Tax Breaks For Gays and Lesbians
If they don't get full rights (including the rights that come to heteros through marriage); if they're getting, say, half the rights everybody else is -- why shouldn't they have to pay only 50% of their tax bills?
And, how should heterosexuals react to the prohibitions against equal rights for gays and lesbians? Here's a suggestion, in a few excerpts from an essay by Eric Rofes, in the book, From ACT UP to the WTO -- urban protest and community building in the era of globalization:
Heterosexuals getting married is analogous to Christians joining a club that excludes Jews, men working as partners in a law firm that has no female partners, or whites supporting the flying of the Confederate flag over public buildings intended to serve people of all races. No matter how one wishes to frame them, such choices are inherently ethical choices: participation in rituals and institutions that exclude sectors of society puts you on the side of discrimination and oppression.During the Civil Rights Movement, a number of white people repulsed by the injustices of racism declined to participate in key institutions of segregation. They refused to utilize white-only public facilities, ride on buses which forced Blacks to the back seats, and sit at segregated lunch counters. Likewise, there have been men who resigned from clubs that excluded Jews, women, and people of color, and people with inherited wealth who have given away their legacies to organizations in poor communities in this battle against heterosexism.
It may be time not only for true heterosexual allies to say no to marriage until all people have equal access, but also for all principled people to engage in public education around their refusal to accept privilege.
Recognize that it used to seem "normal" to hate and discriminate against blacks, Jews, and the Chinese, too (among others). Of course, for some, it still is. In one of this week's pleasant moments, I got a copy of my printed column (about a gay guy who wanted to know whether to tell a guy he'd dated that he was prematurely head over heels with him) with the words "SICK = PURE GARBAGE, JEW ADVICE, SICK SICK" scrawled all over it in red marker.
Hmmm...no matter how much you bore people who read your blog with stuff about being a Bright, and not believing in god, and being post-Jewish -- it seems you never stop being Jewish to the people who hate Jews.
Nothing wrong with being a Jew to those who hate Jews, as they don't care if you're post-Jewish anyway. Might as well stick up for the cause. It's the right thing to do.
All marriage should be civil. It's a legal union and requires a legal dissolution. Gays just want all the same legal rights -- and they should have them. If someone wants their marriage santified by their religion, fine -- but I consider current marriage statues and mores as a primary example of how things go wrong when church/synagogue/mosque etc and state are not separate.
David at October 31, 2003 11:32 AM
David's absolutely right -- and brings up an important point: that the church's influence in what constitutes an acceptable partnership (under the law) in our society defies separation of church and state.
Amy Alkon at October 31, 2003 12:27 PM
Why should marriage be civil? I never paid any fee to the state, and thus, have no "license". After standing for an hour listening to Old CHurch Slavonic recited by a priest who looked like Hunter Thompson dressed up as Rasputin, I doubt that anything available at City Hall makes me more "married". Who cares? Why should any public entity be involved--CHurch, State, AFL-CIO?
Rachel at October 31, 2003 4:49 PM
There are rights granted to married people, which is why there's some necessity of some formalized document. I suggest gay partners and heteros in committed partnerships that aren't marriages come up with a legal document granting each other the right to visit each other in the hospital in case of serious injury, to make decisions for each other in such a case, right of inheiritance, etc. Still, you can't, as a non-married person, get right to stay in your apartment in the death of a partner you aren't married to, etc. We need to stop what's called "marriage privileging" and accept (as we should in a secular country) that a lot of people form partnerships in ways not rubber-stamped by the church and other religious entities.
Amy Alkon at October 31, 2003 5:32 PM
Once we start assessing everyone on some common basis unfairness and the associated bitching is inevitable. Here's a small list off the top of my head.
1. Smokers, blacks, and white males die younger than average. They clearly should pay lower Social Security taxes as they will collect far less on average. In particular, black, male, smokers are probably overtaxed by a factor of 2.
2. Motorcycle riders should pay less SS tax but more for disability/medical. Same with people who ride horses.
One of the problems with socialism is that it gives the majority valid reasons for mandating or prohibiting life choices individuals make that would otherwise be considered interference with individual liberty.
doug at October 31, 2003 8:17 PM
This "Gays aren't allowed to marry" meme is a pathetic canard. They're as free to marry as anyone else. JUST NOT TO EACH OTHER. So what? Life is full of loving relationships between individuals who aren't allowed to marry. Examples include parents and their children; brothers; aunts and nephews: The list goes on and on.
This is not a cutesy rhetorical point. Marriage is a contract between society and a specific kind of pairing to solve specific sets of problems. In speaking only to what they want to take from public life in coming out from the closet, gays are silent on what they might distinctively bring to it. (I fully expect responses to this post will confuse these vectors.) And to those opposed to this change on either practical grounds or concerns about the human interior, this silence is DEAFENING.
It betokens a powerful moral failing in the argument for gay marriage. I've literally laughed aloud watching Sullivan on C-Span talking about this point. The petulence of his body language and tone, and the solipsism of his arguments, speaks of wretched self-absorption. It's like a listless teenager whining from the couch that neighbor Tyler gets a bigger allowance. Kid, what have you done for the household lately?
Now is not the time for gays to be witholding taxes or dreaming up other snotty ways to evade responsible citizenship. As Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country...."
You wanna get married, dude? KISS A GIRL. We've got plenty who need your affection and support.
Crid at October 31, 2003 8:41 PM
Doug and Crid --
I wouldn't take Amy's comment about taxes so literally. It seemed to me secondary to the point that she wanted to make about marriage rights (and you, Doug, about socialism, I guess).
