Saying "I Dough"
Why can't gay people marry? Well, the religious nutters won't have it, but it's also about the money. Straight people can get Social Security from their loved one's earnings (and other entitlements). Open marriage up all to gay people and they'd have access to the entitlements, too.
Of course, I'm against marriage privileging, but if we're going to privilege heteros...well, it's like the magnet Lena gave me:
They should suffer like the rest of us.
Oh yeah, and don't fall back on the "Marriage is about children" argument. If that's the argument, then only couples with children, gay or straight, should get benefits we're now doling out to only married couples. (Not that I'm big on redistributed wealth programs, which I think cause helplessness and irresponsibility in many of us.)
In The New York Times, historian Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, sees the absurdity in the state telling people whether they can or cannot marry, and traces the socialism behind it:
WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
...In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.
But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.
In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.
Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.
Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.
As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.
Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
Of course, heterosexuality is no guarantee The Children will be well-taken care of, as this Breitbart.tv video of "Guard Finds Parents Passed Out Drunk In Running Car With Scared Toddler" shows.
On the other hand, last week, I met two of the more impressively raised kids I've encountered in recent memory. Mom's a lesbian. So is the kids' other mom. Shouldn't they and their boys get at least the same entitlements we're doling out to the drunken, married heteros?
For once I would like an argument that addresses fixing these rights, if they are rights, for all. Not just another special interest group. As I read the litany of so called civil rights violations listed by gay activists and all I actually find are special interest considerations. I mean is the fact that I pay a higher percentage of my income in federal tax than the rest of the country a civil rights violation? If I am to believe this thinly veiled call for special interest considerations called gay marriage, it is.
Clean the slate. Everyone pays the same tax rate, and then we won’t all ask for more spending.
Make it illegal for the Federal government to discriminate against its own citizens. If the government hands something out to one citizen then it must give it to all. I mean where are my food stamps? If the government didn’t actively discriminate against its own citizens would we have illegals lining up for benefits? Would we have many of the issues that divide us today?
And Kathy, no matter how you put it, two men or two women living together as one is not the same as a man and a woman joined as one. It is something different entirely. Call it something else.
Stop your vendetta against children and married people.
When do you start your big brother program? I can not wait to here about that.
Oh yeah, and don't fall back on the "Marriage is about love" argument.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 7:51 AM
Who's Kathy?
two men or two women living together as one is not the same as a man and a woman joined as one
Nobody's "the same" as anybody else. I'm not the same as my sister -- we're different human beings. But, if we are handing out entitlements, why should a gay family be privileged any differently than a straight one?
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 7:59 AM
Oh sorry, she is my office administrator. Long holiday!! I meant AMY!!!!
I thought I argued against entitlements. Besides, these marriage entitlements, like divorce law were all designed as entitlements for child bearing women. It was argued that if the women had stayed home and raised the children, or in other words not cultivated a viable means of earning a living, they needed special financial considerations. Now the same folks that brought us no fault divorce and pushed for these “entitlements” to be shared by all, childless or not, are pushing for gay marriage. In other words, they want even more entitlements.
Gee, now if what the gay community says is to believed, to not bestow entailments on gays is a civil rights violation. What a load of bull. So in other words, the reason gays push for this is the money? An institution that was conceived so that the ten years needed to raise a human to adulthood could be accomplished?
Yes Amy it actually is about the children. It is in fact the push from folks as you self to water down this institution that has caused the large numbers of our youth to be imprisoned. You would serve us better by strengthening the institution rather than tearing it down, regardless of how you personally feel on the issue.
Women have the man’s missing chromosomes and vise versa. That makes their bond one thing and the bond between folks with the same chromosomes a different one.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 8:19 AM
"two men or two women living together as one is not the same as a man and a woman joined as one. It is something different entirely. Call it something else."
Fine, call it "Gay Marriage." As long as the the two individuals who are in love and committed are able to make a decision about themselves and their relationship and get the same benefits as straight couples they can call it what they want. Is it really about the label, Rusty? Your post leads me to conclude it is not, as far as you're concerned.
As far as a gay relationship being different than a straight one, I think that that's an obvious fact as far as body parts go. But do you think that you have the ability to evaluate the genuineness of a gay relationship? Can you determine if their love is somehow less real than the love of straight people?
If sexual preference is a predetermined biological "condition" (as opposed to a choice) then how can you reject a relationship which results from this sexual preference? And denying equal opportunities/whatever to people b/c their partner of choice has matching genitals, well, that's rejection.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 8:22 AM
So, gay parents who have children are not parents and do not have children?
As far as "child-bearing women" goes -- does this mean adopted children should be nixed from their parents' SS benefits?
Furthermore, one of the lesbians I mentioned above bore those children. But, whether a child comes out of your body isn't what makes you that child's parent -- it's whether you behave parentally to that child: raise it, care for it, be financially, physically, and emotionally responsible for it.
"You would serve us better by strengthening the institution rather than tearing it down, regardless of how you personally feel on the issue."
Well, there's a wise statement! How do gay people getting married "tear down" marriage? Why should the institution itself be protected -- and isn't that a silly idea? The institution is supposed to serve people, not the other way around. And how do you serve children by denying them rights based on who their parents happen to be sexually attracted to and partner up with?
I'm guessing you're the product of so much religious brainwashing that you just can't see anything but what you've been told is correct.
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 8:26 AM
Are you a genetic scientist and psychologist, Rusty? Can you prove this: "Women have the man’s missing chromosomes and vise versa. That makes their bond one thing and the bond between folks with the same chromosomes a different one."
...now, I realize that only a female human's egg can make a baby with a male human's sperm, but, sometimes love can manifest itself within a relationship w/o the presence of children.
I love my boyfriend. He loves me. We do not have kids and it's not on the docket right now. Our bond is real and special and perhaps kids will be up for debate in ten years. But the fact that I'm female and he's male doesn't mean that our emotional connection is more valid or special or different than that of a gay couple.
It takes 18 years, not 10, to raise a child to adulthood.
"It is in fact the push from folks as you self to water down this institution that has caused the large numbers of our youth to be imprisoned."
Are you referring to YOUR opinion that two gay people cannot raise a child successfully? Are you spouting unsupported bullshit that gay parents raise criminals? Where in the hell did you find THAT data? Do you also have your PhD in economics, and did you conduct a survey on crime rates among the children of gay parents?
I have two parents who are straight and they did a so-so job, but for the most part they were and are clueless and go about pretty much everything in the wrong way. Being straight doesn't make you a good parents. Being in a gay relationship doesn't mean you'll be a bad parent, but it does make it a 100% certainty you won't biologically procreate together. And the procreation part is only, like, 1% of the parenting battle.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 8:34 AM
"Survey" should be "study."
I'll grant I read your comment literally, but if I read it figuratively it would have been an even more idiotic statement...
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 8:37 AM
How do gay people getting married "tear down" marriage?
Yeah, this seems to me to be the important question. If we are going to deny people the opportunity to engage in a legal relationship with each other based upon the gender of the person they like to fuck, there needs to be a reason. And no one I've read has yet to explain how letting two dudes enter into a legal arrangement we've decided to call marriage negatively affects my legal arrangement of the same name. Why is this a zero-sum game, where everything afforded the queers hurts straight people. And why is this so compelling as to deny people the right of contract (a fundamental legal right we otherwise offer all mentally competent adults)?
justin case at November 26, 2007 8:46 AM
First off, you are not the only one with gay friends so if we want to mix in personal experiences into this argument so be it. We could play the I know game all day. Big deal.
Second of all I am for either fixing the SS program or abolishing it. Not extending it to another special interest group. Folks should own their SS account and be able to leave it to who ever they want...as long as I am not the one funding their SS. Of course this goes against Supreme Court rulings which state that you do not own any of your SS account.
Thirdly, yes I know there are always exceptions to every generality. I could bring up a single exception to everything so then where would that leave us on general topics? Are we after solutions or the tyranny of the minority? I am sorry for the Lesbian mother. If she was going to have a kid, she should have stayed with the father. It is a big decision, treat it like one. If it helps, I know it won’t, I also know several lesbian mothers.
Fourthly, well, there's a wise statement! How do gay people getting married "tear down" marriage? They are not getting married to create a family. It is about love, financial security, getting there due and being accepted as main stream folks. Duhh. I am not saying there should not be an institution, make one. Just don’t use this one. Gee, I guess you had a problem with the no fault divorce also. Gee how dose that weaken it.
