someone's sexuality is a whole lot more of a big deal than hair color.
The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
In any case, I take an issue with your terminology. (Or possibly clarify the thought experiment) My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty. In that case, a serum that applies before puberty would not be *changing* someone's sexuality, because it has not developed yet. Rather, it would be changing whether someone is predisposed to *becoming* straight or gay.
While I'm at it, to forstall any Godwin-ing of the thread. Also assume that this kind of tinkering is being done completely by some parents who want to (the existence of which seems rather plausible), and not at the behest of any government performing a policy stating with the letter G.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
If you are of the opinion -- as well -- that it is not damaging to change one's son to a daughter, then there is some interesting reading out there.
One can value one as much as the other without thinking it okay to reject either one over the other. This seems obvious to me.
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the damage caused when a child is treated as a different gender (or sexuality, for lack of a better word) when the underlying orientation is not changed. This causes problems with repression, feeling unwanted, etc. etc.
If I misunderstand your point, please clarify.
My response would be, you're still hung up on the word "change". There would be no "changing" anymore than a son resulting from the use of in vitro screening to ensure a son feels that they were changed from female to male.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Not sure where you're going with this. The whole assumption behind the thought experiment is that homosexuality is genetic. In which case, you aren't gay until that gene is expressed anymore than you have black hair until the gene for black hair is expressed and triggers the growing of black hair.
If you don't think that homosexuality has a genetic cause, then thats perfectly valid, but then it would seem that the comment is superfluous to the thought experiment.
Edit to add: Is your issue specifically with the time point of puberty? Then feel free to move back to serum to any point after conception. It shouldn't matter medically, in fact it should be medically easier the earlier the serum is administered. I just used it as an upper bound, since it would clearly immoral if a parent changed a child's sexuality after it had already begun to develop.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: My response would be, you're still hung up on the word "change". There would be no "changing" anymore than a son resulting from the use of in vitro screening to ensure a son feels that they were changed from female to male.
You said that "The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another."
I advanced that it is possible to change one's child in a fundamental way (such as male to female) and that this is a damaging thing to the child, even if one believes that boys and girls are of equally value. Thus I contested your claim that if you value both of a binary characteristic equally, there should be nothing wrong with flipping between the two.
(In case it isn't clear, "in vitro screening" is not the same thing as "changing a boy to a girl." )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Not sure where you're going with this. The whole assumption behind the thought experiment is that homosexuality is genetic. In which case, you aren't gay until that gene is expressed anymore than you have black hair until the gene for black hair is expressed and triggers the growing of black hair....I just used it as an upper bound, since it would clearly immoral if a parent changed a child's sexuality after it had already begun to develop.
So, you believe children do not have development of their sexuality before they go through puberty?
---
Edited to add: This is contrary to general medical understanding of pediatric development.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
Actually, this is a gross simplification. Most of the supporters in this thread believe that the relationships of each sexuality should have equal protection/benefit under the law. Most people here, on both sides have more or less conceded that there are differences in the relationships, even beyond the obvious, but [EDIT: supporters of SSM recognition] that these differences are not sufficient for the law to discriminate between. The are equal in a certain context, but not equal in all contexts.
Zotto-- I'd just like to add that I think you've done admirably, and no doubt it's frustrating. I guess to sum up my objection to your well-considered opinion is what I mentioned in my earlier thread: You have at most shown why we could discriminate between the relationships, generally speaking; but you have yet to specifically show why we should, within the context of the law, aside from some ephemeral reasons around fairness and societal survival that you have yet to provide evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Addition: As a thought experiment (since I believe that the science is far far far away from doing it).
Say parents had a serum that could turn off the homosexuality gene and they used it on their kid before it went through puberty. What would be the harm? Would it be any worse (morally) than a serum that would change a kid's hair colour?
The harm is the parents deciding who the child can and now cannot be romantically and sexually attracted to. The majority of people in this country don't believe in arranged marriage because it unfairly keeps the child from marrying whoever they love. This is, in a sense, the same thing: choosing that your child can only pick from the opposite gender instead of their natural inclination. I guess it stems from my belief in "gay/straight/bi" since birth, because, from personal experience, children can and do act on their sexuality without knowing it.