"In speaking only to what they want to take from public life [...] gays are silent on what they might distinctively bring to it"
-- This reminded me of Fran Lebowitz's response to the question of whether she thought homosexuals bring anything of value to American culture:
"If you removed all of the homosexual influence from American artistic culture, basically what you'd be left with is reruns of 'Let's Make a Deal.'"
Crid, I was disappointed by the way you flung around words like "snotty," "petulance," "wretched self-absorption" and "whining" in your generalizations about gays. Did it ever occur to you to be tactful? That some of us might have feelings?
The gay/lesbian community has many productive artists and constructive thinkers whom it can proudly count among its members. For me, Andrew Sullivan is not one of them. His concerns are not my concerns, and "Virtually Normal" was so boring and stilted that I stopped reading it after 20 or 30 pages. However, I don't see the use in hating him the way that so many people, both gay and straight, hate him. Maybe it's because I don't indulge in C-Spam (or Let's Make a Deal)?
Stop watching television, Crid, and go kiss a guy. We need your love and support!
Lena
Lena Cuisina at October 31, 2003 10:15 PM
Those words weren't flung, they were selected and carefully placed. We all deserve to know how we're received. I mentioned this over on Welch's board tonight: Contention is how it's DONE. The other actors on this stage, and rhetors in these contests, were not put here to take notice of your feelings. If Sullivan ain't your cup of tea, don't take offense on his behalf. (I agree with him on most everything... Except religion and sexuality.) A generalized defense of homosexuality is not called for, I take issue only with this gay demand for a special dispensation from society. And it IS a special dispensation. Our love and support ought to be earned through thoughtful reflection and persuasion, and not simply demanded without discussion. (I think this is a problem for these generations, not just gays, though they've certainly not bucked the trend.)
And I only MAKE shows for television sets... I wouldn't actually have one in my home.
crid at November 1, 2003 12:47 AM
"Marriage is a contract between society and a specific kind of pairing to solve specific sets of problems. In speaking only to what they want to take from public life in coming out from the closet, gays are silent on what they might distinctively bring to it."
Hey, nice post. You seem to have a very convicted opinion. But would you please explain to me what "specific sets of problems" marriage solves and how gay marriage would be any different, seriously. My understanding is that marriage is a contract between two people who then essentially act as one entity, as regards society.
Riboflavin at November 1, 2003 1:30 AM
> You mean that special dispensation to be treated as everybody else is? To be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? To be not noticed for their sexuality, just noticed for being people who deserve the same rights other people do? That's exactly what the most basic fairness demands. Also, with a nod to one of my favorite topics: how many atheists do you think are against giving gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals? I don't care what anybody's church tells them about homosexuality; if consenting adults wish to marry (even if three consenting adults all wish to marry each other and be granted the rights one Christian man and one Christian woman are granted when they marry) -- they should be allowed to do so regardless of how it's done in Judeo-Christianity or in any other religion.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2003 1:49 AM
Crid, you're so... gaseous... this evening. What did you have for dinner? Why don't you go walk it off?
Lena Cuisina at November 1, 2003 2:46 AM
Crid writes: "This "Gays aren't allowed to marry" meme is a pathetic canard. They're as free to marry as anyone else. JUST NOT TO EACH OTHER. So what? Life is full of loving relationships between individuals who aren't allowed to marry. Examples include parents and their children; brothers; aunts and nephews: The list goes on and on."
Sorry, Crid. False analogy and not a terribly good one at that. Hopefully, the relationships you describe don't want to have sex with each other, either. I'm also hoping that they are not wishing to form a life-partnership in which they regard the other as THE most important person in their lives to the exclusion of all others. The need to form a union specific to one other person seems to be a motivating force for virtually everyone, even in those such as Amy, who is against marriage. Amy may have reservations about such a relationship being permanent, but based on what I read about her and Gregg, it's apparent that for the time being, he's the most important person in the world to her, and vice versa.
To compare the relationship with siblings between two homosexuals who wish to form a life-partnership (with legal sanction, if not support) is nothing short of perverse. It makes me wonder just what goes on in your family that makes me think you can even compare blood-relationships to a marriage. (But for Heaven's sake, don't tell us. We might be eating as we read it.)
And "kiss a girl?" Kindly get real. Kiss her and then what? Have sex with her? Sorry, Mr. Winky stays flaccid when it comes to women, and thus far, nothing attempted to change this in the history of the world has proven successful. Nothing against them; they just aren't erotically stimulating. Never were and never will be. I'm sure wifey and I could enjoy long, stimulating conversations on why you're basically full of shit when it comes to this topic. But the bedroom will be the most uneventful room in the house.
And what would I do with poor Don, who just so happens to BE the most important person in my life right now? Seems hardly fair to kick him to the curb after all the love and support he's given me in the time we've been together. Newsflash for you, Crid. Our union DOES solve problems. The both of us are more productive members of society for our function as one unit. Each of us separately are better socially and employment wise for what we have with each other. And the sexual aspect is an expression of intimacy that validates the two of us to perform better in our separate lives. Think either one of us could get that from a woman? Dream on. A woman can be my best buddy, but nothing more.
I'm also waiting for your response to Riboflavin's post. And while you're at it, you can also explain to us what specific sets of problems might be solved by heterosexual marriage that couldn't be solved by homosexual marriage. We're all waiting.