Fifthly, I'm guessing you're the product of so much religious brainwashing that you just can't see anything but what you've been told is correct. Well, I haven’t been to church since nine eleven, but some how I think you are the brain washed one here. You have a religious chip, as well as one against children and marriage. You want marriage to be a novelty, not an institution.
If you cared, wouldn’t you use this space to argue for rights for all, instead of more special interests? I mean if you actually care more about fixing this entitlement problem than say weakening marriage.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 8:53 AM
Gretchen,
What? Did you go to high school biology? And no, I am not. But I did work in medical labs, including genetic ones, for five years. Also, I was pre med. I made it all the way through Cell Physiology. Dose that help?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=women+chromosomes&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?q=men+chromosomes&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Are you referring to YOUR opinion that two gay people cannot raise a child successfully? I never said that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Are you spouting unsupported bullshit that gay parents raise criminals? No I was leaning towards single parrent families, but thanks for clearing that up.
Do you also have your PhD in economics, and did you conduct a survey on crime rates among the children of gay parents? No, I have a MS in Geophysics, but thanks for asking. Did I mention a survey?
So, I take it you also want more entitlement discrimination?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:00 AM
Fine, call it "Gay Marriage."
OK. So now should these men be entitled to the same thing that was intended for a women who stayed at home, never had a good job, and raised children? That is what you guys want? And yes, I agree Dinks should not get these benefits.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:03 AM
You're assuming a link b/w people's genitals and their ability to care and develop emotional bonds. That's where my bitchy comment comes in.
Biology plays an obvious role in procreation and, since I've been told by adamant gay people that gayness isn't a choice, I have to believe them. The alternative to "choice" is that our sexuality is hardwired and predetermined. Homosexual sex won't result in a child but we cannot place a value on a relationship simply based on the probability of a child's conception.
Maybe I wasn't being clear: I don't think any of us are equipped to make a statement about biology (and our genitals) and whether or not it determines our ability to develop emotional connections and fall in love.
If you want to eradicate SS I'm with you 100%. If you want to eradicate marriage as an institution all together, I'm open for debate. But if you want to say that a gay relationship should not have the same treatment as a straight relationship b/c "it's different" I'm going to keep bitching.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 9:08 AM
They are not getting married to create a family
We might be getting somewhere. Let me see if I have this correct, Rusty. For you, the point of the legal arrangement we call marriage is to bind a man and a woman together for the purposes of producing offspring.
Yes, no, kinda?
justin case at November 26, 2007 9:13 AM
You're assuming a link b/w people's genitals and their ability to care and develop emotional bonds. That's where my bitchy comment comes in.
No I claimed there is a difference between gay and straight marriage. I further stated that everyone should quit trying to make it the same. You see, men and women are different........that is why it is marriage.
Now here is an in site, men and men are that same, therefore their bond is different form one that involves different sexes.
Well, bake to personal experiences; almost all gays I have known have a molestation issue in their childhood. Many gays are made, not born. Although there is no question folks are born gay. Some folks even have both sex organs. Can I say folks are born with a propensity to use Speed? Is drug use hard wired?
I don’t want to eradicate marriage. I do want to eradicate government discrimination.
But if you want to say that a gay relationship should not have the same treatment as a straight relationship b/c "it's different....I do want to say that. Also, these marriages of two folks that never want to have kids, dinks, should not have the same treatment. That is why I am for making it harder to get married, not easier. Also I am for civil unions for all, not just Gays. How about two old sisters?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:18 AM
Justin,
Thank you. I don’t know why I used so many words. But it is more than that. ¾ of the gay argument is financial. I say if that is what you are worried about, can’t we fix it for all instead of 4% of the population?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:21 AM
Remember Amy’s title;
Saying "I Dough" Now why would she pick that if money wasn't the issue?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:22 AM
Gretchen,
Do you know how to tell the difference between a male chromosome and a female chromosome?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:35 AM
The money is the issue: Some are getting it, some aren't, but not based on whether they have a commitment or a family.
Why should you, Rusty, be able to decide what a family is based on your issues or the church's issues with homosexuality?
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 9:39 AM
"Do you know how to tell the difference between a male chromosome and a female chromosome?"
Do you know if the inherent biological difference b/w the sexes predetermines each person's ability to have a relationship and fall in love? No you don't. Are they different? Yes. Does each sex have certain characteristics that the other doesn't? Yes. But that doesn't mean that two men or two women can't have a relationship that is as strong/committed/whatever as a man+woman relationship. That's just not an assumption I'd be willing to make.
That said, I place the same value in a gay relationship as I do a straight one. And as long as we're bestowing all these benefits upon straights we should give them to gays.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 9:43 AM
Gretchen,
You pull down their genes!
Amy,
Why should you, Rusty, be able to decide what a family is based on your issues or the church's issues with homosexuality? I shouldn’t, unless I am in the majority. It is how a civilized community operates. Why can’t a man marry his cat? A woman her dog? Who am I to decide? Oh come on.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:47 AM
Amy,
I never said the money issue should be decided based on whether they have a commitment or a family. I was just explaining how we got here. I think you gals have had way to many beifits!!
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:48 AM
Oh, the love thing again;
Do you know if the inherent biological difference b/w the sexes predetermines each person's ability to have a relationship and fall in love? No you don't. Are they different? Yes. Does each sex have certain characteristics that the other doesn't? Yes. But that doesn't mean that two men or two women can't have a relationship that is as strong/committed/whatever as a man+woman relationship. That's just not an assumption I'd be willing to make.
Here is my advice. Don’t get married unless you want to have kids. Other wise, live together. Worried about all the other issues? Can’t we have a civil union that anyone can use? Not just gays? Are maybe gays are special.
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 9:58 AM
Why not polygamy or polyandry? If the genders aren't important anymore, what's so magical about the number 2?
winston at November 26, 2007 10:20 AM
I think you gals have had way to many beifits!!
Benefits? Uh, I'm not getting any since I'm in a five-year, non-marital committed relationship.
Can you let me know if there are some benefits I'm neglecting to collect on?
Furthermore, Winston, if we're going to allow people to designate one other person to be their SS recipient -- not that I'm for SS at all -- why should only married people get that privilege?
I'm also for taking health care out of the workplace equation. Everybody pay your own, independent of work, as I do.
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 10:27 AM
Winston,
Many new studies state that our history was a polygamist one. This is born out in the fact that the males are larger than the females. This trait always develops in polygamist species.
Many other studies point to say our terror problems being rooted in Polygamy rather than religion, sorry Amy. This is due to the fact that men with means immediately round up all the women for themselves, leaving no women for newly emerging males from say the ages of 16 to 30. Of course the female less males resort to war and violence.
Think about it. How easy would it be for rich males to round up all the available females? For Amy’s benefit let’s say rich females would do the same....but they won’t. Don’t believe me? Are the strip clubs in your city for males or females?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 10:29 AM
Amy,
Are you saying the marriage benefits were not written for females? Same with the divorce laws?
Eliminate Federal discrimination. We need an amendment. Why can’t 18 year citizens drink?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 10:32 AM
It is up to the employer to take health care out of the work place since it is the employers that decide to provide it. It is not up to you or I Amy. Are you saying that I don’t have the right to buy someone health care?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 10:43 AM
"Many new studies state that our history was a polygamist one."
How interesting (overlaps with something I'm working on). Cites please, rusty?
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 11:03 AM
men with means immediately round up all the women for themselves, leaving no women for newly emerging males from say the ages of 16 to 30.
This sounds good, but aren't terrorists predominantly drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families.
But that's diverging a bit from this discussion.
On finances and marriage:
OK, so this debate is about the legal incidents of marriage and not about kids. E.g., owning property as JT with ROS (and no change in basis when one spouse dies), the right to your partner's social security, and also, presumably the right to have your partner's bad credit trash yours, and the right to maybe have to pay for your spouse for years to come if you divorce.
I say if that is what you are worried about, can’t we fix it for all instead of 4% of the population
I think so - I think we can just pick a new term, provide these legal incidents to two consenting adults, grandfather all civil marriages to be legally designated by the new term, and let the churches dole out the "marriages" per their rules.
justin case at November 26, 2007 11:10 AM
I’m with you Justin on the marriage issue.
Yea the high profile ones are, but not the rank and file.
