[Vision2020] gay marriage and bananas
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1643723376-1060287791=:68911
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Joan,
You say "I have no moral or philosophical objections to polygamy". And then you say "Polygamy would be fine by me if we could guarantee it was practiced willingly, fairly, and with the consent of all involved." Why do we need any guarantee? You just made three judgements: what is willing, what is fair, and what is emotional/mental/physical consent. These are moral judgements. Haven't you contradicted yourself with your moral and philosophical conditions (substituted instead of objections) that you set before you would consider polygamy fine? Why should those conditions be satisfied? Whose to say those are the only conditions, or that those are the conditions that need satisfying? What if we were to, as a nation in a constitutional amendment, declare that "Polygamy is hereby granted legal status by the people and states of this United States provided that the various local and federal law agencies guarantee that every polygamous husband has a 1:1 ratio of blondes, brunettes, !
and
redheads. Diversity in civil union, as in all other situations, must be upheld by this great and diverse nation. Therefore no man shall be legally identified with more than one blonde, brunette, or redhead unless he have one of each already. See UC 12.2.3-5 for directions in the case of retroactive situations..."
A ludicrous requirement, to be sure, but really is it any different than requiring that every polygamous union be "willing, fair, and consented"? An even better example would be to have an affirmative action polygamy law. There must be women out there who are missing out on the "opportunities" polygamous relationship because of their skin color. This needs to be remedied...
Secondly, you said marriage is about a determination of one's heirs and the choosing of one's next of kin. Where do you get this definition? Sounds to me like a corporation more than a marriage.
Thirdly, you claim that you want the state to get out of marriages altogether, but then you want the state to give you a nice blanket "civil union" because you want a secular definition of marriage. You are still leaving by the front door and trying to come in the back.
cheers,
Joshua Nieuwsma
Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com> wrote:Doug takes issue with my logic regarding gay marriage on grounds that
should, by now, be familiar to all of us. He asks, "If Wilson does not get
to impose his morality on homosexuals, then why do the homosexuals want him
to be able to impose it on polygamists?"
I don't want you to impose your morality on polygamists, and I certainly
don't want to impose mine. I have no moral or philosophical objections to
polygamy. I can, however, see some practical difficulties if it were
practiced in the United States. Which spouse would get your social security
and retirement benefits? How would we determine ownership of community
property? Which wife would get to pull the plug should you wind up in a
persistent vegetative state? These are not insurmountable obstacles, but
they are obstacles nonetheless. The difference between me and thee is that
I view this as a matter of law and not morality. Polygamy would be fine by
me if we could guarantee it was practiced willingly, fairly, and with the
consent of all involved. (This is not the way it's practiced in the wilds
of South Idaho and Utah, where multiple child brides seem to be the order of
the day.) That said, I nevertheless maintain that gay marriage does not
lead inevitably to polygamy. That's another debate for another day -- along
with whether or not me marrying Melynda will lead to Timmy marrying Lassie.
In this country, marriage is about the determination of one's heirs and the
choosing of one's next of kin. You're free to believe that God has joined
you together, but in all fifty states, the law can put you asunder. (From
your writings on marriage and divorce, I gather you'd like to rectify that.
I doubt you'll succeed, but I'll keep tossing pennies into the Friendship
Square Fountain just in case.) Although states like Louisiana and
Mississippi are experimenting with so-called "covenental marriage," the law
generally makes no distinction between heterosexual couples who are married
by Doug in Doug's church and those who are married by an Elvis impersonator
at the Drive-thru Chapel in Las Vegas. And it shouldn't. The law is an
ass, and I see no reason why an ass should decide whose vows are true and
Godly and whose aren't. It should only determine your legal rights and
obligations.
You ask, "By what standard do we make decisions about marriage law? Is it
religious? Secular?"
Secular, darling, secular. I think the state ought to get out of the
marriage business altogether. Offer civil unions to everyone -- the chance
to designate your next of kin, your partner, the person who has access to
your car keys and your checkbook -- and leave marriage to the consciences of
the individuals involved. Melynda and I will call ourselves married -- you,
the state, and Fake Elvis be damned. But we know others, both gay and
straight, who are equally committed to one another who would rather die than
use the word "married" to describe their relationship. In many cases,
they've done what we've done, executed a complicated and expensive series of
legal documents that as near as possible give us some measure of the rights
and privileges of state-sanctioned marriage. How much better (and clearer)
for all of us if we could do this via the shorthand of civil unions.