Patrick at November 1, 2003 6:55 AM
Ribo, here's my belief: Man came stumbling sullenly out of the mist. He noticed that women were always getting raped, children were always raised in brutal poverty, and seniors (people with 30+ winters) always spent their sunset years fending like toothless rodents in the town square. A solution! Boys, you get to marry a girl. You're responsible for feeding her. And your kids, until they can handle it themselves (they have to help with sowing and harvest). She can probably be persuaded to wipe Endust onto your coffee table and help with your ironing. You have to help with her mother, and she with yours. So now society doesn't have to worry so much about a huge swath of its membership. Millennia later, a confused people even came to hope for emotional fulfillment through this bond. But the strength of this battered institution comes from its proximity to, and echo of, our genesis: Each of us is a product of the union of a man and a woman. No postmodern lab breakthroughs will diminish this fundamental lesson from our biology.
> ...to be treated as everybody else is?
Amy, you keep saying that, but it just ain't so. I don't have the right to marry the person that I love, I only have the right to marry an unrelated, grown woman who will have me. The 'fairness' you describe isn't basic, it's deeply exaggerated. Your theme of religious certification of unions is not a big point with me. I don't go to church and don't care if you do. But it's a mistake to ignore the tremendous amount of decency in our society which was brought by religious thinking and machinery... And is still.
Lena, where posts consist only of insults, it's assumed the poster's logic is exhausted.
Patrick, Sullivan too belittles comparisons with incest as distasteful. And like you, he's unable to say why it's inappropriate... It's as if his mind fills with imagery of wretched encounters, and the logic of the argument is lost on him. (Um, have you ever seen that happen to someone you're talking to?)
Again, you reduce it to personal feelings. Please believe this: Both as a matter of public policy and on the level of personal regard, I have precisely zero interest in where you wiggle your weenie, or with whom. Yet again I must note that gays have been marrying straights to forge loving families for millennia. Making "the bedroom the most [eventful] room of the house" is not society's goal for you or anyone else.
It's this continuing obsession with individual responses that weakens so many gay rights arguments. The noisemaking gay public service organizations and media seem to think the world's attention revolves around the sensations in their trousers. It's adolescent. But it's not a gay problem, it's society's problem... EVERYBODY thinks it's all about them.
Listen, gay marriage is coming, and soon. Awright, whatever. I'm not as upset with it as you might think. Some of my best friends/employers/neighbors/etc. But it will not be that society has finally elevated itself to care for the feelings of gays. Rather, it has tumbled so deeply into the interior life that gays might as well come along for the ignoble ride, too.
crid at November 1, 2003 9:36 AM
The issue of rights given to a couple through marriage is still denied to any domestic partner couple, whether hetero or homo. I understand Crid's point about society not having to 'worry' about taking care of the kids and grandparents by sanctioning the pairing off of couples, who then bear the burdens.
However, couples break up and people die young, and all of those burdens have to fall to someone, so marriage is really no long-term guarantee that those responsibilities will not fall back to society in the form of public aid.
Amy, you made a very interesting point. What about polygamous unions? I personally have grown less conservative over the last few years and now accept the legalization of gay marriage. Having come from a very strict religious background, I always assumed that it was 'wrong'. (Sorry, Patrick & Lena--that's where I came from, not where I am!) As I get older, I care less about 'right' and 'wrong', and more about love, equality and compassion. But your statement about threesomes getting married brought me up short.
If you consider it from the legal protection standpoint, when one partner then dies, what happens to the estate? Do the two (or more) remaining partners split it? Or is there no 'estate', since a valid legal union would still exist, just not with as many partners? Lots of laws would have to change in order to accommodate such an arrangement. And that doesn't even take into account any deep-seated moral pre-conceptions I may have. Interesting topic, and it gives me even more to think about.
Peggy C at November 1, 2003 1:39 PM
Marriage, Crid, is about money. It's about transferral of property rights. These days, if two people can marry, it may mean one who's not a citizen can stay in the country -- as opposed to being deported. This right is only allowed to heterosexual citizens. This is clearly wrong. I believe marriage isn't modern and doesn't make sense for our times. That said, if straight people are allowed to not make sense, and are accorded rights by being married, we are wrong to prohibit any combination of people who want to get married from doing so. Moreoever, we need a registered partner agreement for committed couples so they can be accorded rights as well -- such as the right to visit one's seriously ill partner in the hospital, and make decisions on the behalf. It's a formalization of the partnership -- as is marriage.
I find it barbaric, Crid, that you suggest gays simply ignore whom and how they love and find a beard. Exceptionally offensive.
This is not about "sensations in anybody's trousers." Moreoever, if anyone really sits around obsessing that others aren't fucking according to how it "should" be done - well, there's a pervo for you.
I don't care who has a problem with men being with men and women being with women. What I care about is that nobody should be denied rights because Crid or anybody thinks how they fuck is improper. Simply backward and ugly thinking.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2003 1:44 PM
Amy, if this discussion is only about money, it's over. Do what you want for the finances of homosexual couples: I and the vast majority of centrist Americans don't give a rat's ass. Y'know, trusteeships, inheritance... whatever. Go nuts. It's when you want to call it marriage that people get antsy.
Including a lot of heterosexual friends in your circle, I'm sure. The fundamental generative unit of humanity is the heterosexual family. The men and women who are doing it right expect a little respect (and tax relief) from time to time. Ask your married, child-rearing friends about gay marriage. Not 'property rights and hospital visitation,' but gay marriage.
