quote:How would you like to be living with someone you love for 20+ years to find that when they die you are legally homeless because the home was in your partner's name.
[notalawyerdisclaimer] Just to be clear, marriage does not solve this problem automatically. If the spouse's name is not on the deed, the spouse does not automatically get the house. Granted, in most states, that is what will eventually happen. And a surviving spouse has a much better chance of getting the house than a boyfriend/girlfriend/life-partner. But relying on this myth is dangerous to the financial well-being of the surviving spouse. If a couple wants the house to go to the surviving spouse, they need to create a "Joint Tenancy in Common with Right to Survivorship." [/notalawyerdisclaimer]
quote:That when they are in the hospital that you don't have any visitation rights...
This is true, although visitation rights aren't nearly as difficult to get as the power to make medical decisions on behalf of a homosexual life partner. This, in my mind, is one of the most egregious of the situations caused by the current prohibition against civil unions.
I am truly, truly sorry that my words have come across this way.
I guess it's really not my impression that OSC is railing against homosexuals. I thought he was railing against a society that has forgotten what it means to put children first.
In my own personal opinion, we should do away with any "special privileges" given to people who choose marriage. Then we will find out what marriage is or is not. If it is a religious construct, or a social one, or a biological one, or what. Is marriage a legal construct? Should it be?
To OSC, a marriage has a particular definition. And he defends that. But time will bear out whether or not he is correct.
I find it really interesting, too, to see the generational divide - many of the "older" folks who have raised their families fall into OSC's camp, and many of us "younger" ones take a more liberal view. I wonder if it has anything to do with an age perspective.
I don't want people to be hurt by this issue, but it looks like that will happen regardless. I just wish some people would admit that homosexuals do form lasting commited relationships that differ from other marriages only by the gender of the participants, and I wish that some people would recognize that children have and are being hurt by not dealing with the issues of what makes for a strong family - and that this homosexual marriage debate is bringing them out.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I hope that this serves as a lesson to us all. First of all, we don't understand why people are the way they are (or why the universe is as it is). Not fully. But every group has vested interest in asserting its view of (human) nature. This is the crux of the human race: the clash of epistemologies. Perhaps you will now join me in the pessimistic view that humanity is destined to balkanize itself, to never progress in unity, and to one day extinguish itself on the coals of its own (perhaps perniciously innate) inability to understand itself.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm relatively happy-go-lucky, Farmgirl. And I've defended OSC -- on this board, in fact -- from accusations of bigotry before.
But this particular article is considerably more insulting -- on a personal level -- than the other "anti-gay-marriage" statements I've seen from him, and I'm not going to pretend that it's okay to ignore the hostility in his remarks simply because he's a man whose craft and whose mind I otherwise respect.
See, I CARE about the gay friends and family I have. Precisely because I do, I would never dream -- NEVER -- of belittling them the way he belittles his own hypothetical gay friends in this recent essay. I'm not a particularly oversensitive person; I don't believe that I'm picking up on a tone that isn't there, or isn't meant to be there, and don't think I'm reading too much into what he wrote.
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that not everyone reading that essay picked up on the same comments. I actually ACHE for KarlEd, whom I know to be a good, kind-hearted, and loving person -- and a huge fan of Card -- because I can't imagine what it would feel like to me if OSC were to write an essay saying that, now that he's lost weight, he no longer has any respect for fat men and thinks that we should prevent them from pretending to have social lives, that the mere idea of fat men going out and enjoying themselves basically turned his nights on the town into kiddie tea parties, devoid of any real meaning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rat, Dog, Geoff, however best you want to be called, very nicely put.
I wish OSC would have put it so nicely.
I get very nervous around the argument "They can't have real children so they can't be really married."
My wife and I can't have kids. Does that mean I should dump her and find someone to carry on my genes? Does that mean the society I live in should force me too? Does that mean that the society I live in should send me to reeducation camps until I believe that another, more fertile woman is really right for me?
It is true that OSC does not state he does not beleive the love between gay couples is not real.
He doesn't mention love anywhere in the article.
