Mourning in America

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
Because the revered institution of marriage between a man and a woman guarantees absolutely NO payoff whatsoever. It does not ensure that children are raised with a social conscience. It does not ensure any particular set of "moral" values. It does not ensure the production of a crop of good little taxpayers. There are more "broken" homes than not in this country -- which has taught children that relationships are disposable, people are disposable.

So, its an investment much like any other--one with no guarantees, only chances. I never said guarantee, I said investment. And I never said that it resulted in what it hoped to, only that I believe that my explanation is an accurate representation of the purpose behind legal marriage--in a governmental sense.

With all due respect, even if disagreeable... that's far, far from "horseshit".

If we want to encourage stability, we much encourage love wherever it may be found. Children learn what they live. If we want the next generation to assume responsibility, govern fairly, care deeply, and give generously -- then we must start with ourselves. Disenfranchising any segment of society is counter to these ends.

I think if we want to encourage stability, encouraging love is a pleasant folk song of happiness and rainbows, but encouraging responsibility and rationality is much more effective. If we want the next generation to assume responsibility, surely govern fairly AND justly, caring and generosity are wonderful sentiments but outside the bounds of "responsibility" as I understand them in a legal sense. (Which is, unless something has changed, the bounds of this discussion).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

LC, I direct you to my response to impressive, which sums up where I think both of you stepped off the train on the wrong foot. You're both arguing something that has zero to do with my point. I'm not saying the world works in a particular way, only that it is my opinion that legal marriage is what it is today because of reasons like the one I gave (very similar to public education being what it is because its seen as a social investment). We can disagree with the motive behind such an investment, but its not unreasonable to have it. Ya'll are getting off into knee-jerk tangents.

And, martiarch, I'd be delighted to know why you think its "horseshit".

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So, its an investment much like any other--one with no guarantees, only chances. I never said guarantee, I said investment. And I never said that it resulted in what it hoped to, only that I believe that my explanation is an accurate representation of the purpose behind legal marriage--in a governmental sense.

With all due respect, even if disagreeable... that's far, far from "horseshit".



I think if we want to encourage stability, encouraging love is a pleasant folk song of happiness and rainbows, but encouraging responsibility and rationality is much more effective. If we want the next generation to assume responsibility, surely govern fairly AND justly, caring and generosity are wonderful sentiments but outside the bounds of "responsibility" as I understand them in a legal sense. (Which is, unless something has changed, the bounds of this discussion).

Okay, encouraging rationality can just as easily be performed by a same sex union than a straight union. It is actually a sexless function. Encouraging stability and rationalit can be accomplished by an android but that's beyond the point. The point is that there is no sexual demand over rationality. Nothing to indicate that a same sex couple would provide a less stable or less rational raising environment. Actually, according to National surveys, lesbian couples are actual the most stable couplings in this country.

If we believed in maximum return we would demand 100% lesbian couplings for raising children. Men would be barred from sex and raising children as that interferes with their ability to work and creates accidental children who are then unloved as they grow up. A mere example of maximizing returns on stable family units, but I'm sure you have already gleaned my main point.

Again, I heartily look forward to you responding to the easiest to refute post and leave both of my posts ignored.

Your position is illogical, Joey, but I believe it stems from incomplete data rather than a major procession flaw. At least I hope that's the case.

 

[impressive]

So, its an investment much like any other--one with no guarantees, only chances. I never said guarantee, I said investment. And I never said that it resulted in what it hoped to, only that I believe that my explanation is an accurate representation of the purpose behind legal marriage--in a governmental sense.

With all due respect, even if disagreeable... that's far, far from "horseshit".

I will concede that your "investment" explanation is that which is propogated by those who fear, but it is not supported by data. Once upon a time, legal marriage might have paid off on that investment. Not anymore. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ramming M/F legal marriage down our throats has been part of the reason the investment strategy has failed.

I think if we want to encourage stability, encouraging love is a pleasant folk song of happiness and rainbows, but encouraging responsibility and rationality is much more effective. If we want the next generation to assume responsibility, surely govern fairly AND justly, caring and generosity are wonderful sentiments but outside the bounds of "responsibility" as I understand them in a legal sense. (Which is, unless something has changed, the bounds of this discussion).

