----- Original Message -----
From: Haggerty, Mike
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: You People
Beth -
I outlined scenarios that may seem far fetched but which could easily
occur. Humiliating, degrading intiations into groups, drunken escapades,
and finanical compulsion are all common occurances in America, they tend
to be tied to high-risk, extraordinary activities, and the large
majority of people out there consider these negative situations they
want no part of.
There is no reason to assume entering into a same-sex marriage would not
be identified as within the realm of 'high-risk, extraordinary
activities' for many people, given current societal expectations in
large parts of the country. We live in a less-perfect society than some
would like to think, and not all people's beliefs are as enlightened as
your own.
In this sense, the potential for abuse is real and concern is warranted.
The remedy I suggested was not to disallow same-sex marriages, but to
set the bar very high as a means of preventing people who aren't really
interested in this kind of life from getting involved in it.
For the record, I did not come up with any specific means of
implementing such a bar, nor do I have an opinion as to where it should
lie. People wishing to undergo sexual reassignment surgery are compelled
to undergo counselling for a period of several months to several years
and must be certified by several medical and psychological professionals
prior to the operation. This is mainly because there is an insanely high
rate of suicide amongst post-operatives stemming in part from the fact
they are almost categorically denied a meaningful place in society after
the operation, worldwide. Checks are in place to prevent people who
aren't prepared to walk this path from ever going down it, and some
system of checks should be in place for people choosing to enter a
same-sex marriage.
I am not saying this is right, I am not saying there is a legitimate or
material difference between same-sex or traditional marriage
arrangements. I am saying our identity is defined, to a large part, by
who and what we choose to mate with and what society expects us to be
mating with. The state must be sensitive to the practical application of
any laws that challenge the majority's beliefs on what is morally right
and wrong. Simply demanding the right to do something can lead to
disasterous consequences for other people, and an official sanction of
same-sex marriages without consideration of how to best implement them
opens the door to a whole host of problems.
This is about as sensitive to your position as I can be. Now, I am
certain you can find things I said to go after me on, but this time
please reserve your attacks to what I actually say.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:05 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: You People
You outlined five really far-fetched ridiculous scenarios which aren't
in any way different if the participants are same sex or not same sex.
No wait marriages can easily be a vehicle for abuse NOW, it has nothing
to do with the sex of the participants
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
