A Serious Conversation

[AutoPilate]

*looks at the topic's name*

[Particular]

I support same sex marrigage and everything but It wouldnt be much of a debate if we were all on the same sid eso for this post i will be changeing my role

Who says we need a debate? Why can't everybody just support what's right?

But if you want a debate, hell, I'll give you a debate.

Why should the government get involved in people's personal lives anyway? Marriage should be strictly a religious ceremony. The law should not recognize marriages between/among anybody. No tax breaks for married people, no automatic inheritance, nothing. We should all have to create special contracts to have certain aspects of our relationships acknowledged -- if they're acknowledged at all.

You want equality? There's some real equality. That's what same-sex couples have been living with since the beginning of the U.S.

Oh my god, Lass. Special contracts for inheritence rights? How many people do you know who can draft up a legally binding contract? Or afford to have one drafted for them? If they don't or just don't get around to it, then the government will get their property. Sound like a fair system to you? I agree that marriage is essentially religious, at least calling it "marriage" is, but those rights have been legally recognised for so long, you'd have bloody revolution if you tried to take them away. Its like the "right to bear arms" in the US constitution. It may be outdated, but you're never going to get rid of it.

More power to xentis, someone's got to play devil's advocate occassionally

[spaciegirlreturn]

Just becuase aspects of our constitution exist that may always exist (outdated or not), doesn't mean that they're right or even acceptable. I totally agree with what Lass said.

[Languorous Lass]

I wasn't raising the possibility seriously. My point was that if you need to argue about something, let's argue about the basic assumptions underlying marriage. AFAIC, arguing about whether my partner and I are entitled to participate in the institution -- especially for the sole purpose of "playing devil's advocate" -- insults us in the deepest possible way.

And the system that I was describing -- "special contracts for inheritance rights" and everything else -- is exactly what same-sex couples have to go through when full marriage rights are closed to us.

Have you heard the media claim that "civil unions" are "exactly like marriage except in name"? They're wrong. There are over one thousand rights granted by U.S. Federal law to married couples -- and only to married couples. Federal law takes absolutely no notice of "civil unions."

This isn't a joke. This isn't a topic for some high school debating society. This is about my life, and about the lives of millions of other people like me, in the U.S. and around the world.

Which is why I get so pissed off when AP acts like this is just some Birkenstock-wearing "blah blah blah" meaningless political rant. It isn't. If my partner of four years were in a car accident on her way home from visiting her parents (which is where she is right now), then I'd be lucky if the hospital decided to let me in to see her, even if she was dying.

And I'm not overdramatizing. A 52-year-old guy I've known for a long time, named Eric, died last summer unexpectedly, while he was all the way across the country from his home. Even though his partner of 12 years had power of attorney -- and showed up with a piece of paper in his hand saying so -- the hospital called Eric's mother to ask what they should do with Eric's body. It took intervention by a member of Congress to get them to release his body to his partner.

Imagine a hospital doing that to a wife who'd been married to her husband of 12 years. Then maybe you can begin to understand my anger.

[xentis]

gah fine ill stop posting here

all i was doing was trying to bring up other parts of the subject to talk about,Like the reasons why people thinks its "bad" and we could discusses why they would think it and how flawed(is that the right word) there views are


so I'm sorry if i got you angry, ill take my leave

[AutoPilate]

Can I begin to understand it without imagining?

[Languorous Lass]

Can I begin to understand it without imagining?

Apparently not.

all i was doing was trying to bring up other parts of the subject to talk about,Like the reasons why people thinks its "bad" and we could discusses why they would think it and how flawed(is that the right word) there views are


so I'm sorry if i got you angry, ill take my leave

Xentis, I understand that you were just trying to start an interesting conversation. I'm sorry if I upset you. I just want you to understand why I'm disturbed by the idea that my life is subject to debate.

[AutoPilate]

Shucks. Figured as much.

[Languorous Lass]

AP, I love you, but you can be a real jerk sometimes.

[robtomorrow]

I doubt the story about mono-sexual lizards, I would be interested if I could get a link to an article about that.