I mean, flip the tables. Would it be just as okay if a serum was developed that let people make their children gay? This assumes, as yours does, that not everyone will use this.
I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a story by Greg Egan called Cocoon (not to be confused with the movie of the same name). It takes place in a future where it's been established as a matter of fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality are determined by natal hormones. That you're born gay or straight, and that's the end of it. As a consequence (in this story), no one much cares any more.
The main character is a cop, and there's a scene where his partner is planning on going to a pride parade. He isn't interested, because honestly, no one cares any more. His partner sees it as a cultural tradition.
One of the elements of the story is that someone has discovered a method of screening natal hormones, so that people, if they want, can guarantee that their children are heterosexual. The ethical question raised in the story is: If everyone does this and there are no more gay people born, is it genocide?
Like I said, it's a fascinating story.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Faith healers invoke the argument that messing with nature is wrong, how is it right to argue you must not modify a person's DNA but you MUST cure diseases if possible? I mean the law can demand a parent bring their child to the hospital for treatment regardless of religious conviction, as treating the child prevents suffering, and the child does not necessarily share the same religion as the parents.
I don't know there is just too much messiness to the whole "when is gene manipulation OK?" question.
I mean I realize we are speculating about something that may or may not be possible in the future, but still.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Son of the Circus by John Irving, the main character is a doctor who spends part of his year in Canada and part in India. He has a sort of hobby where he's trying to find the causes of dwarfism with the goal of eliminating it. While in India he does a lot of pro-bono work for the circus and takes blood samples from dwarves. One of the dwarves at one point asks him why he hates dwarves so much and the question shocks him. He thought he was doing a good thing and never considered that the dwarves were happy with who they were.
I'm not really sure if this is all that pertinent to the subject at hand, but Lisa's post made me think of this.
Mucus uses the word "problem" in reference to homosexuality above. It's possible he means "problem" in the sense of "puzzle" or "question", like a "math problem", but I do know many people think of homosexuality as a problem to be overcome idealiy through its elimination. Many homosexuals feel that way, too. However, many others feel that the only "problems" with homosexuality are society's intolerance and bigotry, and that the human race would be far better off eliminating the problems of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry than in spending so much effort fighting the pseudo-problem of homosexuality.
I believe that (provided we don't blow ourselves up first) human ingenuity will invariably learn how to solve a hugh variety of genetic and social puzzles. I don't believe that homosexuality is strictly genetically determined, primarily because I don't believe sexual orientation is binary. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it is a wide spectrum and people fall all along it. Regardless, it is at least theoretically possible for science to catalog all the genetic and social factors that determine sexual preference and to devise a course of thereapy that would funnel all people towards heterosexuality. Long before that happens, however, I hope we've spent our resources more wisely discovering how to eliminate bigotry and created a world where one's sexuality isn't considered a "problem" to be solved.
A world where the capability to turn our children into homogenous expressions of the fears and desires of the majority (or a powerful minority) is coupled with the will to do so seems like the ultimate dystopia to me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Shades of X-Men III.
A lot of people noticed at the time that X3 very consciously modeled the reactions of people to mutants on the reactions some people have towards gays and lesbians.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not relevant to the point he's making.
Beg to differ.
You should feel invited to explain.
He explicitly phrased his thought experiment so that the procedure takes place before any sexuality is developed; he even said that you could move this up earlier if he was wrong about when sexuality first develops. The precise period, then, is not relevant to the experiment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuality hinted at in comics? I'm shocked. So many rude/crude comments, so little time. I think I'll skip them.
Lets change it a bit. DWB and Racial Profiling is a big problem in the US. If we could alter the genes to make everyone the same color--say a light maroon, with some purple overtones, should we do that?
It would certainly solve the Race Problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: The majority of people in this country don't believe in arranged marriage because it unfairly keeps the child from marrying whoever they love. This is, in a sense, the same thing... I guess it stems from my belief in "gay/straight/bi" since birth...
