posted
That is a good point, Dag. However, I do think it is important that the metaphoric use of the word almost exclusively emphasizes the joining of two separate things, not whether they are separate genders. I think this is illustrative that "joining" and "commitment are the central ideas. Gender is unimportant in the metaphorical sense. Everyone understands "marriage" between religion and politics and no one asks which is the man and which is the woman.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON — The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which interprets religious law for the Conservative movement of Judaism, ruled today to allow both commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples and the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis.
Of course, I suspect Lisa and/or Rivka will enlighten us to the effect that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism (I don't know whether it does or not), but I still think it's a pretty "major victory for gay rights advocates".
quote:A recent poll from Zogby International and the Michael D Palm Center shows that US military personnel are increasingly at ease serving with openly gay colleagues. The poll reveals that 73 percent of military members aren't bothered by lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units.
You pointed out your ideas, your beliefs, and did so in a very understandable and non-threatening way. You encourage debate, not try to shout it down. Thank you.
Now for the debate:
You say that the major reason you do not believe homosexual monogamus unions should not be called marriage is that marriage represents monogamus unions where children are created.
I am a heterosexual male happilly married to my wife of 17 years. Do to problems of her anatomy, we are unable to have children.
Are we married?
Is it our responsibility to end this mistaken marriage, for we are gaining state benefits from our union without fulfilling our end of the contract?
If I knew that children would not be possible from this coupling, should I have not gotten married?
Can infertile couples join the homosexual couples in writing off marriage from our destinies?
Is it my responsibility to leave her and find a more fertile mate?
We have chosen to adopt, which is what many of what I call, "Noahans" (Christian literalists who take thier position from where God told Noah, "Go forth and multiply) say is our way around the "No Child/No Marriage" idea.
Why can't homosexuals also take that route as well?
In other words, what is the difference between a heterosexual infertile couple and a homosexual couple?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course, I suspect Lisa and/or Rivka will enlighten us to the effect that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism (I don't know whether it does or not), but I still think it's a pretty "major victory for gay rights advocates".
Yes, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Judaism. The Conservative movement does what it does based primarily on what its members want. What God wants is generally a pretty distant second place.
That said, I don't think any of their rabbis are actually rabbis, so I don't much care if they ordain hamsters.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!: Thanks for stating everything as respectfully as possible. It makes debating less venomous.
quote:Now, say someone else enjoys, oh, building their own computers out of spare parts they have lying around from other projects. Now, this activity might very well be exactly as or even more fulfilling, more meaningful, and more important in their lives than painting ever could be.
As you keep stating there is a difference of opinion on what marriage is. Because of your view that marriage is based on a loving relationship with a built-in, socially-acceptable environment for rearing children, you feel that anything else is "building a computer." However, because I do not share this view, I do not see that this analogy fits at all. I agree with KarlEd's analogy much more: gay couples aren't doing something radically different. The only distinction is the gender of person of that couple. That doesn't change the fact that they are a loving couple that may wish to become a family by adopting a child or having one genetically created.
quote:In other words, many aspects of your objections stem from the fact that you've already defined marriage a certain way, and are criticizing the opposite side's views as if they subscribed to that same definition.
Are you not doing the same thing? You have your definition of what a marriage is, and I have mine; we're both disagreeing with how the other side views it.
quote:Gaining ground" and "losing ground" both depend on the idea that their is ground to be gained or lost.
But there is. Not just in marriage, but in the entire social equality spectrum. Gays have gained a lot since the 60s. They are now a much more acceptable group, are protected legally, and can now have sex without being arrested. However, if you think things are equal, they're not. Gay hate crimes are still higher than they should be. And having this distinction between straight couples and gay couples could very well be causing it. It reinforces the idea of separating, rather than integrating, gays from society.
quote:Saying that homosexuals who are unable to be married are therefore being treated as inhuman "second-class citizens" who are being "denied rights" in a "dismal future" depends on the definition of marriage as being something other than a man and woman.
My fears go much deeper than just marriage being denied. If two gay men can't have the legal right to marry, then why should their sexual habits be protected?