Ah, Joe. Caring and generosity are THE reason we want and need such stability. Without them, why bother? Be rational. Be responsible. Revel in it, if you must. But if you do it without caring and generosity, you're not living. What, then, is the point?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Okay, encouraging rationality can just as easily be performed by a same sex union than a straight union. It is actually a sexless function. Encouraging stability and rationalit can be accomplished by an android but that's beyond the point. The point is that there is no sexual demand over rationality. Nothing to indicate that a same sex couple would provide a less stable or less rational raising environment. Actually, according to National surveys, lesbian couples are actual the most stable couplings in this country.

My comment about stability had nothing to do with homosexuality. I cannot speak intelligently on the sability, responsibility, or comparisons between caring and generosity and rationality and responsibility concerning homosexual versus straight couples. The point was made, independant of all that, that if we want to promote responsibility, then X, Y, and Z should be done. To that I responded with my reasons for believing that not to be the case. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

If we believed in maximum return we would demand 100% lesbian couplings for raising children. Men would be barred from sex and raising children as that interferes with their ability to work and creates accidental children who are then unloved as they grow up. A mere example of maximizing returns on stable family units, but I'm sure you have already gleaned my main point.

Maybe, unless what we wanted to produce was an infinite progress of nuclear families.

Again, I heartily look forward to you responding to the easiest to refute post and leave both of my posts ignored.

Your position is illogical, Joey, but I believe it stems from incomplete data rather than a major procession flaw. At least I hope that's the case.

Please don't call me "Joey". And, strictly speaking, I'm not interested in getting into the issue of what is or isn't the case concerning the virtues of same-sex marriage. I was just answering a question about why might we have such an emphasis on "legal marriage" in this country. And, while people don't have to agree with it (I'm hardly proposing it as a logical proof, and have yet to do so), it isn't unreasonable. And it isn't "illogical".

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

LC, I direct you to my response to impressive, which sums up where I think both of you stepped off the train on the wrong foot. You're both arguing something that has zero to do with my point. I'm not saying the world works in a particular way, only that it is my opinion that legal marriage is what it is today because of reasons like the one I gave (very similar to public education being what it is because its seen as a social investment). We can disagree with the motive behind such an investment, but its not unreasonable to have it. Ya'll are getting off into knee-jerk tangents.

And, martiarch, I'd be delighted to know why you think its "horseshit".

Did you bother to read it? How is my argument off train? You stated that legal marriage is a social contract in which children are raised by a two parent family. I stated that queers have shown that they are willing and able to raise children in two person families. They also want the rights available to straight families that legal marriage provides. In terms of kid creation, artificial insemination has been demonstrably used in both straight couplings in which the father is impotent and in lesbian couplings.

Will not all queers use the social contract to raise kids? True, just as not all straight couples will use the social contract for that. However, their has been a demonstration in the community that the same maternal and paternal desires that run through the straight community also exist in the queer community.

Perhaps the error is in this. Allow me to propose a query to you. "Why are homosexuals breaching the social contract of legal marriage, thus requiring them to not be eligible to take advantage of it?"

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
I will concede that your "investment" explanation is that which is propogated by those who fear, but it is not supported by data. Once upon a time, legal marriage might have paid off on that investment. Not anymore. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ramming M/F legal marriage down our throats has been part of the reason the investment strategy has failed.

I'll say that it isn't the sole propriety of "those who fear", that's sort of a hard-to-substantiate statement. You admit that once upon a time, that investment mentality might have paid off... all I'm saying is that's why we have such an emphasis today. Because, essentially, it was well designed to meet those objectives (even if, nowadays, we don't need those particular objectives anymore; for instance, overpopulation wasn't too much of an issue a hundred and fifty years ago). You're saying we don't need the investment anymore, and I might be inclined to agree with you (I'd have to know much more than I do about the state of the entire USA before I can answer that intelligently)...