Most anti-gay-marriage arguments don't mention love either.
Love is the central part of my religious beliefs. Not lust. Not Sex. Love. People do not get married for Sex. They do not get married for Lust. They get married for LOVE.
Taking love out of the decision is as unconstructive as taking religion out of it. All you have left is social and civic priorities that cover up the real issues.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I guess it's really not my impression that OSC is railing against homosexuals. I thought he was railing against a society that has forgotten what it means to put children first."
Part of the problem, I think, is that OSC seems to take as givens some basic things -- that homosexuality harms children, or that marriage was ever intended to "put children first" -- which are not generally accepted, and comes to conclusions which cause universal harm to certain individuals based on his disputed assumptions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, one of the biggest problems here is that we CAN'T interbreed and get the problem worked out.
In racial issues, there's always some Romeos who go for a Juliet. In religious groups, there are some who will fall in love outside their group. But with homosexuals and heterosexuals, this won't work at all. So we have to fight to find a "love conquers all" situation.
Is that what makes this issue so thorny?
KarlEd and other homosexual friends are hurting. I hurt for them, too. But I also cannot turn my back on the biological arguments for what "marriage" is. Is "marriage" really just pair-bonding?
I am more and more of the opinion that marriage is not a matter for the country to govern. Perhaps states, or communities?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as we're re-defining marriage lets allow Mormons to marry their wives, lonely farmers to marry their sheep, and onanistic monkeys (Lovelock) to marry their hands...as long as it's a "lasting commited relationship."
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_raven, I think your perspective is invaluable here! What about all the childless couples, by choice and circumstance? Are their marriages lessened because no children are involved? I should think childless couples ought to have the exact status as homosexual couples. Whatever that turns out to be.
I, for one, would not deny insurance, inheritance, or guardianship to a homosexual couple. Nor would I deny aids to childless couples. But I also am willing to forgo any "special" rights I have by being married so that all of society can work out a different way of taking care of the children. If my marital status is an issue, I am willing to sacrifice certain legal privileges. As long as I am still free to live with whom I choose, have intimacy however I choose, and contribute to a household in the way I choose, then I am content.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a problem with having States or Communities decide the definition of marriage.
Suppose to men get married and live a happy productive life. One summer they go on vacation to a different community.
One of them falls and breaks an ankle. They rush to the hospital.
In this community, the two men are NOT seen as married. As such, the life partner of the wounded man is NOT allowed to visit his love in the emergency room--only family are allowed in the emergency room. This fellow knows what medications his partner takes, what allergies he has, his entire health history. However, he is not allowed in because he is not family, not married. They instead, call the wounded man's family, whom he hasn't seen for years, to gather this info.
Further, several weeks later they get a major bill from the hospital. Their insurance refuses to cover any of the expenses, because since they were in this second community, they were not considered married, so the first man's health insurance doesn't cover the second-wounded-man, as it does in their home community.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As long as we're re-defining marriage lets allow Mormons to marry their wives, lonely farmers to marry their sheep, and onanistic monkeys (Lovelock) to marry their hands..."
I don't think it's unreasonable to retain the requirement of consent in marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Why is only family allowed in emergency rooms? I know people whose families are actually harmful, and it would be extremely bad to have their families visit them.
I think I see the problem better with your example.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I'm mostly stepping in to defend my father here because ... well, because he has so few people on his side, for one thing ... and because I'm afraid that he will be raked over the coals less for his own opinions than for the frustrations that have already built up within zealots like Lalo, who are quite willing to crucify him in effigy for all of the true bigots who have made my father's side in this argument look far uglier and meaner than he could ever intend it to.
But despite having grown up in my father's home, and despite seeing the world through many of the same lenses that he does, I am much more moderate on this issue than he is, and I owe that fact entirely to the conversations I've had with you. I've spent most of my life within communities dominated by practicing Mormons, and between that and luck of the draw, I haven't had very many opportunities to have close gay friends. You've made up for that deficit rather well, and I'm grateful to know you.
