Pangloss Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 Ok, perhaps not exactly politics, but I couldn't help make note of this. Apparently we've had our first "same-sex divorce", following the recent spate of controversial same-sex marriages. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_separation I got a sad little chuckle out of this contradiction: The Goodridges were among seven gay couples whose lawsuit helped thrust Massachusetts into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage. Their daughter, Annie, now 10, served as ring-bearer and flower girl. Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy. Um, yeah, okay....
Sisyphus Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 I wonder what that would make the homosexual divorce rate.
walrusman Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 You all aren't against this whole gay marriage thing are ya??
Dak Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 I wonder what that would make the homosexual divorce rate. Apparently, there have been 8,1001 same-sex couples married (as of may '06) in massechusets (and thus the US, what with MA being the only state in which it is legal). 100(1/8100) = 0.012% divorce rate. Not bad , but hard to compare to the heterosexual divorce rate for various reasons.
Edtharan Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 Same sex relationships, just like hetrosexual relationships can fail. This is not suprising at all and goes to show that same sex relationships are just as valid as hetrosexual ones.
ecoli Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 Same sex relationships, just like hetrosexual relationships can fail. This is not suprising at all and goes to show that same sex relationships are just as valid as hetrosexual ones. True, but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the irony.
Severian Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 You all aren't against this whole gay marriage thing are ya?? I am.
In My Memory Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 Two gays getting divorced threatens the sanctity of two straights getting divorced! Oh nooos!
AL Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 I don't see the wanting privacy for the daughter and having had her as ring-bearer at the wedding to be contradictory. Was the wedding public with news reporters welcomed in? For all we know from that article, it might've been a tiny event with no more than a few dozen people.
Pangloss Posted July 27, 2006 Author Posted July 27, 2006 You assume they want their privacy for the sake of their daughter. It seems unlikely that we're going to be flooded with video of local TV reporters running after crying children of gay divorces while they're parents throw their hands up in front of the cameras. What a silly notion.
walrusman Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 Two gays getting divorced threatens the sanctity of two straights getting divorced! Oh nooos! Good one.
walrusman Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 Severian, YT2095, Gcol.... What's your problem with it? Let me guess...their marriage somehow adversely effects yours?
Severian Posted July 27, 2006 Posted July 27, 2006 Severian' date=' YT2095, Gcol.... What's your problem with it? Let me guess...their marriage somehow adversely effects yours?[/quote'] In this case it doesn't since in this case (I presume) it is in the US. But if I lived in the US it would disadvantage me because they get a tax break for being married. Furthermore, it is a statement of judgement from the state (of which I would be a part, if I were American) on what people get up to in their bedroom. I disapprove of the state poking its nose into people's bedrooms. Let me guess.... you like to poke your nose into people's bedrooms?
Sisyphus Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 I know we've had this argument before, but for me it comes down to what is worse, the government poking its nose in our bedrooms, or the government poking its nose in our bedrooms and making bigoted decisions about them. I think the former is pretty obviously preferable, and I don't think the latter is any closer to the ideal, that is, the government staying out of it entirely.
walrusman Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 Let me guess.... you like to poke your nose into people's bedrooms? I'm surprised you're asking me that. I thought my position was a little more transparent than that. I don't think it's anybody's business who wants to marry who or what they're doing in their bedroom. Don't get me wrong, I love a good porn flick, as long as it's hetero-style. And it's just as silly to be against gay marriage because somebody else will benefit from it and you won't. Sounds a little introverted and spiteful. Why not hold the "statement of judgement from the state" thing with more value and deny the government the right to tell us how to live our lives? You seem pretty smart, I can't imagine you don't see the sense in that.
Mokele Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 Sev's essentially playing devil's advocate, with the position that marriage should not confer benefits, regardless of orientation, as that's excessive government entanglement in personal affairs and granting preference. The reason I say devil's advocate is that, frankly, as much as such a position appeals to the libertarian side of my views, I don't think it'll be politically feasable, ever. Like every ideal solution, it's just that, ideal, not realistic. People will *never* *ever* voluntarily give up benefits of any kind, and suggesting to take them away would be total political suicide. As much as the libertarian position has a firm basis and adds an interesting view to the mix, I just don't think it's a viable option, especially not at the moment in the US. Mokele
Severian Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 The reason I say devil's advocate is that, frankly, as much as such a position appeals to the libertarian side of my views, I don't think it'll be politically feasable, ever. Like every ideal solution, it's just that, ideal, not realistic. People will *never* *ever* voluntarily give up benefits of any kind, and suggesting to take them away would be total political suicide. I don't think that is true. In the UK there is now no financial benefit to being married (Gordon Brown got rid of it a few years ago) and there was no outcry. In Germany in order to get the rights, you have to get 'married' by the state separately from the church (but there they are still silly enough to demand a sort of weird celebration thing with vows etc - you can't just sign a legal contract, and still give a tax break). In fact, there is a new initiative in the UK to automatically give people who are long term partners the same rights as married couples without the need for any actual 'marriage'. So I don't think the idea of a document of rights as a separate entity from a 'marriage' with a religious/cultural/sexual connotation is really so unfeasable after all. It is really the next step after gay marriages - why not have people campaigning to have the rights of a 'marriage' without any sexual or romantic requirements? Why shouldn't a brother and sister (or two brothers, or just two best friends) be able to have the same rights? Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have multiple 'wives', or a woman multiple 'husbands'?
ecoli Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 In fact, there is a new initiative in the UK to automatically give people who are long term partners the same rights as married couples without the need for any actual 'marriage'. And how would you prove that your a couple living together for a long time? Without a contract, how would you have proof?
walrusman Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 It is really the next step after gay marriages - why not have people campaigning to have the rights of a 'marriage' without any sexual or romantic requirements? Why shouldn't a brother and sister (or two brothers, or just two best friends) be able to have the same rights? Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have multiple 'wives', or a woman multiple 'husbands'? I couldn't agree more. As silly as it sounds, it seems my country is more religiously driven than I ever thought. Any talk of multiple wives or husbands, gay marriage - anything that the bible says is wrong, is viciously lobbied against here. I guess they didn't read the parts where jesus changed the hearts and minds of the people - on their own turf. For some reason, living life in reverence of christ has come to mean legislating their idea of morallity - NOT changing the hearts and minds of anybody but the house and senate. Gee...this kind of ties in with the other post about social freedoms. Imagine if the religious right were the ones deciding what was "socially damaging" and what wasn't.
YT2095 Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 Severian' date=' YT2095, Gcol.... What's your problem with it? Let me guess...their marriage somehow adversely effects yours?[/quote'] basicly the same as Severian said only he beat me to it, the whole thing is far too open to abuse. as for it adversely affecting My marriage, WTF are you on about AGAIN!???
Royston Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 I personally think benefits should only be applicable to 'partnerships' that have a child under their care. To slowly introduce benefits to suitable partners, where a line is impossible to draw on what is exceptable should be abolished. Why should somebody who doesn't believe in marriage, but leads a married life lose out...what exactly does the result of benefits boil down to ?
walrusman Posted July 28, 2006 Posted July 28, 2006 as for it adversely affecting My marriage, WTF are you on about AGAIN!??? You always seem like you're all wound up about stuff. Relax a little. That was an impathetic question. That's what I usually get from folks against gay marriage. Instead, Severian has some good arguments. Do you?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now