It sounds like you don't think my point was "horseshit" at all--that this sense of investment may be why legal marriage has developed as it has. It sounds like you just don't agree with banning same-sex marriage.

Ah, Joe. Caring and generosity are THE reason we want and need such stability. Without them, why bother? Be rational. Be responsible. Revel in it, if you must. But if you do it without caring and generosity, and you're not living. What, then, is the point?

If I want my child to be a stable person and I want my society to exist in a stable way, I put much more faith in the imbuing of a sense of responsibility and rationality. I haven't said that we don't consider or promote caring and generosity, just that I don't see that as primary to the other two. I just don't. This is just one of those personal preference things.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Please don't call me "Joey". And, strictly speaking, I'm not interested in getting into the issue of what is or isn't the case concerning the virtues of same-sex marriage. I was just answering a question about why might we have such an emphasis on "legal marriage" in this country. And, while people don't have to agree with it (I'm hardly proposing it as a logical proof, and have yet to do so), it isn't unreasonable. And it isn't "illogical".

Sorry. I apologize. Okay, I'm also sorry about how I argued. You presented your point in a way that made it heavily infer...ah fuck it, you were using your interpretation of legal marriage to refute gay marriage. I called you out on that aspect, because well that aspect is a faulty reasoning error.

The definition of legal marriage, however is a separate debate as you pointed out. Here are my views on it:

For instance, I see it as not a social contract, but rather a social proclamation of stability through love and a method through which non-religious people can have the social hurrahs of non-religious folks. Over the years, it has become the only real mehod in which a couple can legally demonstrate their attachment to each other. Thus allowing legal precedent for possession of children, division of property, hospital visitation rights, and etc... that has been added to the law books for various reasons ranging from the social contract to prejudices toward the belief that married couples are more loving of each other than non-married couples. This is legal marriage as it has grown into, not neccessarily as what it is intended to be or should be, but its practical existing state.

EDITED TO ADD:
P.S. Intention is not always the same as product or why others may desire it. For instance, communism was intended as a form of economics in which workers would not be abused. In practice it was a method that allowed a stronger dictatorship in the political sense. And those dictators wanted a piece of it for the sake of power. Marriage in the legal sense was modified based on many varying intentions and assumptions and has thus formed a system that is the only system in which legally and socially recognized couples and families exist and that queers may want to take advantage of for no more insidious reasons as loving someone. There is often a three way disagreement between original intent, current structure, and personal allure.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Did you bother to read it? How is my argument off train? You stated that legal marriage is a social contract in which children are raised by a two parent family. I stated that queers have shown that they are willing and able to raise children in two person families. They also want the rights available to straight families that legal marriage provides. In terms of kid creation, artificial insemination has been demonstrably used in both straight couplings in which the father is impotent and in lesbian couplings.

Because I'm arguing that the social investment was the notion that powered the government responsibility in the case of legal marriage. Not the merits or flaws of same-sex marriages. You're arguing something that I have, truly, no interest in talking about, as it really had no bearing on my point.

Will not all queers use the social contract to raise kids? True, just as not all straight couples will use the social contract for that. However, their has been a demonstration in the community that the same maternal and paternal desires that run through the straight community also exist in the queer community.

O.k.

Perhaps the error is in this. Allow me to propose a query to you. "Why are homosexuals breaching the social contract of legal marriage, thus requiring them to not be eligible to take advantage of it?"

The quesion doesn't make much sense, perhaps it rephrased clearer... but likely, it won't matter, I'm not really interested in talking about that right now.

 

[LadyJeanne]

It's my understanding that the referenda on gay marriage were put on the various ballots and forced to a vote by the anti-gay marriage people and the religious right, not the gay advocates. The intention was specifically to rally the anti-gay vote, who would then likewise vote the Republican ticket.

Am I wrong?

---dr.M.

You are not wrong - that was the strategy. Appealing to the fear and loathing of all things homosexual proved to be successful in bringing out the 'moral values' vote.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Sorry. I apologize. Okay, I'm also sorry about how I argued. You presented your point in a way that made it heavily infer...ah fuck it, you were using your interpretation of legal marriage to refute gay marriage.

