posted
I am all for female/female sex, I could watch it all night, but not female female marriage.
The point is the increased risk might be the root of the taboo, like eating pork and circumcision.
As to the minimal dollar amount, I say so what... it is a principle, any expenditure is subject to scrutiny, and fair game. It is the burden of thems that is asking to prove the need.
I think it was brilliant to use this issue to stop Kerry. I think it is proper to keep the traditional order of things because there is no compelling social gain to made by making the change.
I can make a better case for group marriage in even pairs then I ever could for gay marriage, and that is a thing even gays shout down!
posted
Dude. I cannot understand what you are talking about. You are not giving me one compelling, real reason why gay marriage or civil unions shouldn't be allowed..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:all attempts at socialized medicine "to manage cost" increase cost
Well, no. Do you have cites to demonstrate this with regards to, say, the Canadian system?
Because they spend less per capita to subsidize health care for their entire group of citizens than the US does per capita to subsidize just about 1/4 its population (via the VA system, Medicare, Medicaid, local public health districts, SCHIP, etc.). This is per direct comparison of the 1999 US and Canadian budgets -- available online -- and weighted for the population figures current at that time.
Of course, by WHO data, Canada also has lower morbidity and mortality rates for just about all major diseases than the US does. And lower infant mortality. And longer life expectancy. Again, all per WHO.
And of course, Canadians as a whole express greater satisfaction with their healthcare system than US citizens do (individual anecdotes to either side be what they may). So do Australians, New Zealanders, the Brits. This per that large international survey through the Harvard School of Public Health and the Commonwealth Fund, a few years back.
(Wait, I've said this sometime before here, right? )
(((demosthenes)))
[ November 04, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gayness isn't a social problem but a human issue affecting human beings who need to be treated with respect and compassion.
In the sense that all human beings need to be treated with compassion or are you advocating a special level of compassion because they are "afflicted" with gayness?
I make no judgement on gayness, we are talking about marriage, a social contract, therefore a social issue. Be gay, who cares anymore, but do not alter marriage without a damn good reason. It works pretty well and has for a long time.
quote:The point is the increased risk might be the root of the taboo, like eating pork and circumcision.
But of course, now that we can control for trichinosis, we no longer have sufficient medical reasons to refrain from eating pork. (Religious and cultural reasons are another matter.)
And of course, we now understand that the (very slight) increased risks for medical problems from an uncircumcized foreskin are matters of hygiene and exposure to sexually transmitted infection, both of which can be controlled for. This is of course why the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer holds that there is sufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. As in Great Britain and Canada, where non-circumcision is the default for babies, this is rapidly falling out of standard-of-care practice for newborns in the US.
To summarize: avoiding the eating of pork and circumcising babies may well be rooted in medical issues in the past, but current practice of this is grounded pretty much purely in cultural and religious tradition.
BC, I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of inquiry for your case.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying and trying to respond to the I'll-watch-it-but-don't-let-them-marry line and I just cannot formulate my words in a way that would be considered acceptable.
I'll just leave the general refutation up to Sara who is doing a wonderful job. (Among others).
P.S - Our "socialised" health system in Australia, as Sara said, both works well and costs the government less (comparatively) then before it was introduced.
posted
In an industrial society there is no significant difference in the productivity, education, or function of a female and male, therefore no reason to deny franchise to females.
Canada has one thing that we would not have, US. More to the point what are the systems you pointed to but our own socialist systems?
Even if we assume that the care is identical, the extra layers of management and control will have a net increase in all costs. These controls would only grow through the inevitable process of beuracratic budget fudging.
Back to the gays and our compassion, well they can have to cool clothes, great bodies, and wonderful decorating sense. We will keep the sacrement of marraige, and the social contract.
As I said let them form legal partnerships or some other liability sharing structure already allowed. I reserve my compassion for those in need, not those in want, or those who feel entitled.
posted
All humans deserve to be treated with compassion, especially holding their situation in their mind. I fail to see how gay marriage is that different from straight marriage though... I really do not see it other than it being 2 men or 2 women, what's the difference? No one is talking about dismantling straight marriages or something like that... Perhaps it is only fear of change, or viewing change like being hurled out of a plane with no parachute.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Aussies, never met people more energized, or more able to drink all night then get up and bike all day, however the whole world would suffer if the practice of medicine in America is socialized.
Let us try to work the cost of insurance angle first by limiting legal fees and lawsuit incentives shall we before we quadruple the the size of our government and give it access to our most intimate details.
I once heard a pundant say "If we pass this health care system into law they will be hunting democrates in the streets with dogs in four years." I loved the quote, not that it is rational, just that it is nice to contemplate.
