Wizard of Oz and Fred Phelps

[missmiah]

I freely admit that I grew up in Kansas. In a tiny little farm town that was known for being the exact opposite of culturally diverse. The people of that town couldn't have been more cookie cutter identical without snatching bodies and introducing android replicants just like Stepford. And not the remake Stepford Wives, either, because the remake Stepfords openly accepted a gay couple and my home town was totally not accepting of things like that. Those two ladies down the road that have been living together since the dawn of time and who people whisper about behind their hands? They are just sharing living expenses, damn it, and who told you about *barely audible whisper* lesbians?

I had a friend that I knew was gay. He knew it. All our friends knew it. Yet no one EVER mentioned it. He took girls to the dances, taught me how to two-step (it only happened once and I refuse to do it ever again, I swear) and was a generally great guy. But he couldn't be himself. He had a boyfriend that he had to drive thirty minutes away to see, that he could never mention at school or anywhere for that matter, that he couldn't bring to dances or pep rallies or to the gas station to hang on Friday night (Once again, I point out "Farm Town").

I was in my mid-twenties before I finally met someone who was openly gay.

Now, having spent my entire school age years trying to earn the right to be left alone by people who wanted to Stepfordize me with their religion, their fashion, their out look on life, their everything that I wasn't and didn't want to be... I was remarkably blase about finding out. He was happy. He wasn't trying to "convert me" (And no, I do not think that homosexual people have little recruitment drives and try to lure straight people over to the other side. I personally believe that each of us knows what we prefer, whether we want to admit it or not, whether that preference has been there since birth or not and there is no "Making Someone Gay" - only accepting something that may have been there for a very long time.) so why the hell should who he liked to hook-up with concern me?

What I thought, in my own uniquely naive way, was what right would I have to judge another for trying to do the exact same things I was attempting to do with my life?

I'm not writing this to start an argument about morality or sin or biblical right from wrong. I'm writing this because I grew up in Kansas, home of the Wizard of Oz and Fred Phelps, and today was April 5th. Voting day for the proposed state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is a union solely between one man and one woman. My opinion on the matter is quite clear. I'm sure anyone reading this has their mind firmly made up one way or the other. I'm not trying to change that opinion.

What I would like to say is that the blatant misinformation being circulated in regards to this amendment is enough to make my brain hurt.

On my last trip to Kansas I received no less than three pamphlets on the subject. All against same sex marriages and for "protecting the sanctity of a union before God". But that's not what the vote is about, or at least it shouldn't be. Marriage and "a union before God" are not interchangeable terms. This should not be about religion, this should be about the right to pursue happiness.

Two of the pamphlets assured me that marriage has been defined as a union solely between a man and a woman for thousands of years. And that only the above defined marriage is acceptable around the world.

I know this to be false. Many cultures have a polygamy-base familial system. And I don't think they would take too kindly to us announcing that their thousands of years old traditions are wrong. A little closer to home I can point to Utah less than a hundred years ago. Hard to believe, I'm sure, but polygamy used to be accepted here in our own blessed United States.

When I ask what's so bad about letting two people who just happen to be the same sex enjoy the same privileges that I have with my husband, it inevitably comes down to a matter of fear disguised as arguments against perversity and sin. I just don't understand that. I don't understand what they fear.

Now, having said my piece, feel free to disagree with me, leave me something in the comments. I'm fine with that and am willing to discuss it. I will leave the comments unscreened. With two conditions.

1) No anonymous rants about how I'm going to Hell because I disagree with you. Trust me, I've heard that one before. A lot. If you do feel that I'm going to spend eternity in hellish flames, at least be polite enough to leave me your name so if the time comes I can think to myself "Gee, so and so was right." Although, in the spirit of complete honesty, I'm agnostic so threats of hellish damnation don't carry as much weight with me as you might have hoped.

2) If your opinion is entirely faith based, please be willing to admit that. I don't mind discussing religious beliefs as long as the person I'm talking to is willing to understand that I don't necessarily share those beliefs (see item number one) and will be asking questions to better understand why someone believes what they do. I'm always curious to see how someone's belief system shapes their everyday life.

Comments

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

I have taken all the measures that are allowed to me, but that is irrelevant to the point that the decision not to have children does not mean that I am incapable or unworthy of love.

But if gay people aren't allowed to have some sort of state-sanctioned equivalent to marriage - and this can be done without infringing anyone's religious views because it doesn't involve a church (or other place of worship) ceremony - it does amount to a penalty. Being denied access to a bonus is indistinguishable from a penalty, because they suffer harm thereby. Their position is worse off than if they were married.

They are denied inheritance rights in the event of intestacy. They are denied rights to see their partner in hospital in the event of their incapacity. They are denied land law rights. They are denied tax breaks.

All this talk of encouraging marriage through these kinds of property rights is just nonsense. No one marries because they are going to get a tax break. And if they are, frankly they don't deserve the support of the state.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

does not mean that I am incapable or unworthy of love.

Nor did anyone imply that it did, but we are talking about marriage, what does love have to do with it (yes, I'm being partial sarcastic here though historically and even in parts of the world there is not always a correlation).

No one marries because they are going to get a tax break. And if they are, frankly they don't deserve the support of the state.

I find that statement interesting since you had just said:

But if gay people aren't allowed to have some sort of state-sanctioned equivalent to marriage - ...

If people don't "marry" for the benefits, then what the heck does it matter if the government recongizes your "marriage" or not? What is to stop to people of the same-sex to walk around and say, "We're married, not lawfully marriage, we're unlawfully marriage, ha ha."

As for most of the "benefits" of being married, any two people can get them if the invest the time and money into getting legal contracts. The government just makes these easier for some types of relationships then others.

So to recap:
-Nothing is stopping same-sex couples from being married. This marriage just has no legal bearing, so what? This marriage can be performed by whoever the couple wants and is whiling to do it. There are several churches even that embrace these marriages and perform them willingly.
-Nothing is stopping same-sex married couples from getting many of the same legal rights (though not all) that lawfully married heterosexual couples (or a homosexual and hetersexual couple or a homosexual man and a homosexual woman or etc) from having.
-This isn't fair, but few things in life are. Suck it up and get a helmet. The mormons had to bow before this societies moral (not necessarily religious or can't you have morality with out religion) judgement, so will same-sex couples.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

sorry didn't mean to bold half of it.

[missmiah.livejournal.com]

Nor did anyone imply that it did, but we are talking about marriage, what does love have to do with it (yes, I'm being partial sarcastic here though historically and even in parts of the world there is not always a correlation).

Well, to be perfectly honest, the only reason I married my husband was out of love. He was broke, in debt, marginally unattractive at the best of times, anti-social and a bit dorky... And I love him with my entire heart. While I'm aware that I am no prize myself, until the day we wed I was debt free, in a stable job, had plenty of friends and quite capable of taking care of myself. In every way but love, advantage to this union was his.

This isn't fair, but few things in life are. Suck it up and get a helmet. The mormons had to bow before this societies moral (not necessarily religious or can't you have morality with out religion) judgment, so will same-sex couples.

You're right, it's not fair. And this country was founded on the principles of not having to accept that which isn't fair. If I pouted and gave up every