My interpretation of legal marriage doesn't refute anything (except maybe a different interpretation of legal marriage, but that's a case-by-case situation). Its more a theory of history than anything else.

 

[impressive]

I'll say that it isn't the sole propriety of "those who fear", that's sort of a hard-to-substantiate statement. You admit that once upon a time, that investment mentality might have paid off... all I'm saying is that's why we have such an emphasis today.

I agree that it's how we GOT to this point. However, using it as an excuse/explanation for why there is such a push to STAY at this point is, to me, lame. Fear, it has been argued, is at the root of all behavior. What, precisely, is to be feared? If we really, really WANT the stability of which you speak, are we afraid to embrace the possibility that it can be achieved in more than one way?

Because, essentially, it was well designed to meet those objectives (even if, nowadays, we don't need those particular objectives anymore; for instance, overpopulation wasn't too much of an issue a hundred and fifty years ago). You're saying we don't need the investment anymore, and I might be inclined to agree with you (I'd have to know much more than I do about the state of the entire USA before I can answer that intelligently)...

It sounds like you don't think my point was "horseshit" at all--that this sense of investment may be why legal marriage has developed as it has. It sounds like you just don't agree with banning same-sex marriage.

Again, its not just banning same-sex marriage that rankles, it's treating entire segments of our population UNFAIRLY and UNJUSTLY. If, assuming your investment explanation is "the" reason for legal marriage, a gay couple can demonstrate that it meets the goals of stability, responsibility, child rearing, etc. -- then what possible reason could the government have to object (without introducing utter hypocrisy)?

If I want my child to be a stable person and I want my society to exist in a stable way, I put much more faith in the imbuing of a sense of responsibility and rationality. I haven't said that we don't consider or promote caring and generosity, just that I don't see that as primary to the other two. I just don't. This is just one of those personal preference things.

Hmmmm. Chicken and the egg debate here. It is deeply rooted in my nature to value caring and generosity above all else. I truly believe that these traits, much more so than rationality and responsibility, are necessary for peace and personal growth.

Peace, Joe.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

My interpretation of legal marriage doesn't refute anything (except maybe a different interpretation of legal marriage, but that's a case-by-case situation). Its more a theory of history than anything else. [/B]

Sorry, you entered yourself into a debate you didn't wish to have and we have responded on that debate. I'm afraid I and many of the people here were inferring from your anti-gay marriage posts earlier and were assuming this was part of them rather than a part of an unrelated argument. The history of legal marriage and its intention. Perhaps if it had been less closely linked with a statement about gay marriage, we would not have dragged you into the debate.

I apologize, thusly, for involving you in this debate and allow you full and utter escape from any further conversation on my part about it here.

As far as your argument about intention, I still maintain however that it is a combination, rather than a singular phenomenon and that one of the main branches was an allowance for atheists (a type of sinbound) to marry each other and thus socially demonstrate their love. I agree that your social investment is one of the driving intentions, but it is by no means the sole intention that has built legal marriage into what it is now. I also believe that legal marriage as it exists now shows radically different characteristics than most of the intentions intended. For instance I doubted many could see that legal marriage would form itself to serve as the only legally recognized expression or demonstration of love between two people.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
I agree that it's how we GOT to this point. However, using it as an excuse/explanation for why there is such a push to STAY at this point is, to me, lame. Fear, it has been argued, is at the root of all behavior. What, precisely, is to be feared? If we really, really WANT the stability of which you speak, are we afraid to embrace the possibility that it can be achieved in more than one way?

Again, its not just banning same-sex marriage that rankles, it's treating entire segments of our population UNFAIRLY and UNJUSTLY. If, assuming your investment explanation is "the" reason for legal marriage, a gay couple can demonstrate that it meets the goals of stability, responsibility, child rearing, etc. -- then what possible reason could the government have to object (without introducing utter hypocrisy)?

