Should corporations be promoting homosexuality?

[Tonio]

But, you're making my point here. You're doing the same thing opponents of gay "marriage" do. You're putting your own thoughts into other people's lives.

How am I doing that? I'm simply trying to base my argument on "compelling government interest."

I'm expecting that some zoophile will tell you they have the "right" to be with their loving dog, it's just their nature.

Again, I don't see what rape (regardless of the species of the victim) has to do with the issue. There is no legal or moral right to harm another being that way.

There are a lot of consensual relationships of multiple marriage out there. There are exploitive and statutory issues out there for hetero and homosexual relationships that cause a lot of furor, too (ask the Catholics), but I don't think they define "lifestyle" of either one. You're saying that there's a responsibility level and value to a monogamous relationship, just like some would say there's a responsibility and value to marriage. The people choosing not to follow that would (and do) argue that if we're going to change the rules, ALL other choices should be given the same rights, be allowed the same "rights"
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Staying in the legal idiom, a marriage contract provides for both legal rights and legal responsibilities for couples. It gives each spouse legal protection, but it is most definitely not a free ride, and that's the way it should be. I think to categorize marriage as a "right" is somewhat misleading. If there is an advocate of multiple marriage out there who argues that they have a legal right to such an institution, I pity such a person. Keep in mind that I don't have any special knowledge of the law. What interest would government have in legalizing multiple marriage? In such a hypothetical marriage, the vulnerabilities and responsibilites would be more spread out, so there probably wouldn't be a compelling government interest to legally define those things.

Of course there are some straight and gay relationships that involve exploitation and statutory rape. My point is that with polygamy, these are so overwhelmingly prevalent that government can defend making it illegal on compelling interest grounds. As a practical matter, prosecutors might choose not to go after consensual polygamists, but use the law to justly punish people like Warren Jeffs. From what I know about history, polygamous marriages in many cultures have rarely been about the mutual give and take between couples, but instead been about ensuring that men can sire offspring.

I'm tempted to tell polygamists, "Hell, of course you can get married under the law. But if one of your wives divorces you, you'll have to pay the same alimony and child support as if you had just one wife. Chew on that for a while!"

 

[Dork]

How am I doing that? I'm simply trying to base my argument on "compelling government interest."

[/color]

Again, I don't see what rape (regardless of the species of the victim) has to do with the issue. There is no legal or moral right to harm another being that way.

[/color]

Staying in the legal idiom, a marriage contract provides for both legal rights and legal responsibilities for couples. It gives each spouse legal protection, but it is most definitely not a free ride, and that's the way it should be. I think to categorize marriage as a "right" is somewhat misleading. If there is an advocate of multiple marriage out there who argues that they have a legal right to such an institution, I pity such a person. Keep in mind that I don't have any special knowledge of the law. What interest would government have in legalizing multiple marriage? In such a hypothetical marriage, the vulnerabilities and responsibilites would be more spread out, so there probably wouldn't be a compelling government interest to legally define those things.

Of course there are some straight and gay relationships that involve exploitation and statutory rape. My point is that with polygamy, these are so overwhelmingly prevalent that government can defend making it illegal on compelling interest grounds. As a practical matter, prosecutors might choose not to go after consensual polygamists, but use the law to justly punish people like Warren Jeffs. From what I know about history, polygamous marriages in many cultures have rarely been about the mutual give and take between couples, but instead been about ensuring that men can sire offspring.

I'm tempted to tell polygamists, "Hell, of course you can get married under the law. But if one of your wives divorces you, you'll have to pay the same alimony and child support as if you had just one wife. Chew on that for a while!"

Tonio, I was just curious. Do you really have Asperger's?

 

[forestal]

Sorry, I don't tolerate intolerance....heheh

Normal lifestyle? Smoking isn't healthy, being a Catholic priest and being celebate your entire life isn't normal. So who cares?

Homosexuality isn't as common as being heterosexual, but it is natural, and normal for those people who are made by their creator to be gay.

What a stupid made up word! To have a phobia, would mean that one is afraid of something. I personally am not afraid of homos so I know I am not a homophobe. I simply don't think the lifestyle is normal or healthy and am entitled to my opinion, whether you like it or not. Now, who is the intolorant one? Respect my opinion! Quit trying to attach stupid words like homophobe to people who don't think it's normal.

Did I ever tell you about this time I went camping with a buddy and we had a few too many drinks. He asked me a question that i thought was very odd. He asked me that if I woke up in the morning and found a condom hanging out of my a**, would I tell anyone. I said, heck no! He said, good! Have another drink or two and try to get some sleep. I guess I was a little afraid of that homo that night. Oh, OK. You got me. I was a homophobe that night. I stayed awake all night!