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?
quote:Thing is, I don't know how to reconcile the two views, the different definitions. I'll think about it. We need to hit some sort of workable compromise, because I see so many people becoming deeply divided about this issue.
I agree; I think you'll even find that most gays would settle for civil unions if they were granted most or all of the same rights. Because people like you who disagree on what a marriage is can call it whatever the heck you want and say my marriage is not a "true" marriage, but I know that, in my heart, and in my beliefs, it is. And nothing people try to legislate will ever stop me from saying so.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems to me to be infantalizing and in fact downright insulting to suggest that because homosexuals are "born that way" that they are incapable of controlling their actions and acting on willpower alone.
Here you suggest that homosexuals learn to "control their actions" and not express homosexual urges. This suggestion is predicated presumably on the assumption that homosexual urges are harmful and should be controlled.
The only evidence you've given for that is that you believe reproduction is vitally important, to the extent that it should be the primary purpose of modern marriage. This is an assertion that I do not grant, and which renders much of your analogy meaningless to me, but I'll accept it tentatively in order to explore the ramifications of that belief.
Do you, as a consequence, believe that non-reproductive marriages -- like Slash's (but not like Dan's, since he and his wife are now raising adopted children) -- are fruitless or lack merit? Moreover, do you believe that homosexual behavior directly or indirectly suppresses reproductive behavior to the point that we as a culture need to counteract that impulse, to keep our population up?
If the answer to both those questions is "no," under what rationale would you deny marriage to a group in order to ensure that marriage remains a promotional tool for "optimal" reproductive behavior, given that "optimal" marriages are clearly in the minority in modern society anyway?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree; I think you'll even find that most gays would settle for civil unions if they were granted most or all of the same rights. Because people like you who disagree on what a marriage is can call it whatever the heck you want and say my marriage is not a "true" marriage, but I know that, in my heart, and in my beliefs, it is. And nothing people try to legislate will ever stop me from saying so.
I'll settle for "civil unions" as long as they are legally indistinguishable from "marriage" except in name because as I've already pointed out, we already have free use of the word in all except the legal arena. Gays already can be married in many religious ceremonies (including those of "Conservative Judaism" as linked above), and no one can stop me from calling my relationship with Chris a "marriage" or (once we're legally "civily unionized") even telling people we're "married" and even "legally married" since "civily unionized" will be exactly the same thing. The natural evolution of language is on my side.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, may I add, what actions in particular should they be refraining from?
If two men or two women fall in love, must they refrain from "sexual intercourse" only, or must they also refrain from things like public kissing, dancing, playing footsie under the table? Are non-sexual things such as holding hands, friendly hugs, longing glances across crowded rooms to be forbidden?
Where does Honesty come in? There is a lot to be said for honesty, in civil society and in theology. Most are far it. Yet if we deny the physical manifestations of what is in our hearts, are we being dishonest?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll settle for "civil unions" as long as they are legally indistinguishable from "marriage" except in name because as I've already pointed out, we already have free use of the word in all except the legal arena.
I think that if civil unions are enacted in all 50 states and the district, this will be true. In each place that has enacted them this is true - on the state level only, and within those states only, of course.
At the federal level and in the other states, even Massachusetts's version is unrecognized.
So there is no discernible difference right now between civil unions and same sex civil marriages, but neither is legally indistinguishable from marriage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is primarily why I think "civil unions" as they are currently being implemented is not an adequate compromise. As fluid as our society is, and as common as it is to live in one state and work in another, not having the portability "marriage" has makes "civil unions" separate and un-equal, and therefore inadequate to address the equal rights concerns.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Civil same-sex marriage alone isn't adequate, either, though. That's my point. Each as currently implemented suffers from the exact same flaw.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a reason it isn't, inherently, or is this only because the only place where it exists (Mass) has implemented it this way? I mean, "civil same-sex marriage" as a concept isn't necessarily the same as "civil same-sex marriage as currently implemented by Massechusetts", or is it?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the government should get out of the business of issuing sacraments and the Church should get out of the business of endorsing contracts. This is leftover from a time when the Church held temporal or secular authority and has no place in this country.