I find it agreeable that arguments can and should be made to show that ensuring the public welfare ought include giving same-sex couples the right to legal marriage. I really do. I think there are likely very good reasons why these days the social investment of a homosexual couple might be worthwhile, and that it could well yield positive social things.

But, essentially, yes... the concept of the social investment that is legal marriage seems to be accurate, or at least explanatory. It may be that we must make the argument that the government need not invest in marriages for the general welfare of the people (elminating all legal concerns), or it may be that we must make the argument that the government ought invest in same-sex marriages for some benifit to the people... but saying "its not an investment, that's horseshit", I think is an exercise in being violently opposed to formalization of the problem.

And I don't necessarily see that as positive, as it will be a formal solution to the problem that will be required for its correction. Civil Rights did it, they formalized the question and answers--the language of government... but that's a whole different story.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The Blue States of America. I can hardly wait.

You red states will be happy to get Arnold back, I'm sure. You'll have Arnold, Texas, corn, mad cow disease, SUVs, the hurricane belt and amicus. We'll have the Pacific Coast highway, Manhattan, the Hamptons, higher education and friends whose loyalty hasn't been bought or blackmailed.

You'll have that statue of Justice whose exposed breast so offended John Ashcroft. ALL of our statues will be buck naked, from our new Lincoln Memorial to the George Clooney monument.

We'll have habeus corpus, free choice and freedom to worship or ignore God as we choose. You'll be waiting for the knock on the door in the middle of the night that means you're suspected of something by someone who's under no obligation to tell your lawyer where they're taking you. We'll be free to marry the man or woman of our choice. You'll be lucky if the Reverend Moon doesn't select a lifemate for you and have his choices sanctioned by Congress.

Best of all, we'll have Literotica. You'll have mandatory Bible study.

The Blue States of America. One nation, under no one, indivisible, with liberty and justice and all the dirty stories we can handle.

The line for visas forms at the left. In fact, it's inaccessible from the right.

OMG! You are good.

I'm thinking of framing this to hang over the fireplace. (If I had a fireplace.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

That's what it is to be a corp. Limited liability. And the sole criterion governing corporate decisions is the bottom line. That's the monster.

And there sole legal responsibility is to their *stockholders* making the bottom line all the more important.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
The Blue States of America. I can hardly wait.

You red states will be happy to get Arnold back, I'm sure. You'll have Arnold, Texas, corn, mad cow disease, SUVs, the hurricane belt and amicus. We'll have the Pacific Coast highway, Manhattan, the Hamptons, higher education and friends whose loyalty hasn't been bought or blackmailed.

You'll have that statue of Justice whose exposed breast so offended John Ashcroft. ALL of our statues will be buck naked, from our new Lincoln Memorial to the George Clooney monument.

We'll have habeus corpus, free choice and freedom to worship or ignore God as we choose. You'll be waiting for the knock on the door in the middle of the night that means you're suspected of something by someone who's under no obligation to tell your lawyer where they're taking you. We'll be free to marry the man or woman of our choice. You'll be lucky if the Reverend Moon doesn't select a lifemate for you and have his choices sanctioned by Congress.

Best of all, we'll have Literotica. You'll have mandatory Bible study.

The Blue States of America. One nation, under no one, indivisible, with liberty and justice and all the dirty stories we can handle.

The line for visas forms at the left. In fact, it's inaccessible from the right.

We'll have Wal-Mart and mortages and cell phones and Friday night movies. We'll have people like the Reagans and we'll also have higher education and friends whose loyalty hasn't been bought or blackmailed.

We'll have clothed statues of justice, and nude statues as well. We'll also have habeus corpus, we'll have freedom to worship or ignore God as we choose. We won't have any real problems with Reverend Moon. No moreso than anyone else.

We'll have the internet and Lit. We'll have the Bible, but it won't be mandatory. In the end, we'll just be Americans.

Just like everybody else.

 

[Pure]

Joe, I think your statement has been pretty well dealt with by Imp and Lucifer:

There is a payoff for the investment of marriage between a man and a woman... children (future citizens) being born, growing up socially minded that they will marry and have children of their own, etc. There is no profit (in this social sense) in investing in homosexuals in this way. Rather, if taken to the extreme, we will have a decline.