Reading my whole post in context, the 'kiss a girl' phrase is obviously a rhetorical towel-snap. (Back in the BBS days before the internet, called a "flame troll"). There are times when people's feelings are so delicate that there's no point in protecting them... They'll shatter soon, no matter what.
Barbaric yourself! Grrrr.
crid at November 1, 2003 6:43 PM
Crid writes: "Patrick, Sullivan too belittles comparisons with incest as distasteful. And like you, he's unable to say why it's inappropriate... It's as if his mind fills with imagery of wretched encounters, and the logic of the argument is lost on him. (Um, have you ever seen that happen to someone you're talking to?)"
Never said I was unable to say why. I simply assumed it was obvious. My mistake. I can assure you, I will never assume ANYTHING is obvious to you. When traditional family roles are overrun with incest, there are the problems of jealousy eroding the unit, to say nothing of the creation of mutants should such relationships reproduce.
Do you know of any long term relationships between blood relatives that have proven successful? The track record of incest leaves a lot to be desired. So, there you have the reasons: hazard to family unit, unsuitable for reproduction and zero success on record. Guess what? Gay relationships have none of those problems. My uncle and his lover, for instance, lived in a committed monogamous relationship for fifty-two years before his lover passed on due to complications from type two diabetes. They started with nothing but became quite successful and affluent, in spite of society's frown on their relationship. Know of any incestuous relationships that have endured that length of time? Has your relationship, by the way? Didn't think so.
And don't even try to play the "social stigmatization prevents incestuous relationships from enduring" card. Gay relationships have endured stigmatization as well, and many prove successful in spite of it, my uncle and his lover are a case in point.
So, yes, I can say why the comparison to incestuous relationships is inappropriate, and I'll thank you not to infer otherwise, until you have proven so.
As for you not caring where I "wiggle my weenie," how generous of you, considering you have less than no say on the subject. But you missed the point, so I'll rephrase it. My weenie DOES NOT wiggle in women. Does not and cannot. I concede that some gays have proven able to do so, which only makes sense, since sexual orientation is not a black and white proposition but more a spectrum. I simply happen to be toward the extreme end.
Finally, your inferrence that homosexuals have been in marital relationships with women for millenia is a rather bald statement, considering you have no statistical evidence or personal knowledge. I, on the other hand, know of MANY homosexuals who enter into heterosexual relationships and make babies... only to finally succumb to their natural inclinations and having the occassional fling with the guy they'd rather be with. (What do you think steam rooms in gyms are for, incidentally?) Or worse, simply realizing they are living a lie and end the relationship. Are broken marriages with children or extra-marital affairs (with the possibility of bringing disease to the monogamous spouse and unborn children) just hunky dory with you?
Do you actually know of ANY homosexuals in straight relationships who have NEVER cheated with one of their own sex, still going strong with no danger of breaking up over another guy? I don't either.
Patrick at November 1, 2003 8:06 PM
Amy, Crid, and Patrick --
I really don't have a well-formulated position on the gay marriage issue -- which probably has something to do with the fact that I've never been in a serious long-term relationship, at the age of 41. But I have a few questions and comments.
Would it be so terrible not to refer to gay or lesbian registered partnerships as marriages? Why not settle for the "trusteeships, inheritances, whatever" for now, and let social and cultural change take its course over the next couple of decades? If the idea of gay and lesbian "marriage" is going to be wholeheartedly accepted by mainstream society, reform will have to be more incremental. Until that day, we can call the partnerships whatever we want in the privacy of our own social circles. It's important to remember that not all heterosexuals can get married smoothly either. The most beautiful wedding I've ever attended was not legally recognized as a marriage, because it was performed by a Sufi. This heterosexual couple had to get married twice -- once in their temple (for themselves) and once in the courthouse (for the state). This seemed like a minor inconvenience for two people who loved each other as much as they did -- and still do, after 10 years.
Lena The Spinster
Lena Cuisina at November 1, 2003 11:32 PM
Lena writes: "Amy, Crid, and Patrick --
I really don't have a well-formulated position on the gay marriage issue"
That's fine. Neither does Crid, obviously.
"which probably has something to do with the fact that I've never been in a serious long-term relationship, at the age of 41."
Which in no way diminishes the legitimacy of the argument for straight marriage. Many heterosexuals are "playas" as well. Moreover, homosexuality is not called "the love that dare not speak its name" (Oscar Wilde) for nothing. Lacking societal affirmation, indeed under its direct condemnation, gay people start out with essentially two strikes against them. My uncle is one of those few who happen to hit a home run.
"Would it be so terrible not to refer to gay or lesbian registered partnerships as marriages? Why not settle for the "trusteeships, inheritances, whatever" for now, and let social and cultural change take its course over the next couple of decades? If the idea of gay and lesbian "marriage" is going to be wholeheartedly accepted by mainstream society, reform will have to be more incremental."
I personally have little objection to that, except for the fact that such relationships still do not carry the full marital benefits package that marriages do. Vermont (my home state) does allow gay unions with all the benefits of marriage and I imagine, with the repeal of the sodomy laws, the rest of the country will follow suit. I expect gradual change will be the way it comes about anyway, but my own belief is that society is not quietly led to anything. If society ever changes, it's because it was beaten into submission. We did not gradually work to repeal the slavery laws in this country. It took a civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation to bring about the needed change. Society changes when it's pinned down and force fed something. Yes, it resists at first, but eventually, it gives up and submits.