Joan Opyr
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-1643723376-1060287791=:68911
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>Joan,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You say "I have no moral or philosophical objections to polygamy". And then you say "Polygamy would be fine by me if we could guarantee it was practiced willingly, fairly, and with the consent of all involved." Why do we need any guarantee? You just made three judgements: what is willing, what is fair, and what is emotional/mental/physical consent. These are moral judgements. Haven't you contradicted yourself with your moral and philosophical <EM>conditions</EM> (substituted instead of <EM>objections</EM>) that you set before you would consider polygamy fine? Why should those <EM>conditions</EM> be satisfied? Whose to say those are the <EM>only</EM> conditions, or that <EM>those</EM> are the conditions that need satisfying? What if we were to, as a nation in a constitutional amendment, declare that "Polygamy is hereby granted legal status by the people and states of this United States provided that the various local and federal law agencies guar!
antee
that every polygamous husband has a 1:1 ratio of blondes, brunettes, and redheads. Diversity in civil union, as in all other situations, must be upheld by this great and diverse nation. Therefore no man shall be legally identified with more than one blonde, brunette, or redhead unless he have one of each already. See UC 12.2.3-5 for directions in the case of retroactive situations..." </DIV>
<DIV>A ludicrous requirement, to be sure, but really is it any different than requiring that every polygamous union be "willing, fair, and consented"? An even better example would be to have an affirmative action polygamy law. There must be women out there who are missing out on the "opportunities" polygamous relationship because of their skin color. This needs to be remedied... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Secondly, you said marriage is about a determination of one's heirs and the choosing of one's next of kin. Where do you get this definition? Sounds to me like a corporation more than a marriage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thirdly, you claim that you want the state to get out of marriages altogether, but then you want the state to give you a nice blanket "civil union" because you want a secular definition of marriage. You are still leaving by the front door and trying to come in the back. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>cheers,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma <BR><BR><B><I>Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; WIDTH: 100%">Doug takes issue with my logic regarding gay marriage on grounds that <BR>should, by now, be familiar to all of us. He asks, "If Wilson does not get <BR>to impose his morality on homosexuals, then why do the homosexuals want him <BR>to be able to impose it on polygamists?"<BR><BR>I don't want you to impose your morality on polygamists, and I certainly <BR>don't want to impose mine. I have no moral or philosophical objections to <BR>polygamy. I can, however, see some practical difficulties if it were <BR>practiced in the United States. Which spouse would get your social security <BR>and retirement benefits? How would we determine ownership of community <BR>property? Which wife would get to pull the plug should you wind up in a <BR>persistent vegetative state? These are not insurmountable obstacles, but <BR>they are obstacles nonetheless. The difference between me and thee is t!
hat <BR>I
view this as a matter of law and not morality. Polygamy would be fine by <BR>me if we could guarantee it was practiced willingly, fairly, and with the <BR>consent of all involved. (This is not the way it's practiced in the wilds <BR>of South Idaho and Utah, where multiple child brides seem to be the order of <BR>the day.) That said, I nevertheless maintain that gay marriage does not <BR>lead inevitably to polygamy. That's another debate for another day -- along <BR>with whether or not me marrying Melynda will lead to Timmy marrying Lassie.<BR><BR>In this country, marriage is about the determination of one's heirs and the <BR>choosing of one's next of kin. You're free to believe that God has joined <BR>you together, but in all fifty states, the law can put you asunder. (From <BR>your writings on marriage and divorce, I gather you'd like to rectify that. <BR>I doubt you'll succeed, but I'll keep tossing pennies into the Friendship <BR>Square Fountain just in case.) Although s!
tates
like Louisiana and <BR>Mississippi are experimenting with so-called "covenental marriage," the law <BR>generally makes no distinction between heterosexual couples who are married <BR>by Doug in Doug's church and those who are married by an Elvis impersonator <BR>at the Drive-thru Chapel in Las Vegas. And it shouldn't. The law is an <BR>ass, and I see no reason why an ass should decide whose vows are true and <BR>Godly and whose aren't. It should only determine your legal rights and <BR>obligations.<BR><BR>You ask, "By what standard do we make decisions about marriage law? Is it <BR>religious? Secular?"<BR><BR>Secular, darling, secular. I think the state ought to get out of the <BR>marriage business altogether. Offer civil unions to everyone -- the chance <BR>to designate your next of kin, your partner, the person who has access to <BR>your car keys and your checkbook -- and leave marriage to the consciences of <BR>the individuals involved. Melynda and I will call ourselves !
married
-- you, <BR>the state, and Fake Elvis be damned. But we know others, both gay and <BR>straight, who are equally committed to one another who would rather die than <BR>use the word "married" to describe their relationship. In many cases, <BR>they've done what we've done, executed a complicated and expensive series of <BR>legal documents that as near as possible give us some measure of the rights <BR>and privileges of state-sanctioned marriage. How much better (and clearer) <BR>for all of us if we could do this via the shorthand of civil unions.<BR><BR>Joan Opyr<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* <BR>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-1643723376-1060287791=:68911--