On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
No - I left that out on purpose. The points you mention are important sure but are not a matter of legislature in my book nor should they be. They are a matter of personal opinion. Separation between church and state goes both ways. They are issues within religious and non-religious communities which should have nothing to do with legitimizing a social contract recognized by the US government. We can instantiate any amount of laws on the subject but that isn't going to make society and its various organizations accept it - that is not the role of government anyway, right? -- Sam Nicolary > 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>.