I mean, flip the tables. Would it be just as okay if a serum was developed that let people make their children gay? This assumes, as yours does, that not everyone will use this.
Ah, but with arranged marriage you might keep someone from marrying who they love. In both cases, if the couple screened for only heterosexual babies or if they used a serum, the child would never *have* fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. Thus, no unfair keeping...
As for birth, then thats my point I was trying to make with CT. The upper bound is irrelevant. The lower bound is important. In a strange parallel to the abortion debate...at what point does a fetus become a person? At what point does a fetus become sexual in the sense of gay/straight/etc. as opposed to simple male/female in the XY sense?
If you believe in abortion, then you usually justify it by an arbitrary dividing line between non-person and person. Then it is clear that it would be hypocritical to stop someone from manipulating the child before this point, when a simple recourse would be for them just to abort. Afterall, they could simply abort repeatedly till they got the same result which in some sense would be a greater evil, no?
Then what separates the person, non-person line from the non-sexual to the sexual line for the purposes of the serum?
Flip the tables: Ok, why would it be morally different this way?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: One of the elements of the story is that someone has discovered a method of screening natal hormones, so that people, if they want, can guarantee that their children are heterosexual. The ethical question raised in the story is: If everyone does this and there are no more gay people born, is it genocide?
This is an interesting implied point of my line of reasoning. In a very real way, we are already doing the same to many clearly defined diseases. Tay Sachs comes to mind as one good example. The (A?) Jewish community has a very well organized program to effectively minimize the number of children born with the condition.
Wait...but homosexuality is not a disease! However, one poster did already bring to mind a borderline case, dwarfism. Can be considered a disease, can be considered a culture... However, if a parent wanted to spare a child a lifetime of being short, who are we to deny them that chance? "You must have that dwarf to ensure the survival of the dwarf community" we would say. Justifiably they would say, "mind your own business."
I'm not saying all parents would be like this, but some would...and hence our puzzle. Would or would it not be ok for a parent to spare their child from Tay Sachs, dwarfism, or homosexuality? We have a continuum...where do we draw the line?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not relevant to the point he's making.
Beg to differ.
You should feel invited to explain.
He explicitly phrased his thought experiment so that the procedure takes place before any sexuality is developed; he even said that you could move this up earlier if he was wrong about when sexuality first develops. The precise period, then, is not relevant to the experiment.
[edited for flagrant rudeness]
I do find it relevant as a general reflection of style and attentiveness, both to detail and to context. We certainly may agree to disagree on this point.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As for birth, then thats my point I was trying to make with CT.
Well, that isn't what you said, at least not the part I was responding to. If you meant to say something else at that point, then that is a different matter.
quote: The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
You imply/state that if one is not preferred to the other, then changing one to the other is not a problem. Because (I suppose), if these are valued equally, then it is an even trade.
Note that if the characteristic isn't in existence yet, then there is nothing to be "changed."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zot, I have some pretty serious problems with almost all of your big posts, a number of which haven't been addressed by others. Are you interested in dialogue on it, or do you have your hands full with everyone who's already replying to you? No problem either way. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Faith healers invoke the argument that messing with nature is wrong, how is it right to argue you must not modify a person's DNA but you MUST cure diseases if possible? I mean the law can demand a parent bring their child to the hospital for treatment regardless of religious conviction, as treating the child prevents suffering, and the child does not necessarily share the same religion as the parents.
I don't know there is just too much messiness to the whole "when is gene manipulation OK?" question.
It's right to argue that because one radically affects the person's life before they even have the ability to make choices for themselves; the other eradicates viruses and diseases the can hurt, disfigure, or kill people.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ah, but with arranged marriage you might keep someone from marrying who they love. In both cases, if the couple screened for only heterosexual babies or if they used a serum, the child would never *have* fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. Thus, no unfair keeping...
Actually, it's the same by just what you said. With an arranged marriage you "might keep someone from marrying who they love." If the person is made to be straight, you could very well be keeping them from someone they fall in love with but can't feel sexually attracted to.
quote:Afterall, they could simply abort repeatedly till they got the same result which in some sense would be a greater evil, no?