But since I'm here, posting again, I may as well bring it up... Crid writes: "Ribo, here's my belief: Man came stumbling sullenly out of the mist. He noticed that women were always getting raped, children were always raised in brutal poverty, and seniors (people with 30+ winters) always spent their sunset years fending like toothless rodents in the town square. A solution! Boys, you get to marry a girl. You're responsible for feeding her. And your kids, until they can handle it themselves (they have to help with sowing and harvest). She can probably be persuaded to wipe Endust onto your coffee table and help with your ironing. You have to help with her mother, and she with yours. So now society doesn't have to worry so much about a huge swath of its membership. Millennia later, a confused people even came to hope for emotional fulfillment through this bond. But the strength of this battered institution comes from its proximity to, and echo of, our genesis: Each of us is a product of the union of a man and a woman. No postmodern lab breakthroughs will diminish this fundamental lesson from our biology."
I was going to let Riboflavin respond to this first, but I can't resist. I have to say, this was asinine. You didn't argue successfully against gay marriage with this. You argued FOR the obsolescence of ALL marriage. Think about it (please, for once). There is no situation you described (even if it's true, which you haven't proven) which is not solved by the advancement of society. We now have laws in place for the prevention of rape against women (which is a better deterrent than say, a gold band on a person's left fourth finger... oooh, that's sure going to balk the pervert in a ski mask in Central Park, to say nothing of the acquaintance who has more than a platonic interest in his friend's/coworker's/whatever's wife). And we do have the programs to assist with the elderly. Most of them are not being cared for by their offspring anyway. And in case you haven't noticed, children do not need to be in married family units to be cared for.
So, the question in my mind now is not why are you against gay marriage, but why are you against ALL marriage?
Patrick at November 2, 2003 4:03 AM
Patrick,
I have to ask--the "prevention" of rape? What law prevents rape? My issue with laws is that we can force people legally into recognizing something as being as 'acceptable' (and other things, like rape, as 'unacceptable'), but that does not change the opinions of the populace.
For example, we legally abolished segregation. Did that shut down the KKK or the Neo-Nazis? Just because we enact laws does not mean the job is done. But it is a step in the right direction.
Over time, it is the education of a people that causes true changes within a society. Open forums like this are important to get people to open their eyes and see the world beyond their preconceived notions.
Peggy C at November 2, 2003 9:22 AM
My concern is not what, specifically, gay marriage would be called; simply that gay people are granted the same rights as straight people.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2003 9:45 AM
Patrick: "We did not gradually work to repeal the slavery laws in this country. It took a civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation to bring about the needed change."
Lena Cuisina: We moved from the Slavery Codes (the institutional backbone of slavery) to the passage of Jim Crow laws (the backbone of "separate but equal") across the South, which lasted for decades. The development of the U.S. that we currently live in as human beings (not just as subjects with rights) was overseen by groups (read: whites) who believed that black lives were worth less than others. Do you think the Civil Rights Act made everything better? "The needed change" is still very much in progress.
Stephen Daedalus: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."
Lena Cuisina: I need another fucking cup of coffee.
Peggy: "My issue with laws is that we can force people legally into recognizing something as being as 'acceptable' [...] but that does not change the opinions of the populace."
Lena Cuisina: You hit it right on the nose. If the general public (ie, Gallup poll respondents) are less hostile towards gays and lesbians, it's not really because lobbyists from Human Rights Campaign, NGLTF, etc have been stomping around the Capitol. It's because more gays and lesbians are taking little risks and not playacting for their neighbors and co-workers as much as they used to. And it's because, on television, Gay is the New Black. Just as in the 1970s, when white audiences used to turn on The Jeffersons and Good Times to get a good look at "black people" (I still have a total crush on the dad from Good Times -- ooh la la!), more and more TV audiences are seeing that gay men are really kind of fun to be around, even if they act a little weird sometimes.
Now. More coffee! Amy, can you Hab?
Lena Cuisina at November 2, 2003 11:36 AM
Patrick, nobody here cares about incest. The point which you are loathe to acknowledge is that there are some pairings society deems worthy of this privilege and others which it does not. Do you doubt that homosexuals have been marrying the opposite sex throughout history? Two points seem to leave you in paralysis. The first is that there might be any greater project in life than answering an individual's 'natural' feelings, be they enduring or momentary. (Your concern about fidelity may be sincere and correct, but I can't imagine what it has to do with this.) The second is that society might have an interest in how people couple, and regard certain unions as better for the pair AND for their community (while not perfect for anyone). One last time: What does gay marriage do for rest of society?
Lena, I think a large segment of gay America wants marriage, and they want it called "marriage." Sullivan comes to mind (I read his book about it). It may well be that this is a noisy minority of the gay population. I'd like to think so.
Gay marriage? I'm agin' it, but not by much. I think children are BEST raised by a loving mother and a loving father working together. And if you call the gay unions 'marriage," any remaining enthusiasm for heterosexual, married adoptive parents will be lost. This is tragic, but on the other hand it's already largely done. Despite a crippling disgust for any humanoid who's too young to vote, I want what's best for children (not what's just better). So I want loving, married het parents to get an occasional tax break now and then. And maybe a few other courtesies.
crid at November 2, 2003 12:54 PM
Crid: "One last time: What does gay marriage do for rest of society?"
My dearest Cridster, that's actually the first time you stated your question so clearly -- a wonderfully empirical question, I might add, that can only be answered adequately by:
1) Allowing gay/lesbian marriages to occur;
2) Collecting data on indicators of material and physical well-being from a representative sample of gay/lesbian and heterosexual marriages; and
3) Comparing results for the families, aggregated by sexual orientation.
