Re: Re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article/

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 2:59:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Nice! Those are the biggest nails yet pounded into the coffin of

> this " equal law application " nonsense! Now that the core of the

> matter has been laid bare so lucidly, perhaps might offer an

> apology for introducing such an abominable and thoroughly

> unproductive distraction in the first place... and making Christie

> repeat the points that were evidently missed the first time she made

> them about governmental recognition of gay marriage being a lot more

> than just some philosophical nicety for cultural sheeple. I quote Mr.

> Berg as of the morning of 2/17/2004: " That so many people apparently

> think that they can make their marriages more meaningful through a

> stamp of governmental approval is disturbing to me. " I further quote

> Christie as of 2/14/2004:

Mike,

I think you're missing a big point here.

First, a smaller point: everything Christie said is remedied by civil unions.

She still claimed that not calling this " marriage " is opressive to

homosexuals and iirc she claimed it was a civil rights issue, when, in fact, the

desire

for " marriage " rather than a " civil union " is absolutely, purely, a desire

for government-stamped cultural approval.

Second, the more important point: You are presupposing that there is a

distinct relationship called " marriage " with a binary set of possible

arrangements:

heterosexual, and homosexual. I find this entirely arbitrary. Heidi made the

point that anyone should be able to gain a " civil union, " such as, for

example, two sisters.

The idea that in order for someone to have a legal contract that allows

everything a marriage allows to a spouse, one must be in a *sexual*

relationship,

is arbitrary and absurd. The marriage laws are unjust and oppressive, in the

sense that they restrict the right to form contracts and have them recognized,

but this isn't a specific oppression of a group or class of people, but rather

an oppression of *anyone* who wants to create a contract that is similar in

legality to marriage but is fundamentally different in terms of the substance

of the personal relationship.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> First, a smaller point: everything Christie said is remedied by civil unions.

She still claimed that not calling this " marriage " is opressive to

homosexuals and iirc she claimed it was a civil rights issue, when, in fact, the

desire

for " marriage " rather than a " civil union " is absolutely, purely, a desire

for government-stamped cultural approval. <<

Chris... dig deep here hon.... think about it for a minute....

Isn't wanting to call it civil unions instead of marriage more a symptom of

wanting to reserve government-stamped cultural approval to yourself?

We just want what you have. Cough it up, or give it up, I don't care which. But

don't suggest *I* am the one who is whining about the name. I don't care if you

call it turnips, as long as you don't have one water fountain for me and another

one for you.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 6:22:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Isn't wanting to call it civil unions instead of marriage more a symptom of

> wanting to reserve government-stamped cultural approval to yourself?

No, because I already took a clear, consistent stand against

goverment-stamped approval for *either* relationship.

Second, if you assert this, you are quite clearly admitting, implicitly, the

converse: that the significance of " marriage " is government-stamped approval,

and therefore that this is what you are seeking, beyond civil unions.

> We just want what you have. Cough it up, or give it up, I don't care which.

> But don't suggest *I* am the one who is whining about the name. I don't care

> if you call it turnips, as long as you don't have one water fountain for me

> and another one for you.

Right... the issue with the name is purely one of legislated moral/cultural

equivalency. I couldn't care less whether it is called " marriage " or " civil

unions " personally.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 7:18:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Nope, not presupposing that at all. I personally advocate precisely

> what Heidi suggested, civil unions (I think " household union " is a

> better term) with no presuppositions as to the nature of the

> relationship.

Then you can't claim a singling out of one of these disallowed relationships,

use it to represent a group of people rather than the relationship itself,

and claim that that group of people is a second-class citizen. Is the currently

law morally repugnant? Yes. Is it completely unfair to segments of the

population? Yes. Does it create a second-class citizenry? No.

In a second-class citizenry, you have a clearly defined group, defined by

properties intrinsic to that group, that has a separate set of laws applied to

it

than those applied to the other group or groups.

Homosexuals aren't exactly a solidly defined group. Sexuality is actually a

wide spectrum rather than some sort of binary division, and I think you

recognize that.

Homosexuals as a group are defined by their behavior. It's difficult to say

whether or not this is an intrinsic property. You yourself pointed out that

it may well be for *some* homosexuals and not for others.

Even having drawn the rather ambiguous boundaries around this group, the law

is the same. A bisexual, who could be said to be both heterosexual and

homosexual, is not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex based on

her

or his homosexuality. But she or he *is* prevented from marrying someone of

the same sex. So if we define a bisexual as a homosexual, we cannot conclude

that she or he is prohibited from engaging in marriage. But if we consider

bisexuality a separate category from homosexuality, we cannot say the

prohibition specifically affects homosexuals, because it affects bisexuals

equally, to

the extent they desire a marriage with a *homosexual relationship*.

So the oppression is not dependent on the group identity at all, but entirely

dependent on the specific relationship someone in any of various groups

desires.

Is this oppressive? Yes, you bet. Is it unjust? Yes. Should it be

changed? Yes. But it is simply fundamentally different than discriminating

between

persons. Not better, not worse, just different. Where am I going wrong?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Every law or personal action (no matter the label of the group affected)

that gives right to anyone or any entity over any other's right to the same

quality of life creates a hierarchy and makes a second class citizen or

citizenry.

> Does it create a second-class citizenry? No.

>

> In a second-class citizenry, you have a clearly defined group, defined by

> properties intrinsic to that group, that has a separate set of laws

applied to it

> than those applied to the other group or groups.

Wanita