Of course; I never said I agree with abortion, did I? However, just because one is worse doesn't mean the other is right. Humans have the uncanny ability to believe they're Gods and can tamper with everyone else's lives, rights, and wellbeing.
I just feel no good can come from the idea of eradicating gay people through genetic control. Nor do I feel the reverse is any better.
And yes, while straight people and gay people are the same, that doesn't mean it's ok to swap out gay people for straight people any more than you can do that for two different skin colors or religions, or what have you. After all, say, Mormons and Baptists both basically believe in Christ. Why not make all Mormons into Baptists, then? Because you're exerting control over someone and controlling their future.
Just because A=B doesn't mean we should actively make A into B.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
I like who I am. I would not want to be anyone else.
Saying I'm equal to you in value does not mean I am just like you. I am not interchangeable with you.
When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
Without commenting on whether this is a good thing, it may be worth pointing out that such an operation is entirely legal in most Western countries.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the long response time, guys; had a bit of that "life" thing to attend to.
Bok~ Thanks for the understanding, guy, I appreciate it. I'll think on it a bit and see if I can't explicate the reasons I see for legal differentiation further than I've tried to.
Karl and Tom: I think you guys are vastly overworking what I meant by "different qualities". I was responding to Tom's utterly false assertion that I see homosexuals as being a "separate" kind of person. The "different qualities" I was talking about are exactly those obvious things like "being attracted to members of the same sex", "having homosexual relationships", etc etc. These are qualities that are different from heterosexuals, just as heterosexual attraction is different and separate in kind from homosexual attraction, just as everyone has hundreds upon hundreds of differences that make us all individual. I meant merely someone separate and distinct from someone else (as we all are), and didn't mean to draw any parallels to the "Other" I mentioned earlier to denote someone as an unknowable, fearful alien, which I believe is part of the cause of much violence against homosexuals and other minorities. I'm sorry for the inclarity; I had no idea the words would be offensive (in fact I'm deliberately trying hard to be as inoffensive as I can be, and it's immensely discouraging that from your reactions it's just not seeming to work and I'm merely digging myself into deeper and deeper holes), and I would not have used them if I'd known. It was not meant to be a big deal. Cool if you don't believe that there is a difference, but I just spent pages trying to explain why, in my view, there is.
I most vehemently was not, however, trying to imply that you could classify or identify homosexuals by anything other than their self-professed attraction to the same gender, just as you can't classify or identify heterosexuals by anything more common than their own professed attraction to a different gender. It was an attempt at precision. Goodness, guys, I'm not saying "Man, have you seen how that guy eats his hotdogs? He's gay fer sure, you know how they is!"
So yes, Tom, I'm saying that we should not recognize homosexual partnering as being exactly the same as heterosexual partnering, in much the same way we don't recognise the relationship between a father and daughter as being exactly the same as a mother and son, or a co-worker and associate, or a hospital worker and a patient, or teacher and a principal, or any of the hundreds upon hundreds of kinds of relationships and groups of people and communities there are, no matter how similar in love and intimacy and loyalty they might be. It's an attempt at precision, not whatever you're trying to get me to admit to by asking leading questions.
Yes, I see a difference between the relationships, and I don't think one is "valuable" to society in general in the same way as the other. This does not imply that the people within such relationships are somehow inherently inferior to others and contribute nothing good to society. Clearly everyone contributes both negatives and positives, but I'm extremely leery of thinking that there's some sort of empirical scale we can "measure" people's worths by. I don't believe that recognition of differences is inherently unthinkable; I don't think the relationship between cousins is as inherently important to society as the relationship between parent and child, either. And etc. Homosexual relationships are much more complicated, of course, because they involve such very similar things as heterosexual relationships in terms of love and attraction and intimacy, etc, which is why I'm doing my best to treat such relationships with respect while still pointing out the differences as I see them. I'm not sure what else I can do, though, if the mere act of disagreement is enough to bring offense.