And, Resh, honey, please when referring to "Christian values" bear in mind that not all Christians have the same idea of what constitutes those values.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there a reason it isn't, inherently, or is this only because the only place where it exists (Mass) has implemented it this way? I mean, "civil same-sex marriage" as a concept isn't necessarily the same as "civil same-sex marriage as currently implemented by Massechusetts", or is it?
All three statutes civil union statutes* (VT, CT, and NJ, right?) specifically and explicitly make civil unions exactly the same as marriage except for the name and the genders, and instruct the courts to apply precedent the same (presumably, any gender-specific precedent that might still be valid will have to be adjusted, but there's very little if any left).
Massachusetts also applies the existing marriage law to same sex couples (and presumably the same type of adjustments to gender-specific precedent will be required).
All the existing limitations of these entities arise from two facts: 1) Other states don't recognize them and don't have to under federal law, and 2) The federal government doesn't recognize them.
Neither of those facts is at all related to how the states have implemented same-sex marriage and civil unions. I'm hard pressed to think of anything any of those states could have done to make the application of the statutes more equal.
So, no, I don't think the problems arise from how any of the states have implemented it. They arise from how other sovereign entities have not.
*I know this to be true for VT by having studied the statutes and the cases. I am relying on often-faulty media accounts for the other two.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*curious clarification* So does that mean that a gay couple married in Massachussets can file taxes as a couple on the state level, but still have to file separately for federal income tax?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
And if they move to a new state (or work in a state with commuter taxes) they have to file separately there, too.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, if you would, I'm still interested in the distinction you see between "Harm cannot be good without redefining what it is", and an absolute morality. I must say I don't see how you separate the two.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm hard pressed to think of anything any of those states could have done to make the application of the statutes more equal.
I can think of one thing, but I didn't (and don't) expect it.
The states could simply refuse to recognize consular and other state marriages until theirs are recognized in return.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, if you would, I'm still interested in the distinction you see between "Harm cannot be good without redefining what it is", and an absolute morality. I must say I don't see how you separate the two.
Going back to the last post of yours that I responded to, I think there's a difference between God "decreeing" something and God creating something such that something else is true. And I'm not really sure I can explain it to you beyond that, unfortunately. But the difference is significant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Gays already can be married in many religious ceremonies (including those of "Conservative Judaism" as linked above),
Actually, all they said was that Conservative rabbis can officiate at commitment ceremonies. They still have no such thing as same-sex marriage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can think of one thing, but I didn't (and don't) expect it.
The states could simply refuse to recognize consular and other state marriages until theirs are recognized in return.
They could have, but it wouldn't have worked. They'd have been overturned in a heartbeat (or as much of a heartbeat as these kinds of court cases ever are).
You're right that they could have tried, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the government should get out of the business of issuing sacraments and the Church should get out of the business of endorsing contracts.
posted
First off, I should apologize to KarlEd for my generalization of homosexual marriage as being solely "about love". Although I do think that my support for the statement at least implied that I was thinking of the aspects of loyalty and protection you're concerned about and are inherent for me in "love", that was just downright sloppy of me. I was, ah, painting with too broad a brush, if you'll forgive the pun. I certainly did not mean to imply that stamping a label on the relationship makes love appear or that taking the stamp away gets rid of the love as well, and I do not believe that such an interpretation is warranted.
Speaking of brushes, though, I still disagree with your argument. KarlEd, you say that:
quote:"The problem with this metaphor is that you place far too much difference between gay and straight relationships than is warranted.
And that's the whole crux of it, really. My long spiel was an attempt to explicate the reasons why I believe that gay relationships are different in kind than straight relationships and do in fact warrant an appropriate amount of recognition of that difference, in much the same way that we would not denote the relationship between a father and son as being exactly the same as the relationship between a mother and daughter, no matter how similar they are in terms of love and devotion and loyalty, etc.
I agree with Dagonee's post about the metaphorical use of the word "marriage".
Dan-raven: Thanks for the kind words.