Jody,
I’ll work on that for you. I am not sure which science mag I read that in. It was sometime during the last year. Here is a goggle;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Polygamy+size+difference&spell=1
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 11:39 AM
Well maybe the women would take to polygamy;
Older white women join Kenya's sex tourists
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN2638979720071126?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=22&sp=true
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 11:45 AM
And in today's news, two of the hot topics in one story --- Islamic terrorists and gay marriage (complete with photo of the happy couple):
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/26/iraq.bride/index.html
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 26, 2007 12:23 PM
> Why can't gay people
> marry?
Great News, turtledove! They can! Gays have the exact same rights to marry as anyone else, and they've always had those rights. We're all equal under the law. Everything is as it should be.
We've covered this before, but you never take the point, which I think is telling. Nothing is more important to the typical Gay Marriage enthusiast than pretending that this is a very simple failure of definition. The simplicity makes it easy to remember, and stokes the teenage resentment of unfairness that nourishes self-righteousness. You get to pretend you're not asking for a huge change in civilization's fundamentals. Not having to consider deeper meaning is what makes it fun!
> Of course, I'm against
> marriage privileging, but
> if we're going to privilege
> heteros...
No. You're either principled about it or you're not. If you think marriage is a damaging institution, you shouldn't encourage it for some people just because you think doing so will make you popular at parties where white wine is served.
> then only couples with
> children, gay or straight,
> should get benefits
(Straight) Marriage bespeaks our genesis in a way that gay unions cannot, and will --in the cases of the fertile young-- always have that potential.
More importantly, the sickness in contemporary marriage is that it's viewed as a way to extract "benefits" from society rather than to invest value into society. Gay, straight or wut-evar, things aren't likely to get any better until people recognize the importance of a cheerful ante in our Big Game of poker.
> In the 1950s[...] Cohabitation
> and single parenthood
> by choice were very rare.
And those were the days, my friend! Nowadays, governments (and industry and community in general, including family) are paralyzed in their efforts to demand responsible conduct from people who pretend to be in families. Nobody's happy with how this is working out, but nonetheless, they're demanding even less structure. Flames are fanned.
> unmarried couples typically
> cannot, no matter how long
> they have pooled their
> resources and how faithfully
> they have kept their
> commitments.
If they're going to be so fucking (and proudly) faithful, why not fill out the paperwork? How intimate are they going to demand that the courts (and others) be in rewarding them for competence?
Maybe the problem is that people have given up on churches. But they want a hearing on the fulfillment of their familial bonds from some solomn fucker wearing a robe on a dais, whether he's a holy parson or just an elected judge... Maybe it's mostly about that need for attention from authority, to be patted on the head and soothed for life's discomforts.
> Shouldn't they and their
> boys get at least the
> same entitlements we're
> doling out to the drunken,
> married heteros?
First, by my math, their boys are "entitled" to fathers as much as anything in life, and women (and single men re mothers) who can't do this math shouldn't be whining about what they're owed. Children are certainly, certainly more entitled to a loving Mother with a loving Father than any grownup in the world is entitled to parenthood.
Secondly, there's a reason you feel compelled to imagine the straights as drunkards. Appes to apples is a losing context for you.
A good start, no? Coming later today: Picking fights in the comments! Bring your best bitchslap! See you then!
Crid at November 26, 2007 1:07 PM
It's simple, get the State out of the marriage license business.
Issue civil union licenses instead; make every union an equal-footing civil union, each with the same tax, property, and business status as the other, regardless of gender.
Let the churches handle the marriage issue with their own ceremonial blandishments.
You may celebrate my genius at your leisure.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 26, 2007 1:22 PM
"Great News, turtledove! They can! Gays have the exact same rights to marry as anyone else, and they've always had those rights."
Gah, stop being annoying just to be annoying, Criddo!
"which I think is telling"
Step *away* from the crystal ball, dude...keep your hands where I can see them.
"Not having to consider deeper meaning is what makes it fun!"
This is exactly where anti same sex marriage folks lose it: to some people, won't name names, it's about the fact that gays are different. That's we're shaking the foundation of something that's been accepted for hundreds of years. This offends people. This scares people. It's not self righteous to say: hey, two committed people love each other and want to be married to one another, why the hell not? ...because they're GAY FREAKS, right?! And they're fucking w/ peoples' comfort level...
I could go for a bitch slap right now - my Earl Gray just didn't do it for me on this dreary afternoon.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 1:23 PM
Then for others, name not included, guys and girls are the same...all the way down to their genes, so why can’t guys marry guys. We are all the same man. It's not self righteous to say: hey, three committed people and a dog that love each other and want to be married to one another, why the hell not? ...because they're GAY FREAKS, right? and animal sex folks and and the baby lovers lets not forget them?! I mean they love the little tykes. And they're fucking w/ peoples' comfort level... Can’t we all get along?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 1:39 PM
Nothing is more important to the typical Gay Marriage enthusiast than pretending that this is a very simple failure of definition
Hooray! I don't care what anyone else says. It's not a gay marriage discussion on this blog without Crid.
It is a very simple change. A tiny little "find and replace" operation performed on some legal documents, and voila! Any two adults who so choose can enter into the legal relationship our society calls marriage. If you don't like using the term "marriage," we'll find another legal term for all such unions, gay or straight.
But, Crid says, "WAIT! We're not talking about just changing a few labels, we are messing about with one of the pillars of our society. We can't do that!"
Over the years, almost all of the pillars of our society which were exclusively the province of one sort of person usually my people (i.e., white males) - property rights, the franchise (and I'm not talking McD's here), education - have been extended to others who didn't have access to them in the same ways before. I challenge anyone to find a sane person to argue that these changes have not produced salubrious consequences for our society and the world - though not everyone thought so at the time. I'm betting that we're witnessing a similar sort of debate here. People getting all worked up over something (extending marriage rights to same-sex couples) that will: 1) happen pretty soon in the civilized world, 2) mostly have positive effects, and that 3) will be utterly uncontroversial in 30 years or so.
And I know, what about the kids! Well, I mean, it would be terrible for a kid to have a gay couple raising him together, right? Good thing that never happens now! Because if it did, we certainly wouldn't want that child to think that society sanctions the (non) family he's a part of. Right?
justin case at November 26, 2007 1:51 PM
Issue civil union licenses instead; make every union an equal-footing civil union, each with the same tax, property, and business status as the other, regardless of gender...You may celebrate my genius at your leisure.
Well, we can approve of your common-sense posture... monday's a tough day to get us celebrating.
justin case at November 26, 2007 1:53 PM
> If the government hands
> something out to one
> citizen then it must
> give it to all.
There are always certain people doing certain behaviors who we'll want to encourage.
> Is it really about the
> label, Rusty?
(I'm not Rusty, but...)
To a lot of people, this is about the label. They childishly, nihilistically want to believe that everything is exactly the same, and they won't be satisfied until everyone else is compelled to agree with them.
> the genuineness of a gay
> relationship? Can you
> determine if their love
> is somehow less real
"Genuineness" is not society's goal, nor is the certification of "real love." (See the earlier comment about people wanting to be patted on the head by a fatherly guy in a robe.)
> well, that's rejection.
You make it sound like a lost lyric from Dean Martin:
When the moon hits your eye
like a big pizza pie;
That's Rejection!
Yes; certain unions are rejected for our favor.
> I'm guessing you're the
> product of so much religious
> brainwashing
You're a profoundly presumptuous and condescending little spud.
> sometimes love can manifest
> itself within a relationship
These fascinations are best reviewed in bodice-ripper novels, not public policy.
> the procreation part is
> only, like, 1% of the
> parenting battle.
Sez you. I think the sex of parents is pivotally and enduringly important.
> based upon the gender of
> the person they like to
> fuck
The policy is not about the people you like to fuck. It's about the person with whom you're going to raise the child as a parent. (Why, why, why does everyone think The Old Guy at the Courthouse [or the Statehouse or the Senate] has such a teenage fascination with individual erotic enthusiasms?
> (a fundamental legal
> right we otherwise offer
> all mentally competent
> adults)?
Did I ever tell you what happened that time I tried to marry my younger sister?
> You're assuming a link b/w
> people's genitals and their
> ability to care and develop
> emotional bonds.
I don't know what "b/w" means, but I think genitals have much to do with the way people care and develop emotional bonds.
> because they're GAY FREAKS,
> right?!
Gretchen, who said that? Who said it? You did. See "teenage self-righteousness," above. (Psychologists call this "projection." Amy often does the same thing re: religious bigotedness.)
> It is a very simple change.
> A tiny little "find and
> replace" operation
If it's that tiny, let's not bother.
