The problem with the first one is that the Federal government has certain protections over married couples about inheritance, taxes, insurance, hospital visitation, life&death matters, etc, but the Federal (and most state) government will not include homosexual couples no matter how legal/detailed/awesome a contract they have. This means that no matter what homosexual "married" couples do, they won't have the same rights as heterosexual "married" couples until states/federal government says so.
What about NGOs?lord_of_entropyDecember 20 2007, 04:30:49 UTC
In addition to the already listed concerns, other institutions are notoriously able to enforce their paradigm biases (e.g., hospitals are still quite heteronormative) upon the individuals with whom they interact/serve, and this discrimination will at times even be defended by a government aegis when similar bigotry would be blocked, at least in theory.
The idea of using intricate contracts for alternate lifestyles had been in practice in America long before Heinlein ever used it in his fiction, and while I do feel that it is the superior model, the market place (either of ideas or competition) has yet to uproot the traditional, mixed-religious-and-ownership union
Re: What about NGOs?flamingswordDecember 20 2007, 22:50:04 UTC
But is gay marriage really going to force its way into the mainstream without doing it the hard way? Het marriage has a longstanding history in our culture, and to 'normalize' gay marriage, we're going to have to have icons where people can see them.
George Michael should get married. Here in Dallas. *daydreams*
I was going to specifically mention insurance and taxes, but tanniynim covered taxes.
So, unless the state recognizes same-sex partners, you can't insure them as your "spouse". You have to either get them classified as a dependent (most insurance companies cut this off at age 25 with or without full-time school) or take out separate policies still.
Overall, not a bad idea. I've seen a lot of poly advice saying that a live-in group should have some sort of property contract covering who gets what of what was brought in and stating how collective purchases will be divided in the event of a break-up. Sure, it's a binding contract, but it's also not exactly marriage.
On your second item, I'm not sure there will be a statistical incidence specifically because of closeting. The fact is people can choose gay sex but still live as hetero -- a lot of men do this without even their spouse's knowledge. In a lot of places it's much easier to be in the closet than out. There's where you should look for your statistical incidence, imo.
Contract law is something I know a lot more about than institutions I have sworn off such as marriage and insurance. I should look up these practices, though, to better know my enemy.
I said to throw out the bi people, which these guys count toward, as they have sex with both genders. Their ambiguity screws up the flat curve I'm trying to point out.
Well, insurance companies being insurance companies, it's only the states (NY, I believe, is like this) that recognize same-sex partnerships and have passed legislation requiring the insurance companies to do so where a same-sex partner can be insured in the same way as a 'spouse
( ... )
I am saying that sexuality is not a choice, yes. If it were there would be a large percentile difference in the number of "path of least resistance" personalities in the gay communities.
I'm straight, and not because of any laziness on my part. I don't think there will be any solid statistical evidence to support the second item. It seems to make the assumption that everyone is potentially gay, an idea that I don't support. I'm not gay, because I don't feel attracted to other men, not because I'm afraid to come out to friends and family.
In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving.
I think she meant to say that it is the view of the "straight majority" that "only contrary people are gay" -- and therefore being gay is just a statement or somehow invalid.
She did say she was dizzy, but when she said "I see no such statistical incidence anywhere." it led me to believe that the whole paragraph before it was a postulation that she was disagreeing with.
Hmm. You have a good point with, "In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving."
I think the problem with really contrary people is 'their level of frustration' VS 'how strongly they are compelled to act to affect the system'. Most truly contrary people are just too much of a ball of frustration to commit constructive acts of iconoclism. Indeed, this much to the detriment of their cause, and often tends to "prove" to the people they are trying to change "how crazy their views really are".
I got the part on the assumptions of the straight crowd, and registered a counter assumption that being straight is a "path of least resistance". I realize that this is the case for some, depending on their upbringing and social environment. Thinking back on my own upbringing, I'm damn glad I wasn't gay, cause I would have been hemmed in by a totally homophobic atmosphere at a hick high school in Fort Worth Texas. I feel for anyone who's circumstances put them in any such position.
I was speaking more to the paragraph than to her, and realize that she was throwing it out for discussion.
I was trying to point out that sexuality is NOT a choice, because if it were a choice the ONLY people who would be gay are the "path of greatest resistance" personality types. That there is no such trend in the stats indicates that it's not a choice.
I think the whole world should make you The Decider.
I'm too lazy to be lazy. It's too much hard work.
Why did you exclude the bisexuals from your little analysis?
"In further news, I still can't pin down the ideas on how to turn down offers." --> You can try saying what I say, "I appreciate the offer, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass." It seems to work really well. It's very P.C.. Plus, it only rarely makes people get upset -- as far as I know.