I believe that you and your wife are indeed married, but then, I already think that marriage is something done between a man and a woman. As I said before, people have very different ideas of what they're doing when they enter into a marriage: some are in it solely for the recognition of love, and the resulting loyalty and protection inherent in agreeing to remove both people from the reproductive pool. Some people are in it in order to have children, etc etc. No matter what their reasons, or how well they "conform" to some ideal, they're still acting within that sphere of behavior that we've termed "marriage". I'm really at a loss to explain even more than I attempted to in that giant post what the difference between gay couples and infertile or otherwise non-reproductive couples is; that is, I think that the rule-set conceptual support is upheld in society whether or not the heterosexual couple actually has children for whatever reason, and it's still of the same type of relationship as a fertile or reproductively active couple. I don't know how to make it any clearer, but I'll think about it and see what I can come up with. I know it's a hard concept to get; I used to hold the opposite view, and it took me years to wrap my head around what I'm trying (unsuccessfully, it appears) to explain.
Hitoshi: Thank you for the kind words as well. It frustrates me that this issue is so heated that my "lack of venom" is unusual enough to be commented on.
You asserted that I was doing the same thing as you when I disagreed with how your "side" defined marriage, which was exactly my point.
What I'm trying to get at is that both sides are using the terms as if the other side believed in their definitions, and my big post was an attempt to show why I think that one side's definition is the more accurate one. You hold that the genders of the people in a marriage is not a radically different thing between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but this is still using your definition of what is or is not radical. I do the same thing, of course, in my ginormous post trying to explain why it is indeed radically different. The problem is how to get both sides to agree on the definition beforehand, which is, again, one of the major points of my precis.
I also disagree that the distinction between straight and gay marriage is the sole cause of violence against homosexuals, though of course there are bigots in any population who will use whatever excuse they can get their hands on to act violently against a group who seems "different" no matter how harmless they might be. Rather, I think that the concept of gays being a separate type of person, an Other, an unknowable and fearful thing, that is the cause of violence against homosexuals. As I said before, I believe that such violence is far more dangerous and anti-communitarian than anything homosexuals do, and there is absolutely no excuse for it. But it doesn't have to do entirely with being "equal", it has to do with people letting their fear or hatred of differences turn into violence. I believe that blacks and other racial minorities are equal to whites, but there are still a disturbingly large number of hate crimes committed against them.
Tom: I don't think that gay actions are "harmful" to individuals (though it is possible for an individual to be harmed in them, in much the same way that an individual might be harmed by inappropriate heterosexual activity) or sinful or whatever. What I'm saying is that if a homosexual person wants to be married and subscribe to the traditional definition of marriage, it's not impossible for them to control their natural desires and act within that sphere we've defined as marriage. I think it's infantalizing and insulting to suggest, as many people do, that homosexuals are incapable of doing this merely because it would in most cases be extremely hard. You're coming at this from an entirely different angle than I was going for. I've said over and over that I don't grant that reproduction should be the sole purpose of modern marriage; I think you are putting far too many words in my mouth. Rather, I think that the possibility for reproduction is one of the ways that make heterosexual marriage different in kind than homosexual marriage, and not a completely indistinguishable concept deserving of exactly equivalent benefits.
As I said before to Dan, I don't think that I'm actually saying some of the rather vile things you think I'm saying. While I rather dislike discussing the status of someone else's relationship without their consensual participation, I believe that Slash's and Dan's marriages are fruitful and have much merit, and can indeed be called marriages because they're still acting within the bounds of the traditional definition. I think homosexual relationships can be just as loving, loyal, and important to those within them. What I do not agree with is the assumption that they are exactly equivalent relationships, deserving of the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriages. It has nothing to do with some supposed suppression of individual heterosexual reproductive behavior, nor with "counteracting" the impulse towards homosexuality, unless the individual homosexual wishes to take part in marriage. What would be counteracted would be the drawing of equivalencies, the assumption that homosexuals are automatically, unquestionably deserving of utterly identical treatment.
As I've tried to explain before, I disagree with the idea that people are being "denied" anything, since that assumes they had the right to it in the first place. I don't understand what you mean by saying that "optimal" marriages are "clearly" in the minority in modern society; if you mean that not everyone has kids or is a perfect spouse, then of course I'd agree, but I don't think such relationships are in the minority at all, nor do I think that changing the definition of marriage would do anything to counteract such things and would indeed do harm, in that the line between different relationships would become blurred to the point of meaninglessness.