Judging from our discussion, I get the impression that your position (some would say bias) would not permit us to make the observations that are central to such a systematic evaluation.
But enough with social experiments! Where's my kiss? Would you like to plant it on the left cheek, or the right?
Lena
Lena Cuisina at November 2, 2003 3:28 PM
We don't determine whether heterosexuals are going to "contribute to society" through their marriages before we allow them to marry; thus it's discriminatory to demand that of gay people. Moreover, it's ludicrous to say some particular hypothetical heterosexual couple will provide a better home environment for children than some hypothetical gay couple. This isn't something that can be judged in the hypothetical. All couples are different. Surely, there are a hell of a lot more heterosexual couples beating their children and taking their children for granted than there are gay couples. Furthermore, this is a society utterly flooded with media. It seems to me, there are vast examples of male and female role models for a child who's got two gay male parents, or one single female parent, or whatever. The most important thing is that a child have DECENT role models; male or female, and a loving home in which the child learns ethics, etc. I managed to find role models in literature that led me to leave suburbia and become extremely independent, despite how I was raised: to marry some nice young Jewish accountant and raise a bunch of kids in suburban Detroit. Please, if that ever becomes my fate, somebody institutionalize me, because I've lost my mind.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2003 8:51 PM
Crid writes: "Patrick, nobody here cares about incest."
Obviously, you did. You're the one who made the comparison of gay marriage to incestuous marriage. You're also the one who said that I couldn't explain why it is an invalid comparison. Now that I just did, you want to dismiss it as irrelevant. Well, boo-hoo for you, sore loser. If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up.
Figures that when ***you*** make the comparison to incest, insisting that no one can prove why the comparison to incest isn't valid -- then when someone proves that they CAN prove the comparison isn't valid, you decide to drop the subject as something that "no one cares about." Easy to say when you lose the argument. You're no fun at all. I haven't even played my high cards yet. I was going to bring up number of historically significant cultures that have affirmed gay relationships, starting with the ancient Greeks. Then I would generously let you have your turn and share with us all the historically significant cultures that have affirmed incestuous relationships... I was going to point out such homosexuals throughout history that have proven to be viable contributors, such as Alexander the Great and Tennessee Williams, then generously let you have your turn and share with us the number of incest practitioners and their great contributions to society and history.
Now tell us again how no one can explain to you why the comparison of gay relationships to incestuous ones is invalid, and tell us again which deserves their relationships affirmed: homosexuals or the incestuous.
But I trust you've conceded me the point. You must since you're the one who brought it and then folded by insisting that no one cares about it, you pathetic, cowering wuss! (And I don't want to hear a word about how big bad Patrick's being so nasty to you. You're the one who told Lena that you didn't give a rat's ass about hurting anyone's feelings. YOU demanded the gloves be off. Guess what? They're off. Deal with it.)
Crid writes: "The point which you are loathe to acknowledge is that there are some pairings society deems worthy of this privilege and others which it does not."
And? Who said I was loathe to acknowledge it? I've been acknowledging it all along. Why do you think I brought up my uncle and his lover? My point is, I can prove that gay relationships do deserve the privilege whether society wants to grant it or not. Committed monogamous relationships under legal sanction work. The legal protection behind marriage is intended to make two good people better. It frees them up to share the domestic and financial burdens and allows them to function as a unit. Marriage fails when two incomplete people enter into it looking for it to make them complete. I never said society doesn't deem gay relationships worthy of the privilege. I am challenging society's censure on it.
Crid writes: "Do you doubt that homosexuals have been marrying the opposite sex throughout history?"
Did you even bother to read my previous post on the subject? I already know they have. I also don't know of any homosexual who has done so and hasn't either had affairs, or eventually realized they were living a lie and dissolved the relationship. So, I ask again, is this okay with you? Well, let me ask first, do you know of any homosexual who has entered into a monogamous committed relationship with a woman who has never ever strayed, or hasn't ended up dissolving the relationship? So, are broken marriages and extra-marital affairs (with the possibility of visiting disease upon the wife and children) a-okay with you?
Crid writes: "Two points seem to leave you in paralysis."
Excuse me??? I've responded to both those points and reiterated them in this post. They are not leaving me in paralysis at all. You simply refuse to acknowledge the responses. What's the problem? Uncomfortable with them? Because this playing stone deaf and pretending nothing was said in response just isn't going to fly. Do yourself a favor, please. If you can't refute what someone says in debate, just say so. But don't be an idiot and pretend nothing was said when it's as plain as the nose on my face that you simply can't prevail and are too embarassed to admit it.
Crid blathers: "The first is that there might be any greater project in life than answering an individual's 'natural' feelings, be they enduring or momentary.
Of course there are greater projects, but arguing from that perspective, you would disallow ANYONE to marry. Duh. Marriage is NOT a project in and of itself, however, it can be a very useful foundation from which one's life projects can be done. It is easier to go about one's life projects when one is sharing the domestic necessities unrelated to those projects, rather than shouldering them all himself every day. And it certainly is helpful if that life partner who makes your life's work easier has legal sanction.
Crid blathers: (Your concern about fidelity may be sincere and correct, but I can't imagine what it has to do with this.)
Are you really this dense? Is it really okay to pressure gays into unnatural unions for your peace of mind if they are going to end up breaking up their marriage and having extra-marital affairs? It's better not to marry at all than to have your marriage devolve into something like this!
