Text 11088, 92 rader
Skriven 2007-01-29 19:21:37 av lizardgirl (14525.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 11079 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (14516.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Jan 29, 6:57 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170093932.914044.269530@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
> >> The simple fact that states feel they may not have to recognize a
> >> marriage
> >> from another state would also indicate fairly clearly that marriage
> >> is a privilege.
>
> > to me this simply implies that people have differing opionions on the
> > matter.
>
> >> Marriage is official recognition of a a union, and it is up to the
> >> "official
> >> body" to determine the requirements that it grants that recognition
> >> under.
>
> > couldn't disagree more.  book/record keeping does not eqaul
> > priviledge.  it encourages responsible behavior.
>
> Let's try this another way... Two men (or two women) can currently
> call themselves married any time they want to.  However, it is
> the legal and/or religious ("Official") recognition that legitimizes that
> union to the rest of society.

ahh, this i can accept.  'they' stamp the peice of paper that says, 
yes, they are married.  which you can then show to whatever agency 
thinks it needs to see it, medical insurance comes to mind, as well as 
life insurance and birthing centers (no marriage license requires the 
father to fill out and sign a whole lot of paperwork to establish his 
paternity/parental rights.)

>
> The couple can't force the legal/religious authority to recognize
> the union, nor is that authority obligated to.  Therefore, it's a
> privilege, not a right.
>

you know i keep getting stuck on the word priviledge, so i looked it 
up (brilliant, ah?)  the definition is pretty straight forward, isn't 
it?  after a bit of consideration turns out my adversion to the word 
relates to my idea of how to be good, "if you don't clean your room 
gabi you will loose your tv priviledges."   "if you don't finish up 
your homework gabi you can not go out to play."   "how can you have 
your pudding if you don't eat your meat!?"   fine, it's a priviledge.  
deep sigh.  i need chocolate and a couch.


>
> How do you define the distinction between a "right" and a "privilege?"
>

there seems to be a weird convergence happening here.  many countries 
(and some of our states) already grant civil unions between same sex 
couples.   in this instance civil unions = priviledges.   as has been 
established, marriage too = priviledges.  not a stretch then to say 
marriage = civil union.

the hang up seems to be with the word (notion of, existing conventions 
regarding ) 'marriage.'  the 'right' to marry doesn't seem to include 
or exclude the 'right' to priviledges out right.  denying marriage to 
all but hetero couples reflects a desire to hold homo and hetero 
'marriages' as something apart, different from one another.  why?  the 
failing, imho, is not with the law neccessarily, but with our cultures 
inability to embrace diversity.  using the existance of priviledges as 
an excuse to deny a persons right to choose their life partner is a 
poor one.

> Hmmm.  I'm just curious, but do you have any statistics indicating
> the increased likelyhood of the breakdown and/or harm of polygamous
> unions or of children being worse off?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you. Just wondering.
>

personally? not a one.  but i'm sure someone out there opposed to 
polygamy has loads.


lg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)