Phew. My brain hurts now. Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, one thing I would reiterate is that the definition of "marriage" has changed many, many times. It is not a static thing. And it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone even at the same time.
"Marriage" has meant a contract with a father to basically purchase a daughter who was chattel. It has meant buying more than one woman. It has meant a liason for producing heirs and political alliances. Royalty was often "married" almost at birth. None of these are how most of us would define marriage now, but even these days it run the spectrum. We have marriages that last about as long as the publicity, marriages for convenience, open marriages, marriages for money...
All of them are different relationships. In my opinion a loving, committed realtionship between two men or two women is a lot closer to my "ideal" of marriage than anything that Britany Spears has done recently.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: As I've tried to explain before, I disagree with the idea that people are being "denied" anything, since that assumes they had the right to it in the first place.
In a society that gives perks to people who are married, denying that to same sex couples is absolutely a denial of something they are entitled to.
That said, government should get out of the marriage biz altogether. But to the extent that they haven't, they're obligated to be equitable about it, and that requires same-sex marriage rights.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have posted this analogy before, but I think it’s a more helpful one than either version of the painting one, so I’ll do it again.
Some folks think that men are oxygen molecules and women are carbon molecules and marriage is CO, requiring one of each. Other folks think humans are all oxygen molecules and marriage is O2, just requiring two people. The first group thinks the second group is trying to make CO with two oxygen or two carbon and can’t see why that won’t work and the second group thinks the first group is trying to put irrelevant restrictions on what kind of oxygen molecules are used to make stable oxygen.
They're both right and the other side "just doesn't get it" if you accept their basic assumptions about gender and marriage.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(edit: this was to Kate, before all ye nimble-fingered ones jumped in ahead o' me)
As I mentioned before, I understand the huge variety of reasoning behind marriages in different cultures and times, and I agree with most of your post, especially the Spears part *grin*. (If anything, I think the extreme contempt that hyper-prominent people like Spears or Clinton or whomever show towards the idea that marriage means voluntarily removing yourself from the reproductive pool is far more harmful and influential to the idea of marriage, since it means a whole heck of a lot of people think that "everybody does it")
However, as I mentioned many times, no matter what the reasons for the marriages in the past, it was almost always predicated on the assumption that the reproductively viable heterosexual couple was the basis for the marriage. In other words, the father was depending on the fact that his daughter was of reproductively relevant stock, harems of either gender were at least partly based on the assumption that some of them would produce children, the political liasons were only effective because they represented reproductive opportunity, no matter what the rhetorical reasons for the marriage might be.
None of these would, for me, be anything even close to an "ideal" marriage (some would be downright horrific), and things have indeed changed in many complex ways. But the core social institution was still based on male-female.
There are many, many cultures that have tolerated relatively to extremely open homosexuality in the past and present, but in order to call such relationships "marriage" is to preemptively define "marriage" as being something other than between a man and woman.
I mean, when the early primates were first learning to talk and name things, I'm sure they had a different word for "marriage" than we do now to describe the social institution surrounding the reproductive process. It's all translations, and I think that the traditional definition we have for the core social institution is different enough from the relationship between homosexuals that it is incorrect to describe them using the same word.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
If its not the actual producing of children that is the issue, (or non-productive heterosexual couples would be likewise unmarriable) and its not faith, and its not a dislike, distrust, or distaste of homosexuality that makes Tom and Jan able to marry, but Jane and Suzie not, then we must ask ourselves what is.
Could it be comfort, tradition, what you grew up with, that defines for you what is allowed and what is not in a marriage?
Traditions change. What you grew up with does not, and can not be, what the next generation will grow up with. (Not that I'm saying that Gay Marriage will win out right now, but that too many things change in a generation for one to assume it has had the same experiences as the other)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to concede your definitional point currently, Zotto, but I don't see were you've successfully argued that the legal form should be restricted as a result. I find that these relationships can be legally equivalent, much like Hindu or Catholic or LDS or Jewish marriages are, despite their practical (and argued by adherents on all sides, spiritual) differences. The question isn't if there are differences between the relationships, but rather are the differences legally useful or important to distinguish in the law?