It is, perhaps, not 'horseshit,' but it's utterly without evidential basis.

The production of children, including 'socially minded' ones, who will marry etc can quite easily be carried on with the present technology, and even older methods-- as last weeks NYTimes Magazine cover story told--with a willing donor and a turkey baster (applied to one lesbian partner).*

Regarding the statement:
There is no profit (in this social sense) in investing in homosexuals in this way.

Besides there being a lack of supporting evidence; there is some evidence that it's false.

To the extent-- as in the NYTimes article-- that children *have been produced* (from gay couples, not to say by other nonstandard methods and ways of upbringing) who are social, and ready to reproduce refutes your claim of 'there is no profit.' You are simply making assumptions about what might have been true many decades ago.

Your evolving positions since that statement are hard to nail down, since the central contention about 'responsibility' was floating in air. Your new position seems plausible on its face:

I find it agreeable that arguments can and should be made to show that ensuring the public welfare ought include giving same-sex couples the right to legal marriage. I really do. I think there are likely very good reasons why these days the social investment of a homosexual couple might be worthwhile, and that it could well yield positive social things.

But then you appear to change your mind, flip flop into self justifying gobbledy-gook.

But, essentially, yes... the concept of the social investment that is legal marriage seems to be accurate, or at least explanatory.

At any rate it misrepresents your original position, which wasn't simply that marriage was the hitherto best way to a 'payoff', but that, further, 'no profit' would accrue through a different approach.

====
*Gay male couples at present, need a slightly more roundabout way; a sort of 'rent a womb' arrangement., aka surrogate childbearing.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
It is, perhaps, not 'horseshit,' but it's utterly without evidential basis.

Oh, I don't know about that. The reasons for education, the reasons for that big spur of gifted programs in the fifties, healthcare, etc... I think there's a goodly amount of evidence that legal marriage is based on a governmental social investment, much (though not all) based on other entities of social concern being investments and then categorizing reasonably.

The production of children, including 'socially minded' ones, who will marry etc can quite easily be carried on with the present technology, and even-- as last weeks NYTimes story told--with a willing helper and a turkey baster.

O.k.

besides lacking evidence, is further reasonably taken to be false.
To the extent-- as in the NYTimes article-- that children *have been produced* who are social, and ready to reproduce refutes your claim of 'there is no profit.' You are simply make assumptions about what might have been true many decades ago.

Well... yeah. But its more than just "making assumptions". Its providing a rational framework for the conceptualized "legal marriage" to relate to "government as an entity". And in that, it really does work very well... I do think there's something to learn from it. So, sure, its really just an explanation (not a proof), I don't deny that. I just deny that it is (as impressive and matriarch said, and impressive has since adjusted) "horseshit" as theories go.

Your evolving positions since that statement are hard to nail down, since the central contention about 'responsibility' was floating in air. Your new position seems sincere on its face:

If you'll look back, there was the jumping up of the "responsibility" issue... but that wasn't exactly related to the other one. I thought I'd made that pretty clear.

Past that, the part you quoted was me expressing an opinion independant of the point. And then returning to the point.

But then you lapse, flip flop into self justifying gobbledy-gook.

No flip-flopping. Just returning to the point, which had no need for emotives like "should do" and "ought do".

At any rate it misrepresents your original position, which wasn't simply that marriage was the hitherto best way to a 'payoff', but that, further, 'no profit' would accrue through a different approach.

My original position was "here's why legal marriage is a big deal to government as an entity" and the concerns that the government as an entity might feel towards alternatives.

What was it you told me on the other thread? Oh, yeah... re-read, apply logic and reason, come back. Or at least see the responses I've made to people like LC--who also got to the point where he understood that I wasn't advocating anything, just theorizing an analytical relationship.

 

[Pure]

I know, Joe, just theorizing, mind fucking, etc but being provocative, and enjoying the attention. I suspect this makes your discussants feel 'had'; that they've wasted their time.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
I know, Joe, just theorizing, mind fucking, etc but being provocative, and enjoying the attention. I suspect this makes your discussants feel 'had'; that they've wasted their time.