I still find myself caught between the two extremes of this argument, being fearful of and disgusted by the behavior of gay-haters, while being skittish of the possible implications of the society-wide changes promoted by the pro-gay side. I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that the best solution is a compromise that allows gay couples to have every legal privilege and freedom associated with marriage, while leaving the opposition the word "marriage", itself, to hang their beliefs on ...
But with this post, I just mostly want to let you know that while I'm defending my father from accusations of bigotry, I do not want to see you hurt by this discussion. As Bowles has said, this issue has unprecedented power to tear people apart, and I'd really like that not to happen between us. You've changed me in a very positive way — you've made me more open-minded and understanding, which I consider to be one of the most important virtues that a person can learn in this life, and I'm grateful.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chances are good that one of my sons will not be able to produce offspring without serious medical help, possibly even cloning. Does that mean his marriage will be meaningless? I don't think so, and I don't think OSC would think so either, provided he marries a woman.
I feel like the robot in the scifi story who explodes when given a logical fallacy... I just don't follow.
My head hurts.
Jenny... I'm not sure I could call it beautiful. Actually, it seemed to me to be deliberately inflammatory. Especially in light of the fact that Geoff's explanations of his father's points have generally been much less offensive in tone. Geoff doesn't come off sounding dismissive and superior.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if we can give the trait of "using a dismissive and superior tone to present arguments" protected status similar to what we give the trait of homosexuality Then you'd all be bigots for criticizing my father ...
... of course, then I'd be a bigot for going after Lalo and Frisco ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
<--- What Geoff said. I was drafting something, but he said it much better than I did, so I'll just go with what he wrote. Thanks, Geoff.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't understand, Livvy. OSC comes across as "superior" and "inflammatory" in person, too. He "riffs" on his opinions all the time. And he's still one of the most decent people I've ever met. He has passionate opinions which he defends with every skill he possesses, yet when it comes to individuals, he is gentility itself.
Perhaps having worked with him personally makes me less likely to bridle at the way he expresses himself. I was irritated by his take on "environmentalists" at Boot Camp, but I still didn't take it personally. I think OSC is an admirable man - he will fight and die for his principles, but he will also treat the people he meets with honesty, kindness, and caring regardless of their sexuality, race, or religion.
As a public figure, I think perhaps it is hard for OSC to realize his words come off differently than when he interacts and speaks with people in person. I wonder if he realizes how much these words have hurt people, especially people that I'm sure he would care about.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish that political zealots knew how to compromise. Personally, I think that a total victory for either side of this argument could be a potential disaster. I never want to return to the days of sodomy laws, or open, hateful prejudice against gays, but I also see some merit in the worries that more moderate activists against gay marriage present, and think that a total victory for gay marriage could cost us later in ways that are difficult to see right now. But I'm afraid that neither side in this argument will rest until they have remade the world according to their own imaginings, regardless of the cost. If I could only think of a way to placate everyone ... [racks brain] I freaking hate this ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Face it, people, we're all bigots. I'm okay with that. As long as we can find some teeny piece of common ground, and are willing to work on expanding it to a livable space, I'm happy.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo is also deliberately inflammatory, much moreso , in fact, than OSC.
But marriages where there is no chance of reproduction can still have meaning, and I just don't see what is being "taken" from me by giving KarlEd the legal right to form a union with his partner.
I didn't mean to name-call, and I don't think I did. Jenny mentioned that she found OSC to be sort of egotistical ("as most good writers are" I think), and that's certainly how he comes off sometimes (in print or in person) at least to my own skewwed perceptions.
My last post came up after yours, but I had not seen it because it posted while I was writing.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
His impression on me was that he is an incredibly caring person. He's set in his ways and believes he is Right about a lot of things, but not so much that he'd deliberately try to hurt you for holding a different sense of Rightness about your beliefs. He'll just say "You're wrong, and I'm Right." and leave it at that. And there'd be a twinkle in his eye so you'd know he didn't hate you. He just happens to think you are wrong.
I know very few people who are different, deep down. Belle is very much this way, for instance, and I know her to be one of the gentlest souls that ever lived. She's also hard and stubborn as rock when it comes to her beliefs about what is Right.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was very amusing and entertaining in person, buyt I still had a feeling that he would not be a person I would like very much one-on-one.