One aside, you made a point about possibly being able to engage in homosexual activity while being straight... As if that means anything beyond you (I mean this in a non-condescending way). You say that it's infantile to presume that gays can't follow the rules and responsibilities of traditional marriage, but I think it's just as infantile to assume they all can. Some will succeed, and perhaps even be happy; others will unhappily manage it, possibly inflicting pain on their family, knowingly or not. Some won't succeed. People are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities, I've found.
So it seems to me that you refuse to budge on a seeming linguistic principle, as if meanings of words, and even concepts haven't changed, aren't changing, and won't continue to change. I agree that on this point, KarlEd's view is going to be born out. But even if you are right, it only matters if the linguistic differences translate into something worth legislating as a legal difference, as I stated above. I don't think you've addressed this point; you've at best addressed why we could legislate differently, but you have yet outline why we should.
-Bok
PS- I went back now to read a bit more of your voluminous post, and what hits me are the number of assertions you make about a variety of things, all of which could be argued to a certain extent. Further, you seem to have a tendency to project your experience far beyond its realm. For instance, your very real experience of your parents' divorce. My parents also divorced... I was about 14 or so. I would say that the most you could say is that it has had perhaps a minor effect on, a mix of good and bad. I think it had a larger affect on my slightly-more-than-a-year-younger brother. Now I admit that I could have some serious repression; one could also look at my life's narrative and perhaps claim many instances where damage from my parents' divorce, and it would all seem perfectly reasonable, but I think that on the whole it would be wrong, that other experiences were larger influences.
I don't know what to make of this tendency, and you could be completely right about you... But I still think you need to be careful of the generalization of those experiences.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Dan, if you were actually asking me what the issue is, I would have to say that it's certainly not the comfort of "tradition" or "what I grew up with" that defines marriage for me, since I as said before, I grew up in a family and faith that actively embrace homosexual marriage *grin*. While I don't subscribe to that faith any longer, I am still a part of that family, and if anything, I'm the one attempting to change the tradition and upset the comfort. (It's not out of reactionary rebelliousness, in other words, though I have that in spades too, but rather because I simply disagree)
If my previous ginormous posts are still not enough to adequately convey my thoughts on why the types of relationships are of different kinds, I don't know how else to put it. Dana's analogy is indeed far better than either of the painting ones, and though I've tried to explain why I think my molecule-combinations are the correct ones to label as "marriage", it's exceedingly complex to make it understood to someone who doesn't share the same premises. Sigh.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You say that it's infantile to presume that gays can't follow the rules and responsibilities of traditional marriage, but I think it's just as infantile to assume they all can. Some will succeed, and perhaps even be happy; others will unhappily manage it, possibly inflicting pain on their family, knowingly or not. Some won't succeed. People are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities, I've found.
I agree with this. In addition, I find that Zotto!'s assertion almost completely misses the point of marriage, straight or gay. Zotto! isn't the first to state this, that gays can marry, just like anyone else, as long as they do it with someone of the opposite sex. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks this is an appropriate response. To me it comes across as demeaning and deliberately obtuse, but strangely I've heard it offered in all seriousness from some people whose arguements I otherwise respect. Do any of you really think that it's simply any old marriage that gays want and that they should therefore be satisfied with marriage to just anyone of the opposite sex "[i]if they can find someone of the opposite sex willing to marry them[i]"? Would you be happy in a situation where you were only able to marry from a pool of people with whom you were not sexualy or romantically compatible? Would you seriously find this a satisfying option? If not, can you see why I might find this suggestion beyond infantile? In fact, I find it almost as offensive as the idea that gays just "want to play house".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have why I think there is indeed ample reason to differentiate between the two types of relationships in the law. (And I really, really hope that no one takes the cheap shot of thinking that such inadequecy of my language skills means that the conceptualization of the worldview I'm trying to explain isn't sound.)
