Text 11091, 110 rader
Skriven 2007-01-29 22:41:41 av Carl (14528.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1170127297.373217.50050@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

Dark, milk, or white chocolate?
Ahhh... have one of each. :)

>
>> 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.

The twist comes with the religious context of the term "Marriage."

I think that if a legal ceremony were held joining two people
(straight or gay) that was called "Civil union," only a small percentage
of people would object.

People who place a higher value on the religious context than
the legal one and whose interpretation of their faith objects to
a gay lifestyle have a problem equating their marriage with
something they consider morally wrong.

For some (and I know people that think this way) it's not a matter
of embracing or rejecting diversity, it's about right and wrong in
the eyes of God.  Good luck trying to argue that 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.

Just curious how it compares with the rest of society.


Carl

"If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't
he just buy dinner?"
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)