Think of the Republicans as protecting you from the bad things you might get up to without us watching over you.
posted
BC, I'd give it up. You've pretty convincingly lost this one.
Not only have you attempted to pass off a flawed Kantian derivation, you fell back on a flawed accusation of logical fallacy. You've said that you only respect the social sciences where numbers are involved, but have attempted to change the subject every time you're pressed for actual numbers on a claim you've made involving the inefficiency of federal intervention -- probably for good reason, as the numbers in the three specific instances you've cited do not in fact support your claims, as I'm sure you'd discover if you Googled a bit.
You actually came out and said that you found girl-on-girl action "hot," but girl-to-girl marriage deplorable. You said that a compelling reason to change society had to be demonstrated before you'd recognize any good from that change, and yet -- when confronted with the reality of women's suffrage -- attempted to say that, instead, it was only necessary to demonstrate that no harm result from the change.
In other words, you have been soundly and completely dismantled on every point, and have started to crumble into incoherence. If you do not want to concede the argument, I recommend that you take some time on your next post to recover from and reply to the frankly devastating challenges to your previous ones.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I really do not want or need the protection of the Republican party. I see them as smothering in a way and killing progress. Who needs that? Especially those that are caught on the wrong side of certain issues. Dang, I hate that smiley
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this isn't working, Bean Counter. You may have been joking, but you caught me on the wrong day. I refer of course, to this comment.
"I am all for female/female sex, I could watch it all night, but not female female marriage."
That was a flippant, chauvanistic, and disgusting response. What you are saying here is that you support lesbian sex, as long as the two people are performing for you, debasing themselves, and serving as tittilation for the straight guy, but once they begin including things like emotional attatchment and lifetime commitment, well that just can't be stood.
You want a reason to change the system? Let me present a system to you. This is the time honored system that you and Edmund burke would just love. Here's how it works. You can now get married only to a person of the opposite gender.... of your parents' choosing. Furthermore, the wife must submit entirely to every whim of the husband. THAT's the millenia old tradition of marriage. However, in this country, for better or for worse, we believe in individual rights. The Declaration of independence speaks of three inalienable rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. And you know what? That means you get to pick your own spouse. I don't know when exactly that became the norm historically (certainly before the Declaration), but it resulted in the decline of the traditional family. If I marry for love, I have completely eliminated the economic portion of the equation that so often motivated the arranged marriage (with exceptions, naturally). I have taken away the guarantee of a secure future. There wasn't really any reason for a change. Furthermore, it's quite possible the change had a whole lot of unexpected negative side effects. But you know what? I don't care. I'm glad we are the way we are. I want to choose my spouse, even though some studies show arranged marriages are, as a whole, happier.
Then, later on, came the women's liberation movement. This fundamentally changed marriage. Suddenly, rather than a union of a subordinate, and a master, marriage became a matter of equals soming together. Suddenly they started doing all sorts of nasty things like demanding the vote and taking husbands to court for abuse (though that isn't nearly where it should be even today). This was a major change. Suffrage, and a lot of other movements together brought a new independence to the female half of a marriage. You know what. There really wasn't any hard and fast reason that they should be seen as equals. The status quo was working fine. Generally, society didn't need the upset that this caused. Furthermore, it probably had unforseen negative consequences. It probably was at least one factor in the rising divorce rate, which is arguably the most dangerous societal trend in existence. You know what, though. I don't want to go back to when women were openly subjugated and denied equal rights. I doubt you do, though I can't speak for you.
I believe gays should have civil unions. However, I believe straight people should have them to. So many people are against gay marriage because of the simple semantic connotations that it's best to split the two distinct traditions that currently shar the word. You want a marriage, go to a church. The church won't marry you if you are gay, too bad. You want to file your taxes jointly. You want to be able to act as a legally joined entity. Get a civil union. If you are gay, you can have one, too. What is my pressing societal reason for this? Here's the secret. It has nothing to do with numbers, or philosophy, or medical science. It's the same reason we changed the fundamental definition of marriage to mean a partnership agreed upon by the partners. The same reason we changed it to mean that it was a mutually agreed upon union of equals. You ready for it?
Because of te untold multitudes of people who want to take their lives in that direction, but are facing opposition at every turn. Because of the couples who love each other, but are shunned because of it. Because of the children that gay couple will adopt and save from the foster care system.
In short, gay people should be able to be legally joined because they love each other, and they want to. You don't think they should get married? Fine. They don't want to marry YOU anyway.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canada has one thing that we would not have, US. More to the point what are the systems you pointed to but our own socialist systems?