The whole idea is that people on both sides are using the definitions they subscribe to without agreeing with the "other side's" version. In other words, I never once said that I wasn't doing exactly as Hitoshi was doing, and using the definition I've come to conclude is the correct one. What I'm saying is that so are you, and so is everyone. Of course there are a huge variety of things I'm asserting that are arguable; (we, and indeed the entire country, wouldn't be talking if that weren't so) and as I said in my first post, I'm sure there are numerous rational reasons and worldviews against my position. In other words, good people on either side can disagree.
I never said that it was unquestionably possible for every single gay person in existence to subsume their natural desires into the marriage story. I never implied that I was advocating that every one even try. I was trying to convey my frustration that a great many people don't seem to think it is possible at all. I can't recall very many in this thread, but as I said, I was going for a general precis, and I certainly encounter enough people with such views in my day-to-day to warrant the inclusion of my response. If your anecdotal evidence that there aren't many people with these views is valid, my anecdotal evidence that there are quite afew should be just as fair to mention. My point is that it's not fair for homosexuals to say that they're being deprived of marriage-rights when what they're really saying is that they don't conform to the definition, in much the same way that it's "unfair" that because I'm not disabled, I am not eligible to park in the stalls nearest the store. You say that you've found that "people are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities", as if I wasn't aware of that and didn't try to make my understanding explicit in my posts. Apparently I'm just too stubborn to budge on a mere linguistic issue. It should be clear from the aggregate total of my posts that it's not a "mere" linguistic issue, a "mere" growth or development of the language, it's a wide-ranging redefinition of what I believe to be an intrinsic part of the sexual security civil society depends on. I don't know how to say it other than to keep saying that, which is obviously not particularly effective at explaining my view.
In other words, I think you're projecting your own tendency for projection onto my views. *grin* I wasn't claiming that my experience with divorce was somehow universal; indeed, my younger brother seems far less affected than I was. Heck, of my two stepsisters, the oldest seemed far more affected by their father's (now my stepfather) divorce than the younger. Like every single person's position in this entire thread, it's not based entirely on reproducible scientific experimentation. There's room for argument. What I think you need to be careful of is assuming that I have a tendency towards generalizing experiences to apply to people I haven't said they apply to.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If my previous ginormous posts are still not enough to adequately convey my thoughts on why the types of relationships are of different kinds, I don't know how else to put it.
I think it's clear why you think the way you do, but that doesn't mean that I find the arguements persuasive. I'll be the first to admit that there are many differences between gay and straight intimate relationships, however, I don't think the differences are in areas of legal import. If you think they are, I'd be interested in knowing which differences you think are of sufficient legal import as to deny the extension of marriage to include homosexual unions.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said that it was unquestionably possible for every single gay person in existence to subsume their natural desires into the marriage story. I never implied that I was advocating that every one even try. I was trying to convey my frustration that a great many people don't seem to think it is possible at all.
I think it's a demonstrable fact that it is possible. It does not follow, however, that the resulting relationships are healthy or fulfilling for any of the people involved. Some may be, but I also know for a fact many are not.
Why should anyone be expected to even try to subsume their natural sexual orientation simply to fit another person's version of the "marriage story"? Why can they not be free to write their own stories? Why are those new stories not also worthy of the same protections under law?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, even I don't think that my reasoning for "why I think the way I do" was made explicitly clear or persuasive enough (otherwise everyone'd be persuaded!), but neither do I think it's quite possible for either side to describe every single nuance of their position in mere agreed-upon words rather than a gradual apprehension of the aggregate totality of a conceptual worldview. As I said before, for a great deal of my life, I was quite cheerfully supportive of gay marriage, just as I was quite cheerfully supportive of abortion and tenets of my religion at the time and sexual politics, and on and on. Things change. *grin*
I actually think that while there are many, many differences between straight and gay intimate relationships, there are actually less differences than, say, a healthy father-son or mother-daughter relationship. Issues of sexuality, emotional compatibility, a whole range of other things that are not found in other relationships really can be quite similar between straight and gay intimate relationships.