 

[Tonio]

Some followups...

I just don't think the tense Cold War fears were a result of the daily home life.

True. That wasn't my point. I was saying that many unpleasant things that happen in society have little to do with society's definition of daily home life. There is no magic cure-all, a point I've made in condemning the idea of mandatory teacher-led prayer in public schools. I was also arguing against romanticizing the 1950s as some idyllic paradise.

It would be like not telling honor students they're honor students, and then why try harder. Or, not scoring a ball game because the losers might feel bad, so why try harder.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that giving legal status to gay marriage would lead some people to devalue the institution of straight marriage. Is that correct? If so, I think that's really about those people and their beliefs, which government cannot control. In my view, one's view of marriage should have nothing to do with what other people think and do, other than one's spouse or prospective spouse.

Here's an analogy - when Annika Sorenstam competed in a men's golf tournament, at least one sports commentator complained that male competitors who finished behind her would be "emasculated." My response? That's not Sorenstam's problem or the tournament's. If those men felt that way, that was obviously their choice and their issue.

Tonio, I was just curious. Do you really have Asperger's?

I'm 95 percent sure I have Asperger's, although I've never been formally diagnosed. Many adult Aspies are self-diagnosed. It was eerie to read the Oasis Guide and find my childhood experiences described almost exactly. As an example, for a long time I thought I was the only person who read encyclopedias for fun as a child.

 

[This_person]

Some followups...



True. That wasn't my point. I was saying that many unpleasant things that happen in society have little to do with society's definition of daily home life. I agree. I was pointing out just the parts of the romantacized portion of life as it pertains to marriage vs. union vs. non-recognition. And, one parent home vs. none, like now. I was just putting it to the more specific parts that I think this reflects. There is no magic cure-all, a point I've made in condemning the idea of mandatory teacher-led prayer in public schools. I was also arguing against romanticizing the 1950s as some idyllic paradise. Again, I agree that it's been remembered as better than it was. However, I think it was better than what we're living, for the reasons I stated.



If I understand you correctly, you suggest that giving legal status to gay marriage would lead some people to devalue the institution of straight marriage. Is that correct? Sort of.... If so, I think that's really about those people and their beliefs, which government cannot control. By having the government provide equal status to unions of different benefits to society, that's sort of a discriminatory action. Plus, in a mere generation or two there would be no way to discriminate between different "marriages", so it would no longer really be an individual's lack of ability to differentiate the baby from the bathwater. Just like there should be no difference between a man's vote and a woman's. WE don't see the difference, because that's all we've known. 90 years ago, that wasn't so true. In my view, one's view of marriage should have nothing to do with what other people think and do, other than one's spouse or prospective spouse. On a personal level, I definately agree with you. On a grand scheme of things, I have to think that laws should provide for what benefits the most. It's unfair. Like, we unfairly tax the ambitious, prosperous, successful people and provide their money to the weak, incompetant, or otherwise impaired people because that benefits the most. I don't like it, I just pay my share (sic).

Here's an analogy - when Annika Sorenstam competed in a men's golf tournament, at least one sports commentator complained that male competitors who finished behind her would be "emasculated." My response? That's not Sorenstam's problem or the tournament's. If those men felt that way, that was obviously their choice and their issue. I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't see it as a parallel. What different benefit did she provide? Was she held to the same standards (I don't follow golf, and have no real idea the specifics of what you're referencing)? The more important parallel here would be, did providing a venue to have a non-man play a man's sport effect the sport and how it was viewed by others - ie, did all players start hitting from the same tees, were revenues to the tournaments effected, did players of desired talent continue to want to play, were there any "unrests" and controversial issues that were unnecessary just to change the rules (and the definition of "men's") as a result of this, etc.



I'm 95 percent sure I have Asperger's, although I've never been formally diagnosed. Many adult Aspies are self-diagnosed. It was eerie to read the Oasis Guide and find my childhood experiences described almost exactly. As an example, for a long time I thought I was the only person who read encyclopedias for fun as a child.

I had to look up what Asperger's is. Whew!

 

[jetmonkey]

I thought I was the only person who read encyclopedias for fun as a child.

Does this mean I have Apsergers? I read a whole set multiple times

 

[Tonio]

On a grand scheme of things, I have to think that laws should provide for what benefits the most.

I think that's the core of our disagreement. I see laws as attempts to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of society. Your example of proportional taxes is valid, but as an economic principle rather than a legal principle. When it comes to the legal responsibilities of marriage, it seems odd to me to ask someone to demonstrate a societal benefit before taking on those responsibilities.