I think they are other countries' systems. The stats on the percentage of Canadians who are receiving care in the US are vanishingly small.
Unless you have data otherwise?
quote:Even if we assume that the care is identical, the extra layers of management and control will have a net increase in all costs. These controls would only grow through the inevitable process of beuracratic budget fudging.
The care isn't identical in Canada. It is better, by all the ways one would rank a health care system. Note the World Health Organization data.
And BC, they still spend less per capita in subsidization than we do. They have had a national system since the sixties.
See also imogen's comment about the decrease in Aussie spending after nationalization of the healthcare.
quote:Think of the Republicans as protecting you from the bad things you might get up to without us watching over you.
Like lower infant mortality, greater life expectancy, and less morbidity from disease. Uh, no, that's okay -- stay seated. Please.
I don't think I can help you, BC. But welcome to Hatrack regardless. I'm off to bed.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here you tread on an area you might call arcane, but oh well, I will explain it as I can.
Ideas that hold our attention have value. That value is from the attention that is put into the idea/concept/construct.
A vast amount of attention has been and is lavishied on the concept of marriage, as an institution and sacrement and tradition.
Now I tell you that my value system is based on cost benefit of attention, my secret out... and the fact is that the altering of a concept so invested in attention is no minor thing as you would have it.
Money itself is nothing more then a construct/abstract/idea with a lavish amount of attention associated with it, yet peope live and die for it.
I once wrote in a paper "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" I then read it years later never knowing if it came from me or if I inadvertantly stole it, however your claim that the difference makes no difference is deeply flawed. What matters to people is what holds their attention. Tread lightly on the persian rug.
posted
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: attempted to say that, instead, it was only necessary to demonstrate that no harm result from the change.
Not no harm, I am not sure if that can be measured though they say more women voted Kerry. Just no difference.
quote: What you are saying here is that you support lesbian sex, as long as the two people are performing for you, debasing themselves, and serving as tittilation for the straight guy, but once they begin including things like emotional attatchment and lifetime commitment, well that just can't be stood.
They do not have to be performing for me, though it is appreciated, and they are welcome to all the other stuff to, just not marriage.
Numbers take time to look up, and I am sure I will do some number checking after this for my own sake, but I have a terrible head for specific statistics, so I avoid them without research notes.
It is a case of fending thick and fast. You people are entirely to soft, to sentimental and too agreeable with one another to be an effective forum for ideas, I pushed you. You need it.
As for fixing me, thanks, but I am not broken, remember this idea lost in 11 out of 11 states. Reguardless of motives, you are all out of step not me!
quote:Why is it all the experts on Maneuver, Strategy and Tactics lean Republican?
That's the question of questions. I have a few ideas, and none of them are flattering.
______________
Dana and Vana, you have to understand that nobody is mad at you. You are not to blame for the more embarassing Christian Republicans. You are good people who do great work day after day.
The civil rights struggle for gay Americans is going to take a while, but more than time, it's going to take an impressive amount of clear-sighted thought.
quote:It is a case of fending thick and fast. You people are entirely to soft, to sentimental and too agreeable with one another to be an effective forum for ideas, I pushed you. You need it
We had ... facts? Numbers? Links? Data?
You had ... ?
BC, you pushed us to go over ideas and points that have already been hashed over for years here. That wasn't for our benefit. Really, it wasn't.
But no worries. I am charmed by your politeness and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. G'night, and sleep well. We all need it.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?
By changing the definition, think of the old definition as a thing outside of space and time connected by, and made of threads of current and past attention, then imagine cutting it loose and replacing it.
posted
Hm. You know, I can't help wondering whether Bean Counter is Ken Bean, who was banned from Ornery recently for threatening another user's life. You aren't Ken, are you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I will take that, clutch it to my wizened cheek, and cherish it. Men like you are few and far between. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?
By changing the definition, think of the old definition as a thing outside of space and time connected by, and made of threads of current and past attention, then imagine cutting it loose and replacing it.
Wow. Folks with ADHD must not have things matter to them very much
Actually just the opposite, they are unable to make constant value judgements that keep everything from being equal, therefor they end up scattered. In other words everything matters too much.
posted
This thread got kind of ugly so I won't get into it. I just wanted to say that I whole-heartedly agree with Vána's original post and couldn't have said it better myself.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Okay, just for a moment, I will accept your image. However, if that is the case, then the "cutting loose" of marriage is, in fact, not a cutting loose at all. Because each of those little threads of attention that you describe are generated by one couple's attention to their own individual marriage. Instead of cutting loose the definition, adding gay marriage to the equation would only expand....