But I don't know if that's true and probably never will. Thanks for reminding me I was only an 'alternate' at Boot Camp. Rub it in. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get upset, Olivet, because I see that not allowing KarlEd to marry the person he loves does take something away from me. It takes the wonderful example of a happy, working, marriage out of our lives, and replaces it with an arbitrary rule that says the feelings of others are not as important as our sense of order, our religion, or our need to overproduce children on this planet.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's charismatic, which means his personality comes across strongly. It's one of the things that makes his writing that we love so powerful. Charismatic people can be scary, because they believe in themselves so strongly and aren't afraid to express their opinions.
I have much the same effect on people at times. However, I tend to hold back on lots of issues because I don't feel I have enough information to solidly say This is Right. Lots of grey in my world. And I'm also okay with Paradox, where I can believe in two apparantly opposite concepts at the same time.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, Card is an extremely eloquent writer and speaker. He has studied communication and expression his entire life, and knows exactly how to provoke a reaction with words. You can read Songmaster, or almost any of his works, and see how he admires people who, by the sheer force of their eloquence, can sway nations and bring the powerful to their knees.
I know what I'm talking about. Imagine growing up in a home where praise from your father was given with the strength of a legendary poet — and where disappointment or anger came through with similar power.
I think that most of us, given Card's rhetorical strength, would be precisely as dramatic and heavyhanded with our opinions as he can be at times. Could you own the fastest car in the world and NEVER speed?
Card is fighting against a growing, overwhelming tide of public opinion that in a few short years has begun to flow overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. Untouched, I think it would completely engulf the moderate majority of our country, leaving little chance for backtracking or rethinking our premises. I believe that Card has opened up all the stops in an effort to create an effective resistance to what he sees as a potentially very dangerous shift in our perception of the family.
He isn't overstating his case to be a jerk. He's overstating it to make an impact. In his dealings with individuals, when the future of the nation is not hanging in the balance, he is the most tolerant and loving man you could ever know. I worry that people who dismiss or reject him for his public statements are missing out on one of the truly great individuals this generation has produced.
[ February 24, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd soooo much rather have KarlEd married than a lot of the folks who rush into it irresponsibly and leave hurting people in their wake. And I'd rather have emotionally stable gay couples raising children than those who abuse them.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Dan. You talkee much gooder than Olivet. Olivet glad Hatrack have good talkers. Olivet learn good talking here.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I greatly appreciate your words in this thread and agree with almost all of them. I especially admire that you didn't rip the head off of the people attacking your father. I am assured that OSC knows exactly the power of his words. I like this discussion, but made a resolution to not get too involved.
My comment was a bit of a joke, because I keep getting told that when people meet me. That I'm so much nicer in person. Just looking for a commonality.
posted
Geoff, I understand that he's breaking a few eggs to make omelets. I just feel genuinely sorry for the eggs, and don't particularly like omelets in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have missed most of this discussion, but I wanted to talk about the courts some more. Dan Raven wrote:
quote:What the Mass Supreme Court did was not MAKE NEW LAW. They had people come to them and say, "Hey, there is a loop hole in the constitution that can allow gay folks to get married. Does it say what we think it says?" The court did the one thing it is allowed to do. It looked over the laws and the constitution, and it said, "You are right." That was all they had to do. However, they went further. They added, "We don't think this is what the legislature meant to say. We don't think its what the people of Mass want. We are going to postpone our ruling on this for two months so that the legislature is allowed to correct this. If they don't then we will be forced to read the law as written and allow Gay marriages."
But it was reported in the news that the court had told the legislators to change the law. I don't know why they would do that, but that is what was reported.
Edit: What can we all agree on? That the news media is on the opposite side from ourselves
quote: What Card seems to be asserting is not that homosexual love is fake, but rather that when the love between members of the same gender becomes sexual, rather than platonic or fraternal, then something has gone wrong.