No. Someone asked "Why is legal marriage such a big deal?" or something like that. So, I gave them the best answer I could. The government may be concerned, as an entity, because it uses the legal construct of marriage to promote the general welfare in a number of ways.

Theorizing isn't bad. I rather wish some people would do more of it than they do, I believe it would behoove a lot of situations to be viewed with some depth and hypothesis.

You want to call it "mindfucking", I guess that's your perrogative... but I'd be delighted to know what you consider "alright theorizing" and "not alright theorizing". It has nothing, for me, to do with attention. I've been having a conversation with English Lady about how exhaustive this can be and how I don't necessarily like it, this evening.

I think you should stop assuming the worst of people. In this case, it has led to some seriously wrong accusations and probably isn't wise to do in general. Past that, if you've a problem with my theory (as LC did, and stated as much nicely), I'd be delighted to hear that, too.

But if you just want to sulk because you jumped the gun, and blame me for it, I can't do anything for you, I'm afraid, except clarify what's going on and hope you don't do it again for all our sakes.

 

[shereads]

My radical view is:

(1) Ban ALL "marriage" in terms of a government-sanctioned religious ceremony/commitment.

(2) Return "marriage" to churches -- where it belongs. True separation of church & state.

(3) Make ALL government-recognized unions be civil unions with no restrictions on gender. If ya really wanna get wild, don't place any restrictions on the number of parties that can enter into such a civil contract.

(4) Make civil unions be a "contract" -- complete with a term, penalties for breach, termination clauses, etc. -- thereby putting most divorce lawyers out of business.

(5) The union contract & the "pre nup" would be rolled into one.

I knew I loved Heinlein for a reason.

Not radical at all. GWB's argument that a constitutional amendment would protect the "sanctity" of marriage makes the idea doubly offensive to those of us who get nervous when church and state get too chummy. It assumes that government has a church-like role in defining what is or is not sacred/sanctified.

The issue of equal protection under the law would be clearer if government got out of the marriage business and confined itself to certifying civil unions and enforcing the legal benefits, including the right to inherit property and make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.

We don't deny those benefits to childless heterosexual couples, so why tie them to the gay adoption issue? In fact, why shouldn't any two people who choose to trust each other with shared property, life and death decisions, etc., not have access to the protection a civil union provides? If it isn't the presence of children that qualifies two people for marital benefits, is it the existence of a sexual relationship? If it is, shouldn't we do spot-checks to make sure they're doing it?

Sanctity aside, a contract is simply a contract. Let marriage be the optional religioius ceremony that assures a thumbs-up from God and His permission for the couple to fornicate, provided they don't enjoy it too much.

If your widowed Aunt Maude and her spinster cousin Edna want to buy a house, share a bank account, and spend their retirement years watching Court TV together - and if a civil union can make their lives more secure, why not? If something happens to Aunt Maude, the contract will protect Edna from Maude's greedy sons, who can hardly wait to strip the house of antiques and sell their mother's cats for medical experiments.

Btw, I don't dislike all Christians. I liked the liberal Democrat Presbeterian minister interviewed on NPR today. He said he could see no benefit to anyone of discouraging committed, monogamous partnerships between gay men and women, using the same financial and legal incentives that society offers to heterosexual couples. He accused evangelical churches of "picking and choosing phrases from Leviticus" to condemn homosexuality, "while ignoring the core directive 'to let justice flow like rain.'"



"My wife and I got married for the usual reason: because gay people couldn't. We did it to spite them."

~ Jon Stewart

 

[cantdog]

I don't think the Church was concerned, solely, with the "power it held over sexuality" concerning the marriage question. Religiously, its a union before God, most likely the Church concerned itself with marriage out of a sense of duty and obligation.

The reason, I should say, why legal marriage is a big deal is that the government we have agreed upon for the United States is charged with the job of promoting the general welfare of the people. This includes things like "making sure we are safe" as well as "it behooves society to be educated"... naturally, under this responsibility is "ensure the next generations". By promoting marriage with tax breaks and legal fluidity, we are promoting the continuation of our way of life and the successful growth of our nation.