> we'll find another legal
> term for all such unions
Again, won't work. Too many people are into the infantilizing stubborness of this conflict, and they'll just sit and turn blue if you don't call it "marriage".
> didn't have access to
> them in the same ways
> before.
Again. Again. Again: Marriage is as accessible to gays as to anyone.
> But, Crid says, "WAIT!
Never use a full quotation mark unless you're quoting directly. If you can't persuade without putting words in someone's mouth (see also Gretchen, above), maybe you're in unfamilar terrain.
> it would be terrible for
> a kid to have a gay couple
> raising him together, right?
As a broad social norm, it might not be what's best, and I want what's best for kids. Perhaps your father's masculinity had zero impact on your character. And perhaps your mother's femininity had no effect either. And maybe the confluence of these forces in your childhood came to naught. But if that's the case, I never, ever want to hang out with you at a cocktail party, because you'd be a really bloodless kinda guy.
> monday's a tough day to
> get us celebrating.
This morning's horrific dental implant procedure put me in just the right mood for this.
Crid at November 26, 2007 2:23 PM
Never use a full quotation mark unless you're quoting directly.
Thanks for the grammar note - I actually didn't know this rule.
If you can't persuade without putting words in someone's mouth (see also Gretchen, above), maybe you're in unfamilar terrain.
I thought it was an adequate summation of a lot of your arguments - that those who wish to extend the definition of marriage or "legally recognized long-term couple pairing" to gay couples - were risking serious unintended consequences by fucking around with on of the most important institutions in society.
Am I wrong about this? Am I also wrong that you think that letting gay people marry would somehow risk making more childhoods worse than they are today? I don't think I am, but feel free to correct me; it does seem that the needs of children figure strongly in your arguments.
As a broad social norm, it might not be what's best, and I want what's best for kids.
Who doesn't want what's best for kids? I mean, I'm sure there's some asshole out there who wants to fuck kids over, but I don't think there are many. I'm willing to submit that it may be ideal for every child to grow up in a household with a loving mother and father who are committed to each other and to raising an independent, loving little human being with some brains and some morals a sparkle in his eye and just a little bit of attitude. But we don't live in an ideal world. Lots of kids grow up in really bad circumstances. I think we'd all be OK with a committed, loving same sex couple providing some children with a good and stable and loving home, even if the masculine-feminine balance in their growing years doesn't match the platonic ideal. Right? Doesn't it make sense - for the kids - to make it easier for committed couples to create a good environment for them?
justin case at November 26, 2007 3:23 PM
Any person who chooses to implement the slippery slope form of argument is weak.
Is a dog a consenting adult? I guess we really don't know, but until it learns to speak English and sign its name on the dotted line, I don't see how we could allow people to marry pets - or fuck 'em for that matter. We protect children b/c we assume they're not capable of understanding the full weight of their decision, and I'm sure that argument extends to animals who, as far as I know, haven't proven themselves to be on the same mental and emotional level of humans. I feel sad that I even had to lay that all out on this blog. Stop wasting peoples' time.
And if three people want to be married...I don't care: but it's the repercussions of plural marriage (ie: high financial cost to provide equal benefits to multiple survivors of deceased spouse and the fact that people don't usually *think* before they pop out a few kids...let me know if you want to chat online about this, I don't want to waste any more space) which is why I either argue against plural marriage or the eradication or legal benefits to being married...
Now, then there's plural marriage "mandated by god" and that's a different can of worms...men with ten underage wives b/c WHO said it was your duty? Give me a break.
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 3:53 PM
...come on, projecting...? Accuse me of anything else, but projecting? That's such an overused psychobabble catch phrase it drives me nuts. When you can prove that I actually dislike gay people and that I support their repression then you can accuse me of "projecting." I think a more accurate diagnosis, Freud, is "being presumptuous and bitchily sarcastic."
This is where I then turn around and say "No YOU'REEEE PROJECTING!" ugh
I think that most people DO want to squash gay marriage b/c deep down inside gayness freaks them out. These people tend to be concerned with political correctness and come up with all sorts of creative reasons why gay people shouldn't get married, and they do it while omitting the key fact that they just. don't. like. homos. Thus the "gay freaks" comment, it was lame sarcasm I guess.
"b/w" = between
"w/o" = without
"w/in" = within
Gretchen at November 26, 2007 4:08 PM
Linda Hogan is asking for half of Hulk’s assets!
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/26/Northpinellas/Hulk_s_wife_wants_hal.shtml
She’s also asking for alimony, and she should get it.
The Hogans were married for nearly 25 years.
Cha Ching...poor gays missing out
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 4:09 PM
Crid,
Is it really about the
> label, Rusty?
If it isn’t the gays won’t have a problem with civil union will they?
rusty wilson at November 26, 2007 4:22 PM
Well, gee, this is a rerun; that's OK, it never goes out of style.
A reminder: the State does, indeed, have business knowing what your alliances are so that it may apply inheritance law. It also needs to know what it going on for future application of tax/project money. While I'm sure that a few people think that government is an instant game, well, no.
And if you think the rates of single motherhood are a good thing, then by all means go right ahead and claim it doesn't matter who you are with.
Be consistent. This isn't confined to gay/nongay black/white false dilemma.
Radwaste at November 26, 2007 4:26 PM
> I actually didn't know
> this rule.
That's because I made it up. When a rhetorical argument is in tough middle innings, presenting an illusion of sophisticated, disciplined, authoritative-seeming principle can be a useful distraction. Reagan used to do it a lot. See this book for more examples. (It's a fun read.)
> letting gay people marry
They already can! They already can! They already can! They already can! They already can! It's important to understand this! They already can!
Why can't people acknowledge this? Why can't the people who support GM stop being glib about it and --just one time-- actually state in affirmative terms exactly what it is that they want? I think it's because the mechanical process of doing so exposes the gaping valley of nuance that would be lost in the Three Gorges flood of Gay Marriage simplicity. If you use any other wordings at all, suddenly it's no longer about cute, effeminate, harmless guys holding pleasant 4pm ceremonies at beach parks with old Savage Garden tunes weeping from a borrowed boombox nearby. It's much more fun to imagine that this is about "genuineness" or "real love," or that witless, incompetent bureaucrats in distant offices are personally fascinated with where you and I wiggle our weenies.
> Who doesn't want what's
> best for kids?
Millions of people. Look what straights have done to kids in the last three generations! Single parenthood, essentially single motherhood, is now a norm, as is its attendant poverty. Must we pretend this is good for kids, or that enthusiasm for their well-being made it happen?
No. Adults are shits, and are always ready to surrender the best interests of the children for their own reproductive fulfillment.
> I'm willing to submit
> that it may be ideal
> for...
Then this is over, and I appreciate your gentlemanly concession. We'll hang out soon... We'll do a Warriors game and go for a beer or something. Because what's best for kids is what's best, right?
Apparently not:
> Lots of kids grow up
> in really bad
> circumstances.
Are we going to do something about that?
> a committed, loving same
> sex couple providing
> some children with a
> good and stable and
> loving home
"Some children"? OK then, but just the black babies, OK? Or the fat 'n uglies. Or the 'tards. I mean if you're sure it doesn't make any difference to you or to them anyway...
No, you can't do this and say you want what's best. By all logic, you're throwing somebody overboard. That somebody is the most defenseless member of society. And you're saying an ideal is not even an aspiration.
I've been through this about 20 times on Amy's blog over the years and it rarely makes it this far, but... Of course gays are going to raise kids. They always have and always will. We want and need them for the love and strength they can give to children. But I think babies are literally delivered to the intersection of a man and a woman for a reason. Kids can sometimes grow up with all sorts of deprivation and thrive, but if you want what's best....
So. Gays want to marry each other, and they want kids, and they have love and stability to offer. But if you're willing to surrender your ideals in the face of a real world of deep imperfection, then why can't we ask gays to first help us with the huge number of aging children who are never going to be adopted by perfection-obsessed yuppies?
GM enthusiasts want something from society. Society has needs, too. We ought to be able to work something out.
Crid at November 26, 2007 4:43 PM
Many heterosexual marriages are also same-sex marriages.
Same old sex, all the time (sigh!).
Doobie at November 26, 2007 5:09 PM
...if ever, that is.
Doobie at November 26, 2007 5:13 PM
When a rhetorical argument is in tough middle innings, presenting an illusion of sophisticated, disciplined, authoritative-seeming principle can be a useful distraction. Reagan used to do it a lot. See this book for more examples.
Sweet! Good tip. But you really want people to read something by Matthews? He always struck me as a total tool.
They already can! They already can! They already can! They already can! They already can! It's important to understand this! They already can!
I understand it. Seen what happens too, when a gay man marries a woman, fathers a couple of kids, abandons them, dies of AIDS. (I'm summing 20+ years of tragedy into a sentence here. But you can imagine it well enough, I'm sure). You can't really think gay people doing what you're suggesting is a good idea.
We'll do a Warriors game and go for a beer or something.
It'd be fun, and I'm almost always good for a beer or three. But damn, basketball tickets have gotten damn expensive. Warriors are really fun to watch though (side note - it really disappoints me that the NBA banned Nellie from bringing beers to the post-game Q&A sessions. If you have to answer inane questions after a game, you should at least be able to drink a cold one).
No, you can't do this and say you want what's best. By all logic, you're throwing somebody overboard. That somebody is the most defenseless member of society. And you're saying an ideal is not even an aspiration.
I don't think it's even remotely problematic to acknowledge that we can't have the ideal in every case, or that people - even the defenseless - get thrown overboard; I just think it's a good idea to have as many lifeboats in the water as possible. I don't care too much about who is manning them, as long as their boats are reasonably well-manned and well-provisioned. (OK, enough with that metaphor).
justin case at November 26, 2007 5:28 PM
> to read something by Matthews?
Tough sell... But he's not screechy in print! It's a breezy afternoon book with fun, trivial anecdotes about how that town really works. I used to call it "Machiavelli for non-majors."
> fathers a couple of kids,
> abandons them
Well, yeah, but... Yeah! But such a person is an asshole whatever their preference. Sure... If a father is going to abandon his kids, preference is not a big deal.
> You can't really think
> gay people doing what you're
> suggesting is a good idea.
What am I suggesting?
> I don't think it's even
> remotely problematic to
> acknowledge that we can't
> have the ideal
Great! You be the one to tell the kids the bad news, OK?
Crid at November 26, 2007 6:03 PM
There's a thread relating all this.
What am I suggesting?
You're suggesting that gay people can marry, just not people they actually want to be with. You also say this:
If a father is going to abandon his kids, preference is not a big deal.
And then you nominate me to:
be the one to tell the kids the bad news, OK?
Which is totally non-responsive.
There's a thread of idealism, or naivete about the human condition that I just don't get here (but I am a utilitarian about most things). I think you're being disingenuous about it, because you're usually perceptive about people and what motivates their actions.
Do you really believe we can have a social structure that tells people they're second class citizens because of how they like to wiggle their weenies and expect that we don't get tons of shitty things happening - to both the blessed little children and a other adults - because of it? Really?
Given the care you feel for the children of the world, you think it should be harder for people to make safe, stable homes if they're two men or women (because they don't face enough bonus challenges)?
I'm assuming there's an analysis where your thinking on this is logical. But I don't see it.
justin case at November 26, 2007 6:50 PM
> just not people they
> actually want to be with.
Right. Marriage favors some unions at the expense of others. I'm OK with that. And you're dangerously close to saying that heteros get to
marry whoever they actually want to be with, which is not how it works.
> You also say this:
Yes... A shitheel's a shitheel. I still can't see what you were getting at with that.
> Which is totally non-
> responsive.
You concede that there may (just may!) be a little extra voltage in heterosexual parenthood, but then say that it's OK that it's denied to some children. I think that's just crazy. You want what's best for kids or you don't.
> you're being disingenuous
> about it,
About what? Yes, I think some family arrangements are better than others... Is that naivete or reckless idealism?
> a social structure that tells
> people they're second class
Aren't you the one who just said some kids (kids!) have to put up with second-best?
> (because they don't
> face enough bonus
> challenges)?
It's my understanding that there's never been a major piece of civilization that treated homosexual unions as legally equivalent to heterosexual ones in the manner that most modern liberals dream of... This is new. Notice above how Gretchen wants to think I have freaky energy about this... I think it's the other way around. I think everybody else has the freaky energy. People are trying to contain all their understanding of homosexuality into this deeply circumscribed and comforting idea of it... That it's just like heterosexual love, and there's nothing mysterious or distinctive about it. It's like if we make it mundane enough, we needn't really be challenged by it. An important part of this seems to be certifying people as gay such that they'd never drift into anything heterosexual anymore.
I'm just old enough to remember the years when some of this stuff was shaking loose. Part of what made the 60's admirable was that people were allowed to be a little bit fluid in their choices, to play around and figure out how their heartbeats worked. Could anything be more oppressively conservative for our gay neighbors than demanding that they be as predictable and pigeonholed as Ward and June Cleaver?
Crid at November 26, 2007 8:03 PM
You concede that there may (just may!) be a little extra voltage in heterosexual parenthood, but then say that it's OK that it's denied to some children. I think that's just crazy. You want what's best for kids or you don't.
I'm saying the reality is that few (if any) children are raised in an environment of parental perfection, and that there enough fucked up households to go around as it stands. I don't think gay families are likely to muck things up any worse; I'm guessing most of them will muddle along like the rest of the world. But that's still a few more people with a stable place from which to do their thing. If that's what they want, I'm OK with that.
As far as gay people being pigeonholed into suburban life or whatever, I dunno (I think Sullivan has an "End of Gay Culture Watch"). I figure gay people must want this, since they're the ones driving it.
justin case at November 26, 2007 8:29 PM
> I dunno (I think Sullivan has
> an "End of Gay Culture Watch").
When you put it like that, suddenly: what's not to like?
Crid at November 26, 2007 10:29 PM
I have been watching this, trying not to get into it, because on the antigay side, no real arguments are being made - again. At the same time, the antigay side refuses to answer any arguments, instead claiming they don't actually exist.
Fact - there are over a million children being raised by same sex couples, in the U.S. right now. Over a million children got tucked in by one of their two moms or two dads tonight. Whether you like it or not, same sex couples are raising kids now.
Fact - there are really shitty gay parents out there. There are also really shitty hetero parents out there. OTOH, there are also exceptional parents in both camps. Mostly, gay or straight, parents just muddle along, doing the best they can.
Fact - gay people are restricted from marrying. The whole "they can get married" is a bullshit canard. No, they really can't. They can get into a bullshit fiction that isn't healthy for anyone involved, least of all the kids they might produce, but that is all it will ever be, a fiction. (I know a lot about this sort of fiction - I have a gay uncle who died of AIDS - his kids did not deal with the truth of it all very well)
Fact - Heteros are not special. Our relationships are not special. Nor do heteros have some magical power to raise kids right.
Fact - Gays do not have the legal security that even unmarried heteros have in securing their relationships. If my partner got horribly ill, there isn't a hospital in this country that would argue with my right to be at her side. There are a lot of hospitals that would deny that right to a same sex partner.
Rusty -
Damn straight the financial aspects are important, even in divorce. When people make a life together, that means they acquire things together. Even in same sex relationships, one partner may be a homemaker, as it were. They, no less than heteros, deserve the right to have legal rights at the end of the relationship.
Crid -
...then why can't we ask gays to first help us with the huge number of aging children who are never going to be adopted by perfection-obsessed yuppies?
Lets see. One same sex family that I had the honor of meeting, consists of dad, dad and several HIV positive kids. These kids were all declared unadoptable by the state of Florida, so they took them in as foster parents.
Another gay couple I know took in two autistic boys, one of whom is friends with my son. One of the dads is only a caregiver, the other works from home to be on hand.
It is very common for same sex couples to adopt or take as foster kids, the kids that are unwanted by the rest of society. This includes older children, often very challenging children. They take in the kids who were born drug addicted. They take in kids who were abused.
The fact of the matter is, there is no coherent reason not to allow gays equality in their relationships. I happen to believe in abolishing marriage as a civil institution altogether and stand by it. But as long as marriage is the mean by which those legal securities are doled out, gays should be allowed to marry. It isn't going to hurt anyone else's marriage. It isn't going to damage any institutions.
It would however confirm that gays are equal to hetoeros. Deep down, I suspect that is what frightens the living daylights out of those who so voraciously appose gay marriage.
DuWayne at November 27, 2007 12:10 AM
> on the antigay side, no
> real arguments are being
> made -
You can say that again. Who's "antigay"?
> Fact -
> Fact -
> Fact -
DuWayne, you're being pompous.
> The whole "they can get
> married" is a bullshit
> canard. No, they really
> can't.
Yes, the really can. There's are reasons, discussed in minute detail above, that you're afraid of facing the logic of this.
> Heteros are not special.
Says you. I think they're very special indeed.
> There are a lot of hospitals
> that would deny that right
> to a same sex partner.
Name three such hospitals. If you're really worried about this, tell us where their public affairs office are, and write them letters instead of using them as rhetorical boogiemen of the dark. I think you're more interested in a pretense of compassion. Anybody remember Cat Brother? He used to do this too. 'There are gay children out there being beaten with sticks every morning before breakfast...' Oh yeah? Where?
> One same sex family...
"Same sex family"? Genesis from one gender?
> so they took them
> in as foster parents.
Who took who in as what? You're in such a rush to be compassionate that you're not making sense.
> The fact of the matter is
No...
> I happen to believe in
> abolishing marriage as
> a civil institution altogether
...You're wrong...
> and stand by it.
Do you, now?
> But as long as marriage is
> the mean by which
So you're very principled about it, except in the case of everyone who ever lived.
> It would however confirm
> that gays are equal
Right. I think gay couples and straight couples aren't equal.
> Deep down, I suspect that
> is what frightens the living
> daylights
A third-graders' psychological 'insights' --and schoolchild's habits for peer badgering-- are at the core of this.
Crid at November 27, 2007 3:45 AM
Lets see. One same sex family that I had the honor of meeting, consists of dad, dad and several HIV positive kids. These kids were all declared unadoptable by the state of Florida, so they took them in as foster parents.
You met the Restons? Kids from straight parents would petition to be adopted by these guys.
Amy Alkon at November 27, 2007 4:47 AM
Take this for what you will (a grain of salt if you so choose) just citing it for what it's worth. I was married for 4 years (and anyone who thinks I should have stayed with him any longer for the sake of our daughter I say let's see you do it and if you really think the hitting, the drugging, and last but not least his perverted ass etc. is better for her than mom alone, you're crazier than he was) and when he died 10 years later, he left behind in addition to our daughter, a current live-in girlfriend and a son 10 years her junior. Social Security survivor's benefits were divvied up between son, daughter and me even though we'd been divorced for 10 years. Because neither he or I remarried (kid or no kid involved, I won't make that mistake again but before you all scream please note I've also never made another baby -- on purpose), I got mother's benefits until she turned 16 (13 at the time of his death). Now the other woman is a mother of his child too and her son got one-third but she got absolutely squat. When my daughter turned 16, because we hadn't been married 10 years (yes, Social Security not only values a marriage license but puts a sentence on the marriage), my mother's benefits ended and son and daughter split the pie. Currently, now that my daughter has aged out, her half-brother gets the whole pie until he too ages out then it's the end of the pay-out. Of course, since his legal guardian would get the payment on his behalf, the live-in girlfriend really gets it for his support. I probably shouldn't have benefited from that though I figured take it because he's certainly cost me enough. Biggest shock from his death was that he actually held down a job long enough to qualify for survivor's benefits. I also inherited money from my father's death and, frankly, that's even more undeserving so to speak. He died without a will and in our state that means it goes to his children. Never mind I hadn't spoke to him for 20 years or any of my siblings for at least 6. The lawyers handling had to track me down through the Social Security and couldn't give the sister who was executress of the estate my number or address. There's another sister they were still hunting for at that time. Again, I figured what the hell might as well claim it because it'd be far more than the few thousand I got if a stranger had assaulted me as many times as my dad did during my childhood. My only point is that marriage is necessary for handling certain things in a society. If my ex had legally wed his girlfriend, she, not me, would have got the benefits. But if she were a he, and it was I, not him, that were the scumbag, he couldn't have protected the new one. In my dad's case, I don't think it'd have made a difference unless new spouse saw to it he made out a will as he should have but I believe if no children, spouse is next. As long as people are human and, therefore, sometimes careless, the slip of paper from whatever state is necessary and gays as wells as straights should have access to that legal protection, plain and simple. As far as the hospital thing goes, it's sick to keep a loved one away no matter what. However, we also need protection from those we don't want there. I'd want my siblings kept away if they found out. We need to address those kind of issues too. And the God-damned chaplain. I had to bite his head off and complain to the nurses on duty two nights in a row when I was hospitalized for six weeks four years ago even though I put atheist down on all the damned forms and checked no next to the would you like a visit from the chaplain question on the forms.
Donna at November 27, 2007 9:02 AM
Crid -
You can say that again. Who's "antigay"?
You, for one.
DuWayne, you're being pompous.
And you're still ignoring and refusing to even acknowledge every argument in support of gay marriage.
Yes, the really can. There's are reasons, discussed in minute detail above, that you're afraid of facing the logic of this.
Lets see. My uncle, who lived such a fiction for a while, died without his kids around. At the end, he was convinced that I was my cousin Adrian. One of his kids, the aforementioned Adrian, committed suicide. His other surviving child (one died in a car crash) has been in therapy for many years, never really adjusted to discovering that dad was gay. His ex-wife drank herself to death. My uncle himself spent the last years of his life in therapy, not admitting until the last couple years, that he was actually gay.
And that's just my personal horror story. There are plenty of accounts of similar fictitious marriages out there. Calling that sort of situation marriage, is much like claiming your favorite stripper's tits are real.
Says you. I think they're very special indeed.
ROTFFL. Any moron can fuck. Unfortunately, many of them reproduce. There isn't anything magical or special about it.
Name three such hospitals.
It's happened twice, to people I know, at Sparrow hospital in Lansing MI. Also happened at the ER of the hospital in Manistee, MI. And it happened several times at Bronson hospital in Kalamazoo MI. I have read accounts of it happening in Colorado, Nebraska, California, Utah, Washington and Texas.
...You're wrong...
Why?
So you're very principled about it, except in the case of everyone who ever lived.
WTF? Stated simply, if civil unions or somesuch, were the legal standard by which the legal securities were doled out, I would be perfectly content - thrilled even, if that was what gays were allowed to do. Unfortunately, that is not the legal standard. Short of that, gays deserve the same rights as straights.
Right. I think gay couples and straight couples aren't equal.
And yet you really can't explain why, without crediting some sort of cosmic force.
A third-graders' psychological 'insights' --and schoolchild's habits for peer badgering-- are at the core of this.
No. What's at the core of this, is a complete and utter dearth of coherent arguments against gay marriage. Excepting ones that boil down to superiority through some vague cosmic force.
Amy -
Indeed, I have had the honor. Unfortunately, it was at an event, so I didn't get a chance to spend much time talking to them. I have to admit though, they are the sort of parents that I strive to be.
DuWayne at November 27, 2007 10:40 AM
> And you're still ignoring
> and refusing to even acknowledge
> every argument
I consider them all. None convince.
> My uncle, who lived such
> a fiction
Did I ask people to live in fiction?
> There isn't anything magical
> or special about it
Let that be on the cover of your brochure as you sell this to people... That the most powerful thing felt by the greatest number of people you can imagine isn't special.
> It's happened twice, to
> people I know,
I flat doubt it. Without some sort of cites and narrative, I find no reason to trust you. This just doesn't seem like a tool of oppression. If this were happening in these communities at this point (Lansing, Michigan?) the newspapers would choke with reports of lawsuits and letters to the editor. This is a boogieman.
> if civil unions or somesuch,
> were the legal standard
That's my point precisely. You're conceding that the state will have to, at great expense and with marginal effectiveness, adjudicate failures and incompetence in pairings. You nonetheless want to disassemble and standards and even the paper trail. That's crackers.
> cosmic force
You used that phrase twice. Again, go ahead and tell everyone who ever lived that there's nothing special in their lives, and the traffic of their dearest feelings and precious reproduction deserves to be handled with all the grandeur and dispatch of a Tuesday morning at the Post Office or a Friday at the information counter of the IRS. They'll be exceptionally receptive to this, especially after Amy's convinced them there is no God.
Crid at November 27, 2007 11:01 AM
Crid -
Did I ask people to live in fiction?
No. But you are making the claim that gays can marry. They can't. If they decide to play house with someone of the opposite sex, it is nothing but a fiction.
Let that be on the cover of your brochure as you sell this to people... That the most powerful thing felt by the greatest number of people you can imagine isn't special.
I am not saying it's not special to those involved. But on a societal level, it really isn't special.
I flat doubt it. Without some sort of cites and narrative, I find no reason to trust you. This just doesn't seem like a tool of oppression. If this were happening in these communities at this point (Lansing, Michigan?) the newspapers would choke with reports of lawsuits and letters to the editor. This is a boogieman.