Crid blathers: The second is that society might have an interest in how people couple, and regard certain unions as better for the pair AND for their community (while not perfect for anyone). One last time: What does gay marriage do for rest of society?"
I've already told you. A good marriage allows two great people to be greater. It frees them up by not only allowing them to SHARE the daily duties which we must perform to survive and function among others. It is also quite motivating to know that you have someone sharing your life who is loving, supporting and encouraging you, or at least has a vested interest in your success. And as I've already shown that gays can and do make meaningful contribution, they deserve the chance to enter into an institution in which they can make their contributions greater.
By the way, in case you need this told to you, your suggestion that blood relationships entering marriage is as every bit as legitimate as homosexuals entering into one has been well and truly blown out of the water. Your rhetorical towel snap obviously failed to crack. Speaking of cracks, by the way, you may place your puckered lips firmly between my spread buttocks whenever you care to, you brain-dead Fascist.
Patrick at November 2, 2003 8:52 PM
Peggy writes: "Patrick,
I have to ask--the "prevention" of rape? What law prevents rape? My issue with laws is that we can force people legally into recognizing something as being as 'acceptable' (and other things, like rape, as 'unacceptable'), but that does not change the opinions of the populace."
Forgive a poor choice of words, dear one. I was simply addressing Crid's insistence that heterosexual marriages solve problems, which included women being raped. (Interesting speculation on her part, but nothing more.) The laws on the books which assign penalties for rape, are, of course, no "protection," but as a deterrent, I would say it's more effective than the fact that a woman wears a gold band on her left hand. A rapist is more likely to be balked by the prospect of thirty years in prison or the cop who's going to come running if this woman screams than the fact that this woman has a husband somewhere, at least in my opinion.
Patrick at November 2, 2003 9:04 PM
Amy, there's nothing ludicrous about presuming heterosexual couples make superior parents.
First, childen are LITERALLY DELIVERED to the interesection of a man and a woman. This is not a minor biological point. People, religious or not, shouldn't resist the poetry of such truths. Especially people enamored of diversity. You want diversity? Marry the opposite sex... That'll turn your head around.
Second, it's pretty obvious that societies improve where heterosexual marriages are practiced... They appear across the globe. A few stone age tribes in Papua New Guinea do not a meaningful exception make. Unless you wanna live in PNG. (Their scuba sites *are* stupendous....)
No, we don't test each couple. But we don't test each child for the application of germ theory either. Whoever you are, if you wash your hands a lot, you won't get sick as often.
I think "role models" are meaningless. A kid watching Don Johnson or whoever on television is not getting a deep and meaningful appreciation of masculinity. "Role models" smells like "quality time." Children are notorious for needing what they need when they need it, and watching you and learning from you when they're inclined, not when told to. (Yet another reason I dislike them, they're resistant to management.)
The components of a "decent home" are precislely what we're talking about. On Planet Mark, one is a loving male parent, the other a loving female. And they're good with each other, not just the kids.
crid at November 2, 2003 9:56 PM
Patrick,
If in some alternate universe a girl ever does manage to wiggle your weenie, let me know. You are to die for! Love your posts.
Crid--Do you want to address the issue of single parents here? If it's better for children to be raised by a loving father AND mother it begs the question--what is society going to do to punish those people who have children outside of marriage or whose marriage dissolves? Or should I say what will society return to doing against such people? Obviously, children raised in such an environment are going to grow up to be a burden on society, so let's punish the family.
My brother is a single dad, and my sisters and I are positive female influences for his children. But we're not their mother, so should society have forced him to stay married to his whacked-out ex, who was not a great example for them to observe day-in and day-out?
And frankly, marriage creates a whole world of its own problems, so let's get out of fairyland and quit pretending that it's so peachy keen. Amy's point is valid--if heteros are allowed to make that kind of a life-altering mistake--oops, I mean choice--then homos should be able to too.
If we treat people fairly, then their sexuality should not be the determining factor in what sort of contract they can enter into. We don't deny homosexuals access to any other legal contract, so why do we deny them access to this one? Nobody has denied me the right to enter into any contract just because I'm fat and ugly, and let's face it--that's a far greater sin in this country than being homosexual!
Peggy C at November 2, 2003 10:33 PM
"Amy, there's nothing ludicrous about presuming heterosexual couples make superior parents."
Actually, my friend Judy Stacey, who's a very well-known sociologist, studies gay couples, and she finds that many are superior parents -- probably because they don't have children simply because the little strip turned pink, but because they make an extremely conscious decision to do so, then go to great lengths to make children a reality in their lives.
PS A society without homosexuals would be a big, fucking roaring bore.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2003 2:04 AM
"The components of a "decent home" are precislely what we're talking about. On Planet Mark, one is a loving male parent, the other a loving female. And they're good with each other, not just the kids."
And then the dragon bit the head off the mean knight and everybody lived happily ever after!
( I guess all those blissful, perfect hetero families live on Earth 2, because that's not the picture I see around these parts. Happiness and heterosexual parents aren't a combo pack, darling.)
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2003 2:07 AM
I never proposed doing away with homosexuality. Well-adopted kids always tend to do better than other kids. I maintain that of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple of roughly the same resources and warmth, the hets are better parents.
Review this thread: Five or ten times, someone has noted that there are bad outcomes in a world of heterosexual marriages, as if this somehow disproves their worth. But kids who wash their hands get sick, too... We still make them wash their hands.
