Let me explain just a little bit about a few of my friends and your opinion will be appreciated if you feel that you must give it. Two of my friends, Rysuke Ryo Takashi and Hunter Knight, had just recently gotten back together with their other soul-mate, Mitchell Li, and I was actually glad for them; however, Hunter’s mother can’t accept the fact that he’s quiet happy with his boyfriends. “I have tried my best to reason with her; telling her that she should be happy for me and so on, but she still shuns me each time we talk on the phone. My dad was surprised, but still told me that he loved me no matter whether I was gay or not.” was what my friend Hunter had said to me. The only question I have is why is my friend’s mother being so hateful towards her own son for being gay?

Two other friends of mine just recently got married as of July 9, 2006. They were good buddies in high school and really didn’t know that they were so close like lovers until two of our other friends, Kenzaki Kazuma and Tachibana Sakuya, had told them during christmas break of 2004. At first I was a little uneasy seeing my friends, Hajime Aikawa and Mutsuki Kamijou, together but after a day or two I just told them that as long as they were happy then that’s what counted. Sometime before their marriage, they had adopted their son, Ryu Kamijou Aikawa, when he was only 5 years old. I don’t know the story with what happened to Ryu’s biological folks, but my best guess is that they must’ve been killed if my two friends adopted him.

I’m sorry if all of my babbling has taken up your entire time though, but I’ll get right down to the point. When it comes to same sex couples and what rights they should have, I strongly believe that “they should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.” I don’t know why, maybe i’m weird because it shouldn’t matter whether a person is gay or not, they are human beings and should be treated with equality and have the same rights as straight married couples.

I’m tired of negotiating with people who have no power, and I agree with your initial comment to me Terrance, and I’m sorry to have vented on your thread.

I think just one thing should be addressed in all fairness, to any continued discussion.

Who is OnLawn? I think if someone as Terrance is going to sit down and discussion which rights, benefits and privileges he is entitled to, he should at least know who he is discussing them with, no?

In a court of law, you are entitled to face your accuser. Should we not at least get to know more about the person who so graciously is offering to throw us a few civil liberties out of his own generousity?

Or else he should answer on what grounds he’s qualified to make a negotation on this.

On the note of the ecomonic model, wasn’t it Ralph Waldo Emerson who noted that for a thousand people attacking the branches of a problem, only one is attacking the root?

The most immediate solution is not neutering marriage, as the examples on that post show. They support the argument found in the dissent of the second Goodridge decision where the justices pointed out that even calling both relationships by the same name was not enough to homogenize them.

The only way to fix those problems is to make their case, each individually to the public and get them granted inspite of their title. You can do that by making a case for them as RB’s, or you can do that by changing the economic model they are based on to afford more freedom to the recipients. But nothing short of that will give you what you appear to be after.

One note. The likelihood of launching an entirely new economic model in order to obtain the rights and protections being discussed strikes me as pretty slim, or so far into the future that putting off rights and protections for same-sex couple until that’s achieved strikes me as putting it off permanently. I’m interested in how we achieve them under our current socio-economic system, in as little time as possible.

Thanks for the invitation. I’ve appreciate the question as I’ve asked what rights and priveledges you are asking for your family so such a conversation can happen. I have wanted to engage in such a discussion for a long time. The most I’ve seen from anyone who wishes to render marriage gender-neutral is a pointing to a survey of 1,000 legal incidents regarding marriage. I looked into the legal incidents and found them, item for item, to be not equatable to the points you are wishing to discuss. Some were, some weren’t.

Were you to provide such a list I’d appreciate it quite a bit. Much of what I will note in this post is just a summary of what I’ve already outlined above.

I have brought up one point, presumed paternity, which is something that doesn’t make sense for lesbian or even gay couples. But beyond that I’ve stated other rights and priveledges not neccissarily for hetero v homosexual couples, but certainly have an impact on our assessment of this debate. In fact, that is my main argument, that we need to approach this debate not by drawing a line between two points (hetero v homo) creating some divisive war between them. We need to look at this more circumspectly, we need to look at other groups and classifications and see their interest in the outcome of marriage.

I’m thinking about children when I think of marriage. I’m for preserving their link to their parents wherever possible. There are many medical, cultural and humanitarian reasons to preserve these links. Because of that I’m against turning birth certificates into ownership reciepts, reflecting a legal composition of parenthood and completely dissolving the biological and cultural reality. This argument was one that convinced me about neutering marriage, and was provided by Prof Velleman of NYU. He takes it more in depth here.

I’ve also noted how I am for protecting the priveledged status of the disabled. People who are disabled have a condition where they cannot do what we normally expect from a person. As a society we try to give them extra resources so that they can, for their own life, achieve everything that others can. This is discriminatory in their favor but it is humanitarian. It is homogenization, but I believe in their case for it, and I’ve outlined its humanitarian needs above. It is a special pleading, and one that I see abused in the argumentation to neuter marriage. Again that is outlined above.