The area of legal import is what you describe as being mind-bogglingly inappropriate; I believe that such relationships are of a different kind than straight relationships, and therefore just don't really qualify for equivalent benefits. It's dkw's analogy again, and I'm still trying to think of a clearer way to put it.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I get that you don't think they are the same type of relationship. Perhaps you could explain concisely why you think that the one is deserving of legal status above and beyond the other. Is it simply reproductive differences? Because that's the gist of what I gathered from your monumental post above. If that's the primary difference, can you tell me why the de facto families comprised of gays with children are less worthy of legal protection and benefits than otherwise equivalent families where the parents are of opposite gender?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not "simply" reproductive differences, and if that's the only impression that my novel-length post gave, I completely suck at communication.
There are a whole host of things that can't be boiled-down into one-liners or "gists". The "otherwise equivalent" families are not equivalent at all, because of the lack of mixed-genders. The learned sex-roles are a huge thing in my view, as are all the countless other things I mentioned in that huge post, that differentiate the types of relationships to such a degree that one deserves legal approbation for a secure, generationally-continuous society in which the relationships are not considered equivalent.
It's unfortunate that some people do not get the help and benefits that they could really use. I'd rather see a loving, supportive homosexual couple have sole custody of a child than a heterosexual couple who didn't want kids and is only tolerating them. There are many unfairnesses to some group no matter what the system, and no one community has a monopoly on what is and is not unfair. But you say "less worthy" as if I'm judging them to be inferior human beings. I'm not; I'm trying to say that I merely disagree that they have the right to those benefits.
I've been squeezing my brain to think of a better way to explain it, but no luck so far. I still appreciate talking about it, though, because the friction of the opposing viewpoint tends to bring more of my own position into light and solidify things.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see where he said it would be unfair to heterosexual couples.
But it would still be unfair to siblings who live together late into adulthood and are raising a child. Or to Grandmother/Mother pairs raising children - a VERY common pattern in this country.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be drawing an exact equivalency between the different types of relationships in which gender, reproduction, learned sex-roles, etc. etc, are inherently superfluous to the core social institution through the blurring of terms.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: It would be drawing an exact equivalency between the different types of relationships in which gender, reproduction, learned sex-roles, etc. etc, are inherently superfluous to the core social institution through the blurring of terms.
Of course it would be. How is that unfair?
---
Dag, I agree, and would love to see some sort of legislated family compact for raising children that would give those family groupings similar rights. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we'd be essentially erasing the differences between the two relationships and saying that one is exactly as deserving of special benefits as the other. I've already listed to the best of my ability the reasons why I think it actually is necessary for benefits to be given solely to heterosexuals. 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. It's unfair because they don't fit the definition of what we've agreed "disabled" means.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| 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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, I think that the concept of gays being a separate type of person, an Other, an unknowable and fearful thing, that is the cause of violence against homosexuals.
When you say with a grin that things change, that you've evolved from someone who once saw no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, what you're saying with a grin is -- as far as I'm concerned -- that you've concluded that gays are a separate type of person.
quote:I've already listed to the best of my ability the reasons why I think it actually is necessary for benefits to be given solely to heterosexuals.
Zotto, I'm afraid that I found this attempt extremely unsatisfying. You don't believe that reproduction in this country will suddenly stop; do you believe that homosexual couples will adopt in such numbers that traditional sex roles will vanish, and do so suddenly enough to be harmful to society?
As far as I can tell, those are the only two negative consequences you explicitly listed, and you've already admitted that you don't think one of them is really a problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Well, "as far as I'm concerned", you'd be wrong, then, Tom. I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure, just as heterosexuals are different from them, just as everyone is a little different from everyone else. Being different is not a bad thing; I'm certainly strange enough that most people would classify me as being "different" in many ways.
(And seriously, dude, you of all people found the grin at the end of a one-liner to be inappropriate? *grin*)
I'm afraid that I find your attempts at summations of my view to be extremely unsatisfying. I never said that sex roles would vanish and people would suddenly stop making ankle-biters; I did say that treating their unions as being exactly equivalent in every single way to heterosexual marriage will be one more way that we've chosen to devalue marriage through a blurring of terms. It's not the most harmful, in my view, but it's still incorrect.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