Good for you. Doesn't make it any less true, especially to those who have experienced it.
That's my point precisely. You're conceding that the state will have to, at great expense and with marginal effectiveness, adjudicate failures and incompetence in pairings. You nonetheless want to disassemble and standards and even the paper trail. That's crackers.
Then I assume you don't believe in no fault divorce? I assume that you think the state should stop providing these services for heteros too? Because if you don't, your a fucking hypocrite.
Put simply, if there is a social benefit to providing these services to heteros, they would apply just the same to same sex couples. Any unacceptable costs that providing these securities to same sex couples, would apply equally to hetero couples.
You used that phrase twice. Again, go ahead and tell everyone who ever lived that there's nothing special in their lives, and the traffic of their dearest feelings and precious reproduction deserves to be handled with all the grandeur and dispatch of a Tuesday morning at the Post Office or a Friday at the information counter of the IRS.
And you can explain to the million plus kids being raised by same sex couples, why they are any less deserving of security, than the kids being raised by heteros. I am certain the notion that hetero parents are somehow special and superior to their parents will be a great comfort to them. Especially if they get taken away from their second dad, after the genetic one dies, to be raised by the state because they have no surviving relatives.
DuWayne at November 27, 2007 12:00 PM
And BTW, I actually started supporting the abolition of marriage as a civil institution, long before I realized how inherently bigoted it is.
DuWayne at November 27, 2007 12:13 PM
"And you can explain to the million plus kids being raised by same sex couples, why they are any less deserving of security, than the kids being raised by heteros. I am certain the notion that hetero parents are somehow special and superior to their parents will be a great comfort to them."
How's about this. I tell the million plus kids raised by single mothers that their family is inferior to that of one mommy and one daddy. The reality is that one mommy and one daddy is superior to any other union for children. There being idiot heteros making babies they cant take care of does not prove that their unions are not superior. Just like some homo men fucking everything bareback and passing AIDS doesnt prove all homo men are irresponsible.
I am pro-gay marriage btw.
PurplePen at November 27, 2007 12:36 PM
> But you are making the claim
> that gays can marry. They can't
They can marry, they can't marry each other. Why are you afraid to let people know that you want to change the fundamental nature of this institution?
> If they decide to play house
> with someone of the opposite
> sex, it is nothing but a
> fiction.
Only in the Tiger Beat magazine, New Kids On the Block-lyric sense of the word. Otherwise, what you got there is a household. I don't want to have to review the intimate feelings of petitioners for marriage to that degree.
-----------
Question 322b. Choose one:
[ ] A. Debbie Gibson.
[X] B. Tiffany
Question 323. Complete the phrase: "I believe I can fly, I believe...."
[X] A. ...I can touch the sky.
[ ] B. ...love is a battlefield.
------------------------
> But on a societal level, it
> really isn't special.
I strongly disagree. That's the point: At a personal enough level, everything's special. There's no reason to trust your feelings about what's mundane. Putting "Fact -" in front of your opinions doesn't make them any sturdier.
> Doesn't make it any less true,
> especially to those who have
> experienced it.
What, are you asking for wiggle room? It happened or it didn't. I'd bet it didn't, or that whoever disappointed your acquaintance did so with good cause. It was late a night; the patient was sedated or recovering or claimed no knowledge of the visitor; somebody showed up at the nurses' station drunk; the visitor appeared in late hours of a weeks-long treatment; something.
I'm sure you can spin wonderful yarns from all these events, but there's no reason for the rest of us to base policy on your anecdotes. If you had some legal cases in your portfolio, even ones you'd lost, it would be productive to pay attention to you. As they say on Digg.com, "Pics or it didn't happen."
> Because if you don't, your
> a fucking hypocrite
Calm down and make your case. I think as long as you're going ask the state & society to adjudicate these things, the state & society have an interest in making sure standards are met. It's not all about you.
> Especially if they get taken
> away...
You loves yer tall tales, doncha?
> The reality is that one
> mommy and one daddy is
> superior to any other union
> for children.
Marry me. (Not for babymaking, just for conversation.) The only flavor I'd add is sprinkling of "loving" pepper over the top... One loving mommy plus one loving daddy.
> I am pro-gay marriage
> btw.
I take back the proposal. Unless I could at least get a date out of it.
Crid at November 27, 2007 1:04 PM
Purplepen -
It may well be true that everything else being equal, two hetero parents are prefferable to same sex parents. The juries still out, every study that I have seen thus far has been dubious at best. It will be a few more years before sample sizes can provide any definitive data. The only reasonable study thus far is out of Sweden, which really wouldn't apply to U.S. culture.
For the sake of argument and in the face of a dearth of reliable data, I'll capitulate that there are some advantages to two hetero parents raising children in the U.S. This doesn't change anything I said. This does not change the fact that the children of same sex couples, are just as deserving of the legal security that marriage provides their hetero parented counterparts. Nor does it mean that their parents relationship is any less valid than that of heteros.
The only thing that is remotely in question, is whether their family unit is somehow inferior to that of their hetero parented counterparts, everything else being equal. I'll give that this may be the case, but the difference, if any, is minimal. Kids need parents that love them, discipline them, build their self esteem and keep them safe. The gay parents that I know, do a bang up job at it. Most of the gay parents I know, are the sorts of parents I strive to be. If the same came from a same sex couple, it might be even better, but the kids of same sex couples that I know, are getting a damn fine upbringing, in spite of it all.
Crid -
They can marry, they can't marry each other. Why are you afraid to let people know that you want to change the fundamental nature of this institution?
Where are you getting the idea that I have any fear of this? I should think it's pretty fucking obvious that I advocate very sweeping changes to the institution of marriage. I have never claimed that I don't. I am not sure where you get the impression that I am trying to weasel out of it, but if it makes you feel better;
I believe in making radical, far reaching, society sweeping changes to the institution of marriage in the U.S. Indeed, I believe marriage should be abolished altogether as a civil institution. It should be replaced with a civil standard that would provide the legal security that marriage currently provides on a discriminatory basis, to gays, heteros and platonic domestic partners.
Feel better now that we have that in the open?
Only in the Tiger Beat magazine, New Kids On the Block-lyric sense of the word. Otherwise, what you got there is a household. I don't want to have to review the intimate feelings of petitioners for marriage to that degree.
Tell that to my suicide cousin. Sure, they had a household. Then my uncle went through the spat of clinical depression. Then he split with the wife and ended up with AIDS. One member of the family survives today.
I'm not saying that this is always the result. In some circumstances, the kids may come out of it rather well rounded. I have never heard of this sort of situation coming out very well for either of the parents though. Thankfully, in this day and age, less and less folks feel compelled to try to hide who they really are, so this sort of thing happens less and less often.
What, are you asking for wiggle room? It happened or it didn't. I'd bet it didn't, or that whoever disappointed your acquaintance did so with good cause. It was late a night; the patient was sedated or recovering or claimed no knowledge of the visitor; somebody showed up at the nurses' station drunk; the visitor appeared in late hours of a weeks-long treatment; something.
What wiggle room? I have neither the time nor patience to look for the cites. The situations that happened to my friends in Michigan, were six to ten years ago. The only media coverage they got, that I am aware of, was in local, free weekly's. The only reason I am aware of them at all, is that they happened to personal friends fo mine. For other cites, do a google search for (gay visit medical rights) there are several sites with lots of horror stories. gay360.com is chock full of them. I have to step across the street in the rain to load up pages, until the new router comes in, so I am not really going to worry about it. Honestly, I care that you think I'm liar, about as much as I imagine you care that I think you're a mindless bigot, when it comes to Teh Gay.
Calm down and make your case. I think as long as you're going ask the state & society to adjudicate these things, the state & society have an interest in making sure standards are met. It's not all about you.
I've made my case. It's simple. You claim that society benefits from hetero marriage. Ok, I can accept that society benefits from relationships having the legal security that marriage brings, our disagreement there is mostly semantic - I don't think it should be called marriage. I also (and you seem to agree, as most of your arguments are based on reproduction) believe that the legal securities of marriage, are most important to the children.
So society garners value from the committed relationships of heteros. The greatest value that is garnered, is at the interface of marriage and children. Great. We have over a million children being raised by gays now. That number is growing and will continue to grow. So society would garner the same value it garners from hetero marriage, if same sex parents were also married.