As far as the rights that should be given? I believe the state might have an interest in a relationship of mutual trust that two people might engage in. When I say “might” it is my believe there is but I await the public debate on this point before declaring what the state has interest in or doesn’t have interest in.

But looking at homosexual couples I see that two people can form a reciprocally beneficial relationship with someone they trust to make decisions for them on matters of mutual interest. That is a freedom they can express, a freedom of association on personal matters of interest. They are people who share a dependancy and trust between them. So hospital visits, even making medical decisions for each other, etc… I believe that matters of sharing pensions, health insurance, are a problem that should be better addressed. It should be addressed in such a way that people can choose who they assign their benefits without anything but their own desire to do so. I don’t believe forcing companies to do so is the way to do that, I believe a new economic model is the absolute best way to achieve that kind of freedom. But that gets into Dan Morgan’s “No Speed Bumps” advocacy.

I guess what I’m saying is that I am very happy to see you wish to discuss nuts and bolts rights and priveledges. Lets get real, not vague. I believe that although not exhaustive I’ve already laid the foundation for this discussion in my posts above.

I am interested in, before discussing your take on my points, your answer to your own question. I’ve only taken on a few specific points and others I feel can be generally addressed.

And while I like taking on every point from every challenger, I don’t think SteveS made comments a person of your calibre and poise would have condoned. I’ll kindly let them lie for now.

Well, OnLawn, you certainly nailed that one on the head. You must be snickering sitting there at your computer with a golden halo of self-righteousness circling your head. How dare a family with children seek for and expect equal treatment in regards to federal and state matters. How immature they must be, for they clearly do not deserve, parents and children alike, the same protections that you enjoy. Damn them for being immature. Snicker away in your self-righteousness and let the world see the harm you would inflict on families and children.

“Now it seems to me that you call it a punishment when you don’t get what you want. I’m not here to speak much on mentality but one wonders what mentality reminds us of people who think that not giving them everything they want is oppressive to them.”

That statement makes sense if I ask for something above and beyond what you have. I am simply asking for equality and so that statement sounds clueless and condescending. Somebody asking for EQUALITY is dismissed as asking for ‘whatever they want’. I’m the type of fag that would bitchslap your sorry ass if we were ever in the same room. You and your bigotry harms families and children and I won’t tolerate it in my presence. You are pure evil.

Heaven forbid, someone should ask you for equality, and you go on snidely about somebody wanting everything. Do you realize how pathetic and evil you sound?

I can see someone someday asking you to let him live and you just roll your eyes and say ‘gosh, you want it ALL don’t you?”

Whatever. You are evil and not worth negotiating with.

“Whatever force decided that there needed to be two sexes to species and that integration was required for procreation, you decide.”

You missed my point entirely. Nature made there be two sexes and nature made them both needed for procreation. NOBODY IS DISPUTING THAT. What I am disputing is your insistance that goverment needs to enforce and forward it because you believe nature can’t do it on it’s own. Nature has created families for millenia without marriage. There are six billion people on this planet. SO MANY IN FACT, THAT 10,000 DIE EVERY DAY FROM STARVATION. So how fucking long do you think you need to keep helping make sure guys and girls can procreate? And how long do you think denying gay families benefits will help men and women procreate?

Whatever.

What rights and protections do you think same-sex couples should have? Which do you think they shouldn't have?

Were it in your power, which would you grant them? Which would you withold?

 List them by category ("should have"/'shouldn't have").

Or the immaturity

But you are interested in them rewarding some relationships and punishing others.

I’ve stated I’m for “rights and priveledges” for same-sex couples. Now it seems to me that you call it a punishment when you don’t get what you want. I’m not here to speak much on mentality but one wonders what mentality reminds us of people who think that not giving them everything they want is oppressive to them.

And mankind is SO grateful that you created an institution to help men and women integrate. HOw did they ever get by in the 10 million years before goverment was invented? … The idiots work me up.

You are correct when you say that government didn’t create marriage. It recognizes it. But you are wrong, I didn’t create it either.

Whatever force decided that there needed to be two sexes to species and that integration was required for procreation, you decide. But I can’t think of anything else to attribute the formation of the ideals of marriage to other than that. Can you?

Or, are still getting too worked up to reply rationally?

Onlawn says:

“1) I’m not interested in the government being the romance enforcers.”

But you are interested in them rewarding some relationships and punishing others.

OnLawn says:

“I specifically promote marriage as a program unique in its capacity to promote responsible procreation before it happens.”

Has anybody REALLY read this sentence? Hmmm?

OnLawn says:

“Marriage is the worlds oldest institution of integration”

And mankind is SO grateful that you created an institution to help men and women integrate. HOw did they ever get by in the 10 million years before goverment was invented?

Oh, Terrance, how do you refrain? How do you refrain?

This is why my blog isn’t political. The idiots work me up.