Twink~ I, uh, kinda do have my hands full with everyone else's responses to me, heh, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts; they tend to be well-considered, in my experience. I will have to be bowing out of the conversation shortly (got some traveling to the grandparents' house to do, as well as some new years eve parties to crash, heh) but if nothing else, adding another viewpoint into the mix can only help to clarify things further and add more value to the conversation. Do it for the lurkers, if no one else! (Though I do wish we'd call them "disagreements" rather than "problems" *grin*)
And finally, Dagonee: I haven't had a chance yet to truly consider your excellent summation of benefits really in-depth, and I'm running out of reply-time, but I'll do my best. For the quick run-down, I'll go ahead and tentatively suggest that numbers 1, 2, 3, and aspects of 5 should be available to homosexuals, as well as a few other kinds of relationships. This would probably require some immense changes in the system, but I think it might be beneficial in the long run, and not only for homosexuals.
I think my main sticking point is number 4, in that I think there's a core usefulness to society in keeping the reproductively viable couple in a specially-reserved status. There must be a middleground between recognizing that special status and having an intrusive dystopian sci-fi government regulating reproduction absolutely. Thing is, there are problems with all the hazy plans I've thought up, and everything I've seen others come up with too. If I'm remembering correctly, you're in favor of civil unions? What are the specifics to that, in your view?
Hoo. That's all I got for now, guys. Sorry I couldn't respond more thoroughly; I just don't have time to get into Mucus, CT, et al's interesting conversation, for instance. (And, uh, sorry if this post is nigh incomprehensible; typing kinda late at night) But again, I'm hoping that smarter folk than I will stick their heads in the conversation at some point; maybe we can get somewhere good.
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: It's right to argue that because one radically affects the person's life before they even have the ability to make choices for themselves; the other eradicates viruses and diseases the can hurt, disfigure, or kill people.
Glib, but too simple. Take the example of dwarfism. It disfigures people, but as another poster noted, they may make exactly the same argument about how they would choose to be a dwarf. I have even (surprisingly) seen people with Down's Syndrome portrayed this way. So is it ok in these instances?
quote:Actually, it's the same by just what you said. With an arranged marriage you "might keep someone from marrying who they love." If the person is made to be straight, you could very well be keeping them from someone they fall in love with but can't feel sexually attracted to.
If they are really straight (and for the purposes of the whole thought experiment, we are assuming that sexuality is genetically determined) they would never fall in love with someone of the same gender, let alone be sexually attracted.
quote: Of course; I never said I agree with abortion, did I? However, just because one is worse doesn't mean the other is right. Humans have the uncanny ability to believe they're Gods and can tamper with everyone else's lives, rights, and wellbeing.
I just feel no good can come from the idea of eradicating gay people through genetic control. Nor do I feel the reverse is any better.
And yes, while straight people and gay people are the same, that doesn't mean it's ok to swap out gay people for straight people any more than you can do that for two different skin colors or religions, or what have you. After all, say, Mormons and Baptists both basically believe in Christ. Why not make all Mormons into Baptists, then? Because you're exerting control over someone and controlling their future.
Just because A=B doesn't mean we should actively make A into B.
Ah, but the key is we are already postulating a future where homosexuality has been determined to be genetic. This has certain consequences:
A) Some couples that really want a straight child, have two choices, abortion or the serum. Neither may be right in your view, thats fine....but they will choose one, which would you pick?
B) Not all couples will choose this. In fact, it would seem a number of heterosexual posters in this thread would not, as a direct counterexample. Thus any talk about eradication is irrelevant.
C) As for religion, people always (>90% probably) attempt choose the religion of their children.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
I like who I am. I would not want to be anyone else.
Saying I'm equal to you in value does not mean I am just like you. I am not interchangeable with you.
When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
First, thats a strange view. We are postulating the existence of a serum that works by changing your DNA. This process is exactly the same as what many retroviruses use. For example, HIV. So are you saying that if you got hit by HIV tomorrow (a gloomy prospect, and not one I would wish on anyone, but just as an example), you'd be in effect aborted and restarted as an individual?