There is a payoff for the investment of marriage between a man and a woman... children (future citizens) being born, growing up socially minded that they will marry and have children of their own, etc. There is no profit (in this social sense) in investing in homosexuals in this way. Rather, if taken to the extreme, we will have a decline.

Historically, the church got involved in marriage for the money. Births, marriages, and deaths. The Church had a sacrament for each of them, and you had to come to the one source when you wanted it. Lotta money. It's a poor death without being shriven, a poor birth if you are never dedicated, and not a real marriage without paying the priests.

This was one of the key arguments Martin Luther used. He said there were actually only a couple of central rites the church had any business doing: holy communion and baptism, and the rest of that shit was corrupt opportunism designed to line priestly pockets.

The question has come and gone since. I do marriages myself, as a notary public in Maine, and I've looked into the question a little.

 

[cantdog]

There is a payoff to marriage for the participants. Stability and children, which even in hetero marriages don't need to have been engendered by the couple themselves, of course.

And the ability mutually to inherit and to pass the family wealth to children in a proper and ordinary way.

And the ability, very important right now, given the state of medical science, to act as next of kin, and to know that the person who acts as next of kin will be someone who knows you, someone you trust, someone you love, in fact.

If an estranged parent or resentful sib has to be called in (since your actual partner has no standing) he or she might say, "Oh, do everything you can to try to save Uncle John." This dooms you to go out in a welter of torture, in today's medical scene, man.

People who say, do everything, they ought to be forced to fucking watch it being done. It's hideous.

But if you just live together they have to find your Mom in Cleveland or wherever, for permission to proceed.

While the one who knows you best and all your children have to sit by and shut up.

And then there's the tax thing, joint returns; making each other beneficiaries of wills, trusts, policies, insurances, or survivor benefits of retirement plans. A lot of times you can't get that done. Not if the workplace is-- ahem-- Christian. Or the State.

And then the fact of being able, at long last, simply to acknowledge each other publically. Whether before God or not, your choice. A simple right which should be available to every human being on the planet.

 

[cantdog]

But Joe's point was historical and economic. Not prescriptive.

I think you jumped him comin through the rye.

But given the benefits as described of marriage, and given the in and out nature of the churchly involvement in the institution, which far predates the church, I think we have to allow for marriages which take place without benefit of clergy. And call them real, legally and socially. Particularly here, where we are not going to establish a state religion, are we now?

And once you've taken the step away from chuch sanction of every marriage, you have already allowed, I think, for other forms of it. Polyandry, polygamy, line marriages, all the various permutations. Homosexual unions ought to be thrown in with everything else.

But the world is not logical, and line marriages cannot be undertaken and also acknowledge themselves in public. Nor polyandry, nor any of the rest, most of which are defined as crimes. And I think they are defined that way from a cultural and social bias rather than a religious one. Polygamy is pretty standard in the Bible, and there are polyandries in the Mabinogion.

Incest is another culturally determined idea, frequently also with religious sanction. Many of the legends and myths of the Mistassiny and Cree go on at length about the woes that attend incestuous relations. There are long winters of boring confined small spaces and close quarters in the North country, and it came up.

But back to marriage. I tend to discount the impact of "purely" religious grounds for decisions, and think of them as customs encased in religious armor, like the nudity taboos.

Obviously, the Creator isn't going to shit His pants because some shiela bares a tit. Tits were the Creator's idea in the first place. A purely religious reading of a nudity taboo fails. But if it were the custom!

Custom is Iron, where even the law is only thread. You can beat a woman all the way down Main Street and the chances are good no one will bother you, at least for the first hundred yards; but if you appear on that same street in a square of cloth pierced to allow your head through, which covers your chest and shoulders and nothing else, you won't get that far before someone will object.

Custom is very powerful, and I think religion has tended to reinforce it for the satisfaction of the humans involved
who can now feel even better about the essential rightness of conformity.

cantdog