You know what. This isn't worth it.
Bean Counter. I really hope that someday, you meet some gay people. This societal nexus you describe is a lot more personal than you are willing to concede.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just an aside, and something I've learned personally over the years... "Big words" are only more accurate if you and the person/people you're talking to accurately know what the word means.
Therefore, you shouldn't use words unless you know what they mean. And/or how to spell them.
quote: Bean Counter. I really hope that someday, you meet some gay people. This societal nexus you describe is a lot more personal than you are willing to concede.
They are all personal and they are all the means by which we hold society together. Shared constructs, values, it is both vast and intimate. I know several gays, they all seem more interested in play then marriage. I am not saying this is universal only that knowing gays gives no certain insight into some marriageless plight they suffer in.
If your definition of marriage varies from societies then you are not conected to the same construct, you are less shared, or you have less association with the thing you have tried to claim.
Gays will never partake in the construct of marriage any more then women will experience the fellowship associated with a mens only club, by intruding, they shift the construct shared to another, the one they were seeking to experience is gone by their very pressence. "CS Lewis para-phrase there"
posted
I know the meaning and I recognize when they are spelled correctly, but my spell checker has been fixing them for decades so what is to be gained by obsession, my attention is the coin of the universe, let it be spent where it is needed.
posted
I almost posted a thread engaging you on your terms. Then I got deja vu and decided to go to bed. Good night Bean Counter.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that I will offend some people with this...but I can't do worse than that Bean Counter fellow.
The details of my religion come to me out of a book. They are not debated by any human council or imposed by any person, and it does not make sense to me to accept what the book says only when I like it--since there are inevitably going to be many perfectly moral things that I do not like, and many immoral things that I enjoy on various levels. There is literally no one on Earth I can appeal to to change the demands my religion makes on me.
Or I can give up my faith entirely--just toss it out the window. But as a whole it makes good sense to me, both logically and morally, and to abandon it because I do not like a handful of bits and pieces seems absurd. And much of what is good in me comes from it.
What, then? So far my only answer is that if my religion only repeats ideas that I already agree with--if I pick and choose so that everything fits me exactly--what good is it? Isn't the intent of religion to inspire me to change and grow? And by definition am I not going to dislike the demands it makes on me until I grow into them?
I don't like what my religion asks of me toward homosexuals. But it does not ask me to injure anyone or even to speak ill of anyone beyond objecting to one specific activity, however cherished that activity may be to some people. And I myself am also asked to abstain from my analogous activity until an event that is hardly guaranteed, and indeed seems fairly unlikely for me personally. I find it hard to believe that I am doing some terrible harm.
So Vana, is my faith broken? Or am I? What can I possibly do to gain favor with you?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I tell you that my value system is based on cost benefit of attention, my secret out... and the fact is that the altering of a concept so invested in attention is no minor thing as you would have it.
If you were going solely by cost-benefit analysis, you would not oppose civil gay marriage. Allowing a very small percentage of people access to a very well-defined, fairly efficient system of marital laws is almost certainly more efficient than requiring separate execution and litigation of the possibly dozens of instruments needed to acquire a fraction of the capability of a $50 marriage certificate.
The costs of litigation are borne by society in many ways, as are the costs of inefficient allocation of resources necessitated by inefficient legal systems.
posted
The problem is when certain ideas are taken out of context. There are things that were acceptable in biblical days that are no longer acceptable now like concubinage and the like. Ideas are always shifting and changing. Even our constitution is designed to shift instead of being a solid force all the time. The problem is that in order for some peace to exist in the world something will have to break.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus - I am not asking you to change any aspect of your religion. I'm going to assume that said religion is Christianity, here, because that's where I started and you didn't specify otherwise.
Of course, I also said I didn't want to get into the specifically religious argments against homosexual sex, because it's a complex issue (you may think it isn't, but it actually is, if you read closely and are also aware of the cultural and historical contexts of our scriptures) and that's why I say that as Christians we should always always err on the side of mercy - but rather about the roll of the government in this case.
I say that the government should never implament discrimination of any kind. I'm not saying it never has - quite to the contrary, I'm sad that we seem to be repeating a cycle. I thought that as a society (not all of whom are Christian or even hold to any religion, you must remember) we were working towards eliminating discrimination of all kinds. Looks like I was wrong, though, and that's what makes me so sad. That states are asking the government to add discrimination to their constitutions. It's horrifying.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize, Vana...I read your post hastily and did not notice that particular spot, only that you seemed to be bemoaning that aspect of Christianity. I will withdraw.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
I'm off to bed.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