Second, who is to say the individual resulting from the change would not like being themselves? Thus whether you like yourself is irrelevant.
Third, there may very well be a surge in abortion. Many right-wing pundits said that when abortion was legalized too, which leads us into an interesting demographic paradox/irony.
The basic premise of pro-choice arguments is that the mother has a choice as to what to do with her body, at least until the fetus becomes a person. Thus, until the fetus becomes a person the mother has every right to apply the serum, after all the fetus is a non-person. Anyone who tells her otherwise, is just oppressing the mother. "Her body, her choice"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The basic premise of pro-choice arguments is that the mother has a choice as to what to do with her body, at least until the fetus becomes a person. Thus, until the fetus becomes a person the mother has every right to apply the serum, after all the fetus is a non-person. Anyone who tells her otherwise, is just oppressing the mother. "Her body, her choice"
Heh. That's good.
Of course, it doesn't work across the board. There are positions that aren't identical with either the pro-life-screw-the-mother side or the pro-choice-abortion-as-birth-control side. Where the fetus isn't the same as a person, but is potential life, and as such not to be trifled with except when the mother's life is in danger. A position like that wouldn't fit your example, I don't think.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
Zotto! Maybe you should rest up a bit before posting. First you get extremely defensive about misperceptions of your intent (which have been voiced calmly and rationally for the most part), then you turn around and talk like we're being reactionary and asking "leading questions". How about some of the benefit of the doubt you claim for yourself? I'll be the first to admit that this subject is close to home for me, but I recognize that and try very hard not to let my emotions impede rational debate. I also have years of practice doing just that at Hatrack, and I think I've gotten pretty good at it for the most part. If you're being misunderstood, perhaps there's some ambiguity in your writing.
As for the "differences" between homosexuals and heterosexuals, you spent a lot of words in several posts emphasizing these differences (note the plural[/i] but in the post above basically backtrack that to just one core difference (i.e. who they are attracted to - and it's implied lack of reproductive value). No one is arguing that there's no difference between apples and oranges. We're arguing that the differences don't keep them from both being fruit nor make either unworthy of being in the same bowl.
Your arguement seems to hinge on the idea that gay relationships don't produce offspring and therefore don't merit the same encouragement as straight ones. If this isn't a good summation of your arguement, please clarify why before responding to my next point.
The family is the basic unit of our society. Whatever benefits of marriage effectively encourage strong families and even strong families with children should necessarily be extended to gay couples because [i]gay couples already exist as families with children in the practical (de facto) sense and only now lack the legal status. Can you give any reason why these families are not worthy of the same benefits and protections of "marriage" simply because their make-up is not the result of pure biology?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
It's not a strange point of view. My personality would be vastly different if I had been straight. I would be a different person. Also, monogomously married people rarely get AIDS so I'm pretty sure I'm safe from that horror. And I'm a woman and dykes don't get it either.
Lisa: That sounds like a movie that would depress me whatever the outcome. I really don't like the idea that whether or not we should exist is a good debate topic.
Actually, I think I'm going to try to stay out of this thread for the rest of my vacation. I doubt I'm going to be able to pull it off, but I don't get much time off from work and I really don't want to spend it depressed.
It's really not like this debate will solve anything. At the end of the day, we're still going to be second class citizens. At least till you guys abort us all.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you give any reason why these families are not worthy of the same benefits and protections of "marriage" simply because their make-up is not the result of pure biology?
To the extent I am comfortable with government incentives for modifying personal behavior (an idea I am shaky about in general), I'm not positive that government programs designed to give incentives for people to form the core family unit are a bad idea in the abstract.* In the specific, though, there's no moral way to do so. I break it down this way:
1) Any benefits given that are designed to help the children of married couples should be available to children of non-married couples. The use of these benefits as an incentive is immoral because the harm falls on someone other than the person whose behavior is sought to be changed. Categories 2, 3, and 4 from my post at the top of page 16 fall into this line of reasoning.