OK, back to gay marriage, I am all for it, I don't see how it would infringe on any one's rights, where as disallowing it does, but seeing that the idea of it upsets so many people, civil unions (all the rights without calling it marriage) seems to be the best compromise.

While I understand it is a important concern for the gay community, I see much more important issues at hand, the war in Iraq, or American hegemony in general, America's march toward plutocracy (the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy), and global warming (the ruining of the planet for future generations). All three issues are complex and interconnected and will be much more difficult to solve than gay marriage, which could be by compromise on both sides and the passing of a law.

[Languorous Lass]

All three issues are complex and interconnected and will be much more difficult to solve than gay marriage, which could be by compromise on both sides and the passing of a law.

Why should I agree to compromise my basic rights, Rob?

Would you have told black people to compromise on "separate but equal" back in the 1950s? Should they have settled for sending their children to schools in beat-up, leaky trailers, while the white kids learned in luxury? No? Then why should I agree to accept a legal situation that deprives me of over a thousand rights granted to opposite-sex couples?

I agree that we have many, many other issues to be concerned about. The planet is dying rapidly around us. So those who are cynically using me and my people for political gain, by denying the rights to which we are clearly entitled, should just give in and let us get married, so we can all concentrate on trying to save the planet.

[khjq]

about the lizards, this is from wikipedia:

"Whip-tailed lizard females have the ability to reproduce through parthenogenesis and as such males are rare and sexual breeding non-standard. Females engage in sexual behavior to stimulate ovulation, with their behavior following their hormonal cycles; during low levels of estrogen, these (female) lizards engage in "masculine" sexual roles. Those animals with currently high estrogen levels assume "feminine" sexual roles.

Lizards that perform the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation due to an increase in hormones triggered by the sexual behaviors. So, even though asexual whiptail lizards populations lack males, sexual stimuli still increase reproductive success.

From an Evolutionary standpoint these females are passing their full genetic code to all of their offspring (rather than the 50% of genes that would be passed in sexual reproduction). Certain species of gecko also reproduce by parthenogenesis."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[spaciegirlreturn]

I can see that my participation in this thread will only serve to annoy the shit out of myself..must go to liquor store.

[robtomorrow]

Ok, khjg, you convinced me about the lizards.

Lass,
Comparing the proposal of civil unions to segregation laws I think is inapt, no one who is suggesting civil unions as a compromise is promoting segregating homosexuals from heterosexuals, and it's not "separate but equal" it's equal, just called a different name.

I agree that we have many, many other issues to be concerned about. The planet is dying rapidly around us. So those who are cynically using me and my people for political gain, by denying the rights to which we are clearly entitled, should just give in and let us get married, so we can all concentrate on trying to save the planet.

That is my concern Lass it is being used for political gain, to divide the nation along moral or religious lines and just saying what the other side should do won't change that.

[Languorous Lass]

But it's not equal, Rob. Those who claim civil unions are equal to marriage are being disingenuous.

As I keep explaining, Federal law does not recognize civil unions. It grants more than a thousand separate rights to those persons who are married. Period.

The only rights that are granted by civil unions are rights that apply in the specific state that recognizes the union. And no other state is required to recognize the union, or grant any of the same rights. Unlike with marriage, where states are required by the Constitution to grant "full faith and credit" to a marriage recognized by any other state.

Now, you may say, "Let's amend Federal law to give people in civil unions the same rights as people who are married." But that will take amending over a thousand different laws. (Not to mention the fact that we will undoubtedly keep coming across more laws that -- "Oops, we forgot about this one." Think that doesn't happen in the U.S. Congress? Think again. I run across those problems in my work all the time.) Plus we'd have to figure out a way to require every other state in the U.S. (plus a bunch of territories like Puerto Rico) to recognize the specific rights that each separate state grants via its civil union procedure. Otherwise, we'd have a mess when people in a civil union moved to a different state. (Actually, we already have that very mess happening right now. Check out this article from the Washington Post. And this one from FindLaw. If you'd like to read the opinion of the Virginia Court of Appeals in the Miller-Jenkins case, click here.)

Why force us, and the rest of society, to suffer all that trouble and hassle when we can accomplish the very same goal in a much simpler way -- to let same-sex couples get married?