I'm willing to bet that Card and others who share his opinions are not OK with BDSM or cross-dressing or any number of other fetishes, but people who do these kinds of things are allowed to get married, just so long as one of them is a female and one is a male. I don't think that saying that sexual attraction between two males is "wrong" and they therefore should not allowed to be married is a valid argument in light of that. There are heterosexual couples who do things that are just as "wrong" and no one has anything to say about it.
I don't feel like attacking OSC... I just have to say that even though I haven't always agreed with his opinions, I was usually respectful of them because he expressed them in a respectful way. The way this article is written hurts MY feelings, and I'm not even homosexual. I can't imagine how Card's homosexual readers would feel about this.
quote: In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.
Also, I don't necessarily think that not killing people for being homosexual constitutes encouraging homosexuality. Obviously Card's not the one getting verbally abused by classmates and even parents, every single day.
This just makes me deeply sad. I can't understand that such upsetting and (and I'm going to say it, despite the fact that it will get me branded a radical liberal, because I really really believe it) hateful speech could come from someone I respect. I agree that the words have power, I agree that they're well-written and impress an opinion very clearly upon the reader. But I percieve that they were meant to hurt.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My comment was a bit of a joke, because I keep getting told that when people meet me. That I'm so much nicer in person. Just looking for a commonality.
I got your joke, Kat... (noogies)
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps we can agree that any two adult humans can do whatever they like and call it whatever they like as long as it doesn't cause increased taxes or insurance premiums for everybody else.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what Ornery is like these days, but we may do well to keep in mind that this essay was written for over there, not over here.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
:this is something I put on another thread, but I think I'll post it here as well:
Karl, I do know gay people. My uncle has lived with the same partner for nearly 20 years. The female dean of the high school where I teach is engaged to one of the female Language Arts teachers in my department, and I count both of them as friends.
I understand your plight and your concerns. I also understand those of conservatives opposed to gay marriage. And my conclusion is that there is no solution, because someone's belief system is going to be butchered at the end of this, and that will create more hate, and the cycle will go ever on...
[ February 24, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, the SJC told the Legislature to modify current law to be consistent with the existing MA state Constitution. When asked for clarification, they (and this I think is a bit more dubious) said that only civil marriage for gays and straights would suffice; civil unions, if they had all the rights of civil marriage, would simply be a way for the state to stigmatize those who would chose civil unions... Basically, since separate but equal has an unsuccessful track record in this nation (and in MA), a separate civil union would be attempting an already proven wrong path.
I think that, although I support full civil marriage for gays, I think the SJC went a bit too far in that case; however, I can't exactly argue that separate but equal has only failed in this nation as a legal precept.
The original was simply to say that the marriage laws violate the clause I quoted earlier in this thread. They passed no law. They told the legislature (whose job is to pass laws) to bring the state's statutes in line with the MA constitution.
posted
Geoff -- I understand that was what he was going for, which is why I don't consider the hurting of people the worst part of it. That he was has no desire to hurt people I believe. That he is willing to hurt people in the furtherance of his own beliefs I find deplorable, but unfortunately understandable.
The worst part, as I stated above, is that he is willing to trample on facts in the furtherance of his beliefs. Not even regarding the abilities of homosexual people to have meaningful marriage,s, or raise kids well, but on simple things like: what sorts of marriage the longest lasting civilizations have had, and whether or not any constitution in the US gave any court the power to do what the Mass. court did.
edit to add: and if facts are no longer of consequence, one has descended from vociferous advocacy into zealotry.
posted
I wonder whether it would be prudent of me to draw parallels with "separate but equal" sporting events... you don't put a guy in a wheelchair in a marathon with runners, but you still give them a marathon that is more or less the same, with other wheelchair-propelled fellows.
Hrm. Trying to feel out solutions here, and not feeling too confident.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB, I have to say I don't share your pessimism. Take racism in the US as an example. Yes, there are still hateful racists, and they hate far too much, but they're an extreme minority. Most of the racism that remains in the US is not volitional, and is opposed in thought if not successfully in action by those participating in it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Then you'd all be bigots for criticizing my father ...![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Rub it in. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