2) The default relationship benefits are ineffective as an incentive, because the benefit they provide is ease of implementing choice of a person to represent your interests. The choice would be the incentive, so removing the choice destroys the incentive. Further, there is benefit to the legal system itself in having more people come under the very well-established and more-predictable rules of family law in these situations.
3.) The final category (privilege, etc.) also fails as incentive, I think. I doubt most people understand these benefits until they're needed.
*That's very hedged, I know. I don't mean it to be weasily, but rather to express the fact that I have not formed a coherent opinion on the larger question. However, I have formed a coherent opinion that would be the same whichever way I eventually decide on the incentive issue.
quote:If I'm remembering correctly, you're in favor of civil unions? What are the specifics to that, in your view?
1) The legal entity called "marriage" will be renamed "civil union" - for all existing and future marriages. 2) The gender requirement will be removed. Consanguinity, age, consent, and other restrictions remain. 3) All existing non-gender specific legal doctrines of marriage will apply to civil unions. Gender specific doctrines (of which I know of only one still in use) will be adjusted as needed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The man legally recognized as the father of a child, irrespective of whether he is the biological father or not. When a couple is married, and the wife bears a child, the law generally presumes her husband is the biological father of the child, even though he may not be. (See birthfather for more information on the 1989 challenge to this status, which the U.S. Supreme Court denied.)
In a few states, this presumption cannot be challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such laws (Michael H. v. Gerald D., 57 U.S.L.W. 4691, June 13, 1989). In many states, however, the presumption of paternity can be legally challenged with strong evidence, such as genetic testing. If there is no challenge to the legal father's status, then it stands.
Also, in about half the states, the husband is specifically described as the legal father in the case of artificial insemination.
I think it's handled very easily in same sex situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Glib, but too simple. Take the example of dwarfism. It disfigures people, but as another poster noted, they may make exactly the same argument about how they would choose to be a dwarf. I have even (surprisingly) seen people with Down's Syndrome portrayed this way. So is it ok in these instances?
I don't see anything wrong with dwarfism except that it I've heard it can cause a lot of health problems for people with that disorder. Otherwise, I don't see it as wrong, just different. The only bad thing about it, besides the health issues which I admit to knowing not enough about to form a truly accurate opinion, is the social stigma. But like all things, people are bad at accepting anything out of the ordinary.
quote:If they are really straight (and for the purposes of the whole thought experiment, we are assuming that sexuality is genetically determined) they would never fall in love with someone of the same gender, let alone be sexually attracted.
That's just not true and exceedingly presumptuous, if not arrogant. You can fall in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them. Case in point: I know a couple where one's a prude lesbian women and the other's a very sexual bisexual man. They love each other a lot, and are going on at least two or three years now. How can you explain their love? Because according to you, she doesn't love him.
Love is so incredibly complex that trying to say that it's dependent on sexual orientation is overgeneralizing far too much.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I just listened to Vienna Teng's new song City Hall in the car on the way to my in-laws' house. It's about this topic, and in the midst of all the controversy, it's cool to hear a song that goes directly to the emotion of the issue.
Check it out, whichever side you're on. It's pretty cool.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, I see a difference between the relationships, and I don't think one is "valuable" to society in general in the same way as the other.
But, see, that's what I don't quite understand. How are you able to say that these two forms of relationship are sufficiently different as to require legal differentiation without implying that gays are "the Other?" Otherwise you're saying that marriage really is all about reproduction, which you've already said you don't believe.
If you believe there's something intrinsically different between two gay men in a committed relationship and two sterile heterosexuals in a committed relationship, to the point that the former is undeserving of formal societal recognition of their relationship, how can you not be "Othering" the homosexual couple?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You've listed your reasons who you think it's important to give the benefits of marriage exclusively to heterosexuals, and that's fine. . . everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't find your reasons compelling, but I'm not interested in addressing that. I'm only interested in your statement that it would be unfair to heterosexual couples to expand marriage rights to homosexual couples, and your reasons why it's "necessary" don't address/apply to why it's "fair." Basically, what you seem to be saying to me is "it's unfair because we've agreed it's unfair."