What you have completely and utterly failed to do, is to answer that very simple argument. The only thing you have managed to argue, is that hetero relationships are somehow superior to those of gays. When pressed in a previous thread, your only resort was the claim that said superiority was somehow cosmic in nature, then relented to it being some force. While I am not nearly as averse to mystical thinking as Amy, I don't find it a compelling argument.
So the gist of your argument seems to be, that the children of heteros, are far more deserving than the children of same sex couples. That gays are inferior to heteros and deserve none of the support that society provides their hetero counterparts, in spite of the fact that there is no reason to believe that whatever value society recieves from hetero marriages, it would also garner from gay marriages.
And much as you like to ignore it, Amy's argument against marriage entitlement, is entirely relevant and not hypocritical. Outside of benefits of marriage, such as survivor benefits and the like, there are a lot of legal securities that marriage provides. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see those disappear, while at the same time advocating for the extension of the legal securities to same sex couples.
You loves yer tall tales, doncha?
And you love your mindless fucking bigoty, doncha?
Look up the aforementioned Reston family. I am not sure where the case is now, but one of the kids they have been raising for ten years, now thirteen, has been declared HIV free (apparently, it is not entirely uncommon for kids born into HIV, to eventually be free of the disease). the state of Florida, has declared him adoptable because of this and want to take him away from the Reston's, to be mainstreamed into pre-adoption foster care. Never mind the odds of a thirteen year old ever being adopted. Never mind that the Reston's have taken damn fine care of him.
DuWayne at November 27, 2007 8:49 PM
> I'll give that this may
> be the case, but the
> difference, if any,
> is minimal.
When defending the rights of those least able to defend themselves, I want to err on the side of caution.
> it's pretty fucking obvious
> that I advocate very
> sweeping change
But your language to date has been pussyfooting and obfuscating...
> Feel better now that we
> have that in the open?
Aha. Well, I think you've convincingly skunked your opportunity for persuading the whole of the electorate, and you have in fact disavowed gay marriage, so I feel OK if not better. But I still think your values need alignment. Why, in matters involving the most vulnerable children, are you concerned with the fulfillment of adults? Has that ever worked out before?
> my suicide cousin.
You have a cousin for every argument, an acquaintance for every law. You've not been on the air as long as the The Days of Our Lives, but every comment brings tales of woe and oppression from a whole new cast of characters. DuWayne, I don't trust you to tell the whole context for these parables.
> What wiggle room?
You've implied that certain of your stories may be 'true-er' for the folks you're describing than for others. ("...especially to those who have experienced it.") If we're so unlikely to agree on what happened, their power as examples is dimmed.
> I think you're a
> mindless bigot
The 8th grader's energy. It's like when the girl in the training bra clucks that the boy with the baseball bat is "immature." There's a broader perspective to consider.....
> We have over a million
> children being raised
> by gays now.
Not to contest the point or anything, but where'd that number come from? And do you cross your heart and hope to die that none of those men will ever kiss a girl or even feel a throb for one? They're a gay's gays, right? No backsliding, now... We want only the homo-est of rhetorical homosexuals for this discussion.
> So the gist of your
> argument
If you need to distill at this point, you haven't been reading.
> that the children of
> heteros, are far more
> deserving than the
> children of same sex
> couples.
No, it's that children of loving heteros enjoy a front row seat in life's classroom that other kids don't experience. I think every kid deserves it, and that nature sits them at that desk for a reason.
> the extension of the
> legal securities to
> same sex couples.
You care about adults. I care about kids.
> Look up the aforementioned
Are you through with Lansing now?
Crid at November 28, 2007 12:42 AM
But your language to date has been pussyfooting and obfuscating...
How so exactly?
Why, in matters involving the most vulnerable children, are you concerned with the fulfillment of adults?
Funny, my argument has been and continues to be on behalf of the million plus children being raised by same sex couples. You seem to be the one who doesn't give two shits about them.
DuWayne, I don't trust you to tell the whole context for these parables.
Cool. You call me a liar and think I'm acting rather immature when I call you for the bigot you obviously are.
You've implied that certain of your stories may be 'true-er' for the folks you're describing than for others.
No, the implication is that I really don't care how you feel about my integrity. Whether you believe it or not, does not change the truth.
Not to contest the point or anything, but where'd that number come from?
A rather conservative to median of the various stats that I seen for it.
And do you cross your heart and hope to die that none of those men will ever kiss a girl or even feel a throb for one?
Honest to gods, I could care less. They are raising a child with a same sex partner.
No, it's that children of loving heteros enjoy a front row seat in life's classroom that other kids don't experience. I think every kid deserves it, and that nature sits them at that desk for a reason.
Yeah! Mom and apple pie and that sort of bullshit. Well guess what, that's not the real world. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's healthy or not, there are a hell of a lot of kids being raised in these relationships. They will continue to be and the numbers will continue to increase. And they are no less deserving of that legal security than the children of heteros.
You care about adults. I care about kids.
Your joking right? Seriously? Need we refer to the airlines not your momma thread, to see how much you actually care about kids? But again, the thing that got me fired up about the gay marriage issue was the kids of same sex couples. Before I learned how many kids were being raised by same se couples, how pervasive it is, I was content to just wait and watch your brand of anti-gay bigotry die off. Considering how very few young people you see arguing against it, how few young people even understand why any sort of inequality is even an issue, it's only a matter of time.
But time is not on the side of the kids of same sex couples. They're dad and dad or mom and mom, don't have the same legal security that mine did. A lot of things are a lot more complicated for them, due to mindless bigotry that doesn't allow their folks to get married. The simple fact that their parents can't get married, is cause for consternation and confusion.
Are you through with Lansing now?
Moved to Portland three years ago. Still have a lot of friends back there though, so I'll regular like visit.
DuWayne at November 28, 2007 1:18 AM
Still waiting for the explanation of how hetero relationships are superior to those of gays by the way. One that doesn't invoke any sort of mystical claims. Feel free to pop them out there any time.
DuWayne at November 28, 2007 1:21 AM
> I really don't care how
> you feel... Honest to
> gods, I could care less.
Good luck, DuWayne.
Crid at November 28, 2007 1:27 AM
Kudos on your brilliant turnaround and avoiding any actual arguments, again Crid. Gods forbid that you should actually make a point.
DuWayne at November 28, 2007 8:45 AM
"Gods forbid..." - DuWayne
Are you a BSG fan?
Gretchen at November 29, 2007 6:07 AM
Crid, your "best for the kids" argument doesn't hold water. If you argue that way, the hetro couple making $50,000 a year would automatically be "better" for the kids than one making a mere $30,000. I mean who determines what's "best" beyond a few obvious extremes? What's next? The Christian parent automatically gets custody over the Atheist? Ask my daughter about that and she'll give you an earful. As for gender role models, please, do you really think that because I kept her away from her Christian pedophile of a scumbag father there were no male role models in her life? Give me a break. Just because a kid is being raised by two people of the same gender or one parent alone (whether through divorce or widowhood) doesn't mean they are isolated from half the world that's not the same gender as their parent(s).
Donna at November 29, 2007 7:22 AM
> "better" for the kids than
> one making a mere $30,000.
The natural world doesn't ask how much money you got, but it knows more about what makes a child rich than you do. It specifically demands that one of you be a man and the other be a woman.
> I mean who determines
> what's "best" beyond
> a few obvious extremes?
Society does... Specifically me, that's who, and thanks for asking. I'll also be the judge of "extreme", and my alarms are howling.
> As for gender role
> models...
That's your term for what happens, not mine. Over the years, I've argued many times that it's a fantastically shitty way to think about these most intimate and formative relationships. Type the usual www.advicegoddess.com into your browser's navigation line, then paste each of the following. Read 'em and weep:
/archives/2003/09/i_know_you_are.html
/archives/2003/10/tax_breaks_for.html
/archives/2004/03/bushleague_cont.html
/archives/2006/12/the_frida_kahlo.html
/archives/2006/12/religion_hurts_1.html
/archives/2007/04/lionel_tiger_on.html
By the way- when you actually do some Googly searching, the phrase "role models" turns up dozens of times in these comments. I think it's one of the brutal presumptions and grand stupidities of our times, just as ancient greek medicos were enraptured by "humors."
> doesn't mean they
> are isolated
Is "isolation" your standard for a failed personal contact? You ask much of the young ones.
For what it's worth, if DuWayne says his masculinity means nothing to his children, I see no cause to argue with him. Has your womanhood meant anything to your kids?
Crid at November 29, 2007 12:41 PM
Leave a comment