I just think you're so addicted to the 'people drug' that saying 'no' just isn't in your 'world view' -- like it's not even an option. Like Blue and eating vegetables -- they're not even real food. It's not even a real option. ^.^ I love you. *kiss*
...I also think that when you're The Decider, you should decide to have thousands of th mal populace line up outside your palace to contribute their 'emissions' to your own designs, like that one lady who ruled back in the day did.......'cause that was just Hot....
I said to throw out bisexuals because they screw up the flat curve I was trying to point out. If there were a choice, there would be more of one type of person on a side, rather than an even distribution. Bisexuals tend to pass as straight better, and thus cannot be sufficiently distinguished from a straight population.
In regard to the first part...bardkrisDecember 20 2007, 05:58:15 UTC
It's not really that most people who genuinely do their research are having problems getting their rights (at least among the folks I know). If you are legally savvy, you can work around all of that. The real problem I've run into and heard talked to death is that they shouldn't have to.
It's not fair that it's harder to be straight than anything else. It's not fair that some people are allowed this nice tight little bundle called marriage while everyone else has to claim their rights individually. They shouldn't have to. But I'm still tired of listening to it. Act, or submit. It's up to you.
About the second part, I think I already explained the intensity vs intimacy thing to you, and it makes me sound prejudiced... sort of. Anyway, I've already had a long 'make me sad' argument about prejudice this week, so I'll let it lie.
Comments 32
Reply
The idea of using intricate contracts for alternate lifestyles had been in practice in America long before Heinlein ever used it in his fiction, and while I do feel that it is the superior model, the market place (either of ideas or competition) has yet to uproot the traditional, mixed-religious-and-ownership union
Reply
George Michael should get married. Here in Dallas. *daydreams*
Reply
So, unless the state recognizes same-sex partners, you can't insure them as your "spouse". You have to either get them classified as a dependent (most insurance companies cut this off at age 25 with or without full-time school) or take out separate policies still.
Overall, not a bad idea. I've seen a lot of poly advice saying that a live-in group should have some sort of property contract covering who gets what of what was brought in and stating how collective purchases will be divided in the event of a break-up. Sure, it's a binding contract, but it's also not exactly marriage.
On your second item, I'm not sure there will be a statistical incidence specifically because of closeting. The fact is people can choose gay sex but still live as hetero -- a lot of men do this without even their spouse's knowledge. In a lot of places it's much easier to be in the closet than out. There's where you should look for your statistical incidence, imo.
Reply
I said to throw out the bi people, which these guys count toward, as they have sex with both genders. Their ambiguity screws up the flat curve I'm trying to point out.
Reply
Reply
Reply
In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving.
Reply
She did say she was dizzy, but when she said "I see no such statistical incidence anywhere." it led me to believe that the whole paragraph before it was a postulation that she was disagreeing with.
Hmm. You have a good point with, "In my own opinion,contrary natures are just as often responsible for hindrance of progress as they are for overachieving."
I think the problem with really contrary people is 'their level of frustration' VS 'how strongly they are compelled to act to affect the system'. Most truly contrary people are just too much of a ball of frustration to commit constructive acts of iconoclism. Indeed, this much to the detriment of their cause, and often tends to "prove" to the people they are trying to change "how crazy their views really are".
Truly, it's a shame.
Reply
I was speaking more to the paragraph than to her, and realize that she was throwing it out for discussion.
Reply
Reply
I'm too lazy to be lazy. It's too much hard work.
Why did you exclude the bisexuals from your little analysis?
"In further news, I still can't pin down the ideas on how to turn down offers." --> You can try saying what I say, "I appreciate the offer, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass." It seems to work really well. It's very P.C.. Plus, it only rarely makes people get upset -- as far as I know.
I just think you're so addicted to the 'people drug' that saying 'no' just isn't in your 'world view' -- like it's not even an option. Like Blue and eating vegetables -- they're not even real food. It's not even a real option. ^.^ I love you. *kiss*
...I also think that when you're The Decider, you should decide to have thousands of th mal populace line up outside your palace to contribute their 'emissions' to your own designs, like that one lady who ruled back in the day did.......'cause that was just Hot....
Reply
Reply
It's not fair that it's harder to be straight than anything else. It's not fair that some people are allowed this nice tight little bundle called marriage while everyone else has to claim their rights individually. They shouldn't have to. But I'm still tired of listening to it. Act, or submit. It's up to you.
About the second part, I think I already explained the intensity vs intimacy thing to you, and it makes me sound prejudiced... sort of. Anyway, I've already had a long 'make me sad' argument about prejudice this week, so I'll let it lie.
Reply
Reply
http://bardkris.livejournal.com/92837.html#cutid1
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment