Samuel - your point is a good one. And I add that perhaps in taking this a
step at a time we may eventually as a society move closer toward affecting
these kinds of social contracts regardless of the nature of the
relationship between individuals. But there is one major point feel you
have overlooked, and I think the debate spins on this axis, at least in
part.
The issue of gay marrage is not only about whether two people have the
right to enter into a contract that involves property, medical benefits,
inheritance rights, etc, but is one that centers in no small way on being
legitimatized - on individual levels, as couples, as a group. It means
being a step closer to full acceptance and positive recognition in a
society that in the past has not done either to the degree we merit.
Your position did not include this as a crucial basis to the debate, in
fact, it seems to have overlooked this or trivialized it in light of some
other, albeit important, issues.
M. M. Harvey
Samuel Nicolary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc: University City List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] gay marriage
.purple.com
02/20/04 11:08 AM
Please respond to
Samuel Nicolary
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian Siano wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, Dan, but scripture is not clear on this subject. Just as
> > the Bible has been manipulated to justify slavery, colonization of
> > less developed peoples, and opression of women, scripture is still
> > being manipulated to oppress gays and lesbians.
>
> Interesting arguments, in general. But why bother? There's no such thing
> as God. The Bible is not the basis for our legal system. There is _no
> reason whatsoever_ to even _bother_ with debating fine points of the
> Bible on this matter.
For me - it comes down to this: either throw out the entire domestic
partner benefit system on all levels altogether or make it available to
any two individuals who wish to enter into a partnership for whatever
reason - it doesn't have to do with whether or not the two people stare
dreamily into each other's eyes, whether or not they have sex or whether
or not they plan to either adopt or procreate on their own - it is simply
a social contract. The details of the benefits of the partnership could be
worked out so that the advantages would only be if a certain financial
criteria were met and the disadvantages of termination would be steep -
i.e. You could add this partner to your health plan if they didn't have
health benefits available to them elsewhere. The cost of a divorce would
be expensive without cause. The dependent benefits of the union of these
two individuals would remain as is.
This is not a gay issue - gays just fall under its scope. Wouldn't it be
nice if two close oppositely sexed friends who chose to build a life and
raise artificially inseminated, adopted or foster children or no children
at all together could do so and receive the same benefits as a married
heterosexual couple with or without kids? They can now if they "cheat"
but not all sex combinations can cheat unfortunately. The warranted
scenarios are endless and involve each possible combination of sexes.
The existing state of this system is the result of heterosexual marriage
with children in the picture - I don't think that is very arguable and is
probably why a lot of people don't see the issue clearly. The philosophy
that is behind what exists now just needs to be applied in a more modern
sociological sense - that is what challenges a large portion of our
society - especially those who have fundamentalist values with regard to
sexuality. I think sexuality has nothing to do with it anymore - it is
about support and co-dependence. It does the issue a disservice when it
is centered on same-sex unions - that just provokes opposition in the
fundamentalist ranks. The issue then comes down to whether or not you
sanction homosexuality which should have nothing to do with this. If the
focus was on giving equal benefits to any two individuals who wished to
enter into a co-dependent partnership then I think opposition would not be
so strictly against it if it were presented properly. But the deed is
done - it has become strictly a gay issue in most peoples minds and you
can't go back in time.
To say that the bible is not the basis of our legal system is a bit naive.
I think it played a big role in the lives and morality of all the
lawmakers that have contributed to it. I don't think I need to elaborate
on that one.
--
Sam Nicolary
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
