Re: Angelides says he would sign gay marriage bill

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:12:08 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:24:19 -1000, Alvin Toda <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:46:09 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:40:47 -1000, Alvin Toda <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

But make no mistake, the relationship is sacred (not in the religious
sense) because this is a basic human condition of relationships which
demands, like our other civil rights, equal and fair treatment. Being
a capable and independent person, you may not feel the importance of
bonding and starting a permanent relationship. But that is the case of
straight people too. One of my sons could not decide on marriage even
if he dated the same girl for 13 years-- living together for the last
5.


Actually I'm more of a socially dysfunctional person than a
capable and independent person.

You've neglected talking about homosexuals equally with
heterosexuals in this post, though I know (or think I know)
from your other posts that you're completely fair-minded
about equality.

Well, I was talking about the majority of voters who are
heterosexuals. But IIRC "married" homosexuals share these ideas of
committed relationships. What I meant about "capability" etc is that
you have many options about your life. Your "disfunction" may limit
your options, but that is something you also have the option to
change.


That's contentious. The tiger can't change his stripes. People
can change the kind of car they drive. The stuff in between is
a mix of what can and can't be changed. A "positive attitude",
much as the optimism of the concept makes my teeth hurt, can
be a help. In the Dennett we both just read, he mentions the
"shaman" value of just believing in something.


It's simply amazing to what lengths these guys will go to trying to
create subterfuge for their bigotry.
Thumper

Many others are stuck in really dismal situations. For example, heavy
family responsibilities for single mothers who work at minimum wage.
For them the options are nil, and the struggle is horrific. Marriage
for them is not only a relationship but may really give them more
options. Of course, one can always fall in love with a loser as well,
but women seem to be more cold-blooded in this area and set high
standards. Men really have to mature and work hard to find this
happiness. I think that a gay relationship is no different in this
sense. They try to help each other achieve their goals in life.



I've had a charmed life, as have the majority of people who have
the luck to be living in America or the rest of the "Western" world.
I saw a bit on the philosopher Seneca a few days ago on TV
though, where Seneca observed that members of the privileged
class to which he himself belonged were on average actually less
content, and also were meaner people, than the classes below
them. That was because they expected so much for themselves,
and were upset and irritated when they didn't get it.

Actually, I myself am more unfamiliar with "gay marriage"
than with "straight marriage". Just as bachelor straight guys and
their married friends tend to fall away from each other, bachelor
gay guys tend not to get/stay involved with "couples", I think.
Or maybe that's just me.





Shakespeare didn't get married until Anne Hathaway got
pregnant, which I have heard was standard procedure in
those days. I also hear that's true in modern Scandinavia.
Under that setup, the idea of marriage as "for the kids" is
on a little more defensible ground than it is in the USA.
Even there though, if it's "for the kids", why isn't it set up
to be "for the kids" rather than a roundabout way that
doesn't cover all the real bases and does reward phantom
bases? As Jerry noted elsewhere, tax deductions for
dependents is "for the kids" directly, so it's not by any
means impossible to do things that way.

Some get married, some don't. I don't think that they should do it
just "for the kids". It can help to make the decision, because many
will procrastinate. But couples should make other arrangements for
their kids if they are really not compatible. If they just do it "for
the kids", and not for themselves, then they need to grow up.



Where there's no government financial benefit to getting
married, it's likely to be seen not so much as something people
simply ought to get busy with, I expect.


 
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" -- Wm. Pitt the Younger

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gay Marriage
    ... We don't require heterosexuals who marry to have kids, ... But I'm glad to see you've abandoned the "it's because marriage ... to gay marriage is based on having kids. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Angelides says he would sign gay marriage bill
    ... it's straight or gay people raising the kids.. ... Married people want to spread the joys and benefits of marriage. ... The churches could deny marriage to anybody they ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Gay Marriage
    ... We don't require heterosexuals who marry to have kids, ... But I'm glad to see you've abandoned the "it's because marriage ... to gay marriage is based on having kids. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: The Rite of Marriage is not a "Right
    ... the word 'marriage' is not worth the paper of the licence ... I got married after already having 2 kids with my partner. ... reason:because of the way the law stood in the UK at the time if i had ... the idea of gay marriage are really saying, & as many have said about ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Angelides says he would sign gay marriage bill
    ... One of my sons could not decide on marriage even ... I myself am more unfamiliar with "gay marriage" ... Even there though, if it's "for the kids", why isn't it set up ...
    (soc.retirement)