Obviously, gender preference is a powerful force in most people's lives: We don't like being told to ignore it. I don't see why people here are so quick to assume that it doesn't speak to the hearts of children on a powerful level as well, and unconsciously.
Pick a friend of yours, say a media type, maybe one with a teenage daughter. Do you suppose she thinks her own femininity hasn't been a blessing to the child? Ask your married parent friends if they think two men or two women OF EQUAL DECENCY could have done as well. Love is not some free-floating miasma of patience and affection that makes people joyous. Circumstances have much to do with it.
Busy weekend on a personal project, it's been fun to take the breaks. Everybody Vote Republican, and we'll do it again real soon.
crid at November 3, 2003 3:45 AM
Does this mean you'll be quiet now?
Lena Cuisina at November 3, 2003 6:12 AM
Crid, you're still missing it. What if society was reversed? What if homos were the majority and heteros were the minority? Would it be fair for them to tell you to just fake it and marry someone of the same gender so you make society happy? What happens to that hetero partner that you love? You should have to deny your true feelings and inclincation to make the majority happy, because it's better for them? Better in what way?
Your argument is based on societal mores. Of course, society also used to think it was 'good' for blacks & whites to be separate. Are you going to argue that what used to be acceptable should always be the standard?
I got married with both parents dead and the full knowledge that I would never have kids. Since my marriage would not 'benefit' society, should the right to marry have been denied me, even though I'm hetero? There are plenty of straight and gay couples who have no desire to have children--is that enough reason that they not be allowed to marry? It's not just about kids, or just about taking care of the old folks.
Not that I'm making an argument for marriage, but if we're going to grant equal access to people because they are people, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation, then marriage also needs to be accessible to all people.
Peggy C at November 3, 2003 8:30 AM
Holy smokes, I can't keep up. Just some comments I guess.
Why would anyone think that hetero couples would be worried that gay couples have the same rights. Nobody elses rights are being trampled on.
Why so much emphasis on what marriage does for society? I still don't see it. People pair off, naturally. Some stay together, some don't.
Seems to me, just a thought, that much of the legal aspects of marriage probably stem from the problems that marriage produces.
and one last comment about crids take on "interior life". When I think of interior life I think of prayer, meditation, reflection, contemplation, and etc. The best I could make of Crid's post is that he was referring to the bedroom. Implying sexual behavior. Am I confused?
Riboflavin at November 3, 2003 1:47 PM
Crid blathers: "I never proposed doing away with homosexuality. Well-adopted kids always tend to do better than other kids. I maintain that of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple of roughly the same resources and warmth, the hets are better parents."
That's nice that you think so, Crid. Now prove it. You made the assertion, you back it up. Show us all how all other factors being equal, children of heterosexuals fare better than the children of homosexual couples. Got statistics of instances of juvenile delinquency, rates of financial success as adults on kids raised by hets vs. those raised by homosexuals? Didn't think so. So, your guess is as valid as mine. Okay, then I'm going to play devil's advocate and insist that children of gay couples fare BETTER than those of heterosexual couples. After all, other things being equal, they are less likely to be raised by narrow-minded chowderheads like you!
But more to the point, you're MISSING the point (AGAIN!). You are suggesting that marriage is for the creation of children, and it isn't. Society doesn't have any contracts with people wishing to marry, mandating them to produce small versions of themselves. What about couples who CAN'T have children? Or those who CHOOSE not to? By playing the "procreation card," you are disqualifying the infertile or those who don't wish to have children from marrying. Society has no such rule, tacite or otherwise. In fact, in light of the current world population, it might be wiser to limit the number of offspring, or even disallow reproduction, especially with a whole bunch of ready made kids in the world needing good parents.
The only contract society has with those who marry is that they enter into a mutually beneficial partnership. Nothing more. Even in the most traditional marriage (man=breadwinner and woman="get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in bed") both parties benefit. The man has his home cared for and doesn't need to worry about domestic duties, and the woman has a regular income with which to feed herself and her husband - kids or no kids. Without that legally sanctioned partnership, woman needs to get her own money in addition to her domestic duties, and the man needs to iron his own shirts and cook his own meals. Good luck.
That said, why is it so disadvantageous for two people of the same sex to enter the same situation? Why should I have to jump through hoops to let the most important person in my life be my rightful beneficiary and be able to make decisions for me should I be unable to? Why should the one person who knows me best be ousted from his rightful role just if my family chooses to exercise their legal rights because the neanderthals in the government refuse to acknowledge that my bond with Don is every bit as valid as they have with their legally sanctioned spouses?
Because the children argument just isn't going to work. Even with couples that DO choose to have children, guess what? They eventually move out and start families of their own. But the spouse is still there...
Patrick at November 3, 2003 3:16 PM
"Why so much emphasis on what marriage does for society? [...] People pair off, naturally. Some stay together, some don't."
Thank you, Ribo. That's what I'd call a healthy attitude toward relationships.
Lena Cuisina at November 3, 2003 8:24 PM
So, Amy, does this blog entry of yours hold the record for the most responses so far?
Patrick at November 4, 2003 4:22 AM
I believe it does now!
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2003 6:06 AM
I'd love to know if anyone's doing research on "blog discourse." It seems like a fresh new area for sociologists who like analyzing texts till they're blue in the wazoo.
* What are the characteristics of seemingly interminable discussion threads?
* What kinds of topics and exchanges between participants make some threads longer than others?
* Why are some blog items not commented on at all?
* Could I maybe get my jiggly white ass to work today before I'm fired?
Dr. Lena at November 4, 2003 10:00 AM