 

[Tinkerbell]

The banner at the top of this thread is VERY fitting. What are the odds? Vrai - you've GOT to be doing this on purpose somehow!!

 

[somddove]

I'd love to get that poll out to the gay comunity and then check back on it in a week to see how the numbers changed. Polls like this tend to be a little one sided and dumb.

It would not affect my buying decision. 2,406. Just along as the product has quality. It does not matter.

 

[This_person]

I think that's the core of our disagreement. I see laws as attempts to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of society. Your example of proportional taxes is valid, but as an economic principle rather than a legal principle. When it comes to the legal responsibilities of marriage, it seems odd to me to ask someone to demonstrate a societal benefit before taking on those responsibilities.

Once again, I think we agree in principle here. I agree that the needs of the individual need to be balanced (key word, but society usually wins out) with the needs of society. The needs of the homosexual individual are not limited in the current situation, because of not being able to be "married" - there's virtually no loss to any person. They can provide for inheritance, insurance coverage, medical decisions via living will and/or power of attorney, etc. The only "loss" is the social acceptance by calling an apple an orange. So, in my view, there's no loss to an individual, yet a gain overall to society. I'm not asking anyone to demonstrate the societal benefit, I'm asking that the government and corporations acknowledge the societal benefit that's already in existance. Certainly, no one who is gay needs to shirk the responsibilities of being "married" to their partner. They can act in every way they believe a married couple should act, meet every responsibility to each other and society they feel is appropriate.

I'll shut up now, and let you have the last word on this subject. I can hear the collective sigh of forumworld! I appreciate the good discussion, it made me think and change a little in my views.

 

[Tonio]

They can provide for inheritance, insurance coverage, medical decisions via living will and/or power of attorney, etc.

You are correct on the general principle. If such things can be provided by a civil union, that would seem to me to be the best compromise. Apparently there have been numerous complaints from gay couples about courts or hospitals not recognizing the living will or power of attorney. Sometimes it's because the institution objects to the relationship, and sometimes it's because a partner's estranged parents seek control over the medical decisions.

 

[This_person]

You are correct on the general principle. If such things can be provided by a civil union, that would seem to me to be the best compromise. Apparently there have been numerous complaints from gay couples about courts or hospitals not recognizing the living will or power of attorney. Sometimes it's because the institution objects to the relationship, and sometimes it's because a partner's estranged parents seek control over the medical decisions.

I said I was going to shut up, but....

If it's because the institution objects, there are laws to protect that. If it's because others seek control, well, that happens to straight couples, too. Wills are contested (especially by the children of previous marriages, etc), control sought by parents (Schiavo, etc.). A civil union wouldn't help that any more than is already there, 'cuz it doesn't help the married.

 

[Tonio]

If it's because the institution objects, there are laws to protect that. If it's because others seek control, well, that happens to straight couples, too. Wills are contested (especially by the children of previous marriages, etc), control sought by parents (Schiavo, etc.). A civil union wouldn't help that any more than is already there, 'cuz it doesn't help the married.

I was thinking of the Schiavo situation as well. Do both types of situations happen much more often to gay couples than to straight couples? Is a living will or power of attorney much more likely to be ignored if the couple is gay? That is apparently what the gay couples are claiming, but I don't know if they are correct. I'm trying to look at that issue in terms of general principle - I wouldn't want my living will or power of attorney to be dependent on someone else's opinion of me.

 

[This_person]

I was thinking of the Schiavo situation as well. Do both types of situations happen much more often to gay couples than to straight couples? Is a living will or power of attorney much more likely to be ignored if the couple is gay? That is apparently what the gay couples are claiming, but I don't know if they are correct. I'm trying to look at that issue in terms of general principle - I wouldn't want my living will or power of attorney to be dependent on someone else's opinion of me.

I always question those types of claims. If the will/power of attorney, etc, exists no one has any more or less likelihood of having it challenged. At least, legally, they have no more or less footing.

 

[Roughidle]

I'd love to get that poll out to the gay comunity and then check back on it in a week to see how the numbers changed. Polls like this tend to be a little one sided and dumb.

Hmm...they have a community somewhere? Is it a walled compound, special city or something?

 

[This_person]

I always question those types of claims. If the will/power of attorney, etc, exists no one has any more or less likelihood of having it challenged. At least, legally, they have no more or less footing.

Not sure how I offended someone with the truth here. Who ever felt the offense, please speak it so that I can be put in my place publicly, or at least we can discuss it like adults.

 

[Tonio]

I always question those types of claims.

Yes, it's always possible that some of those situations were caused by someone's ineptitude, or that the couple misinterpreted things.

 

[Roughidle]

I think the companies should promote what ever is the most profitable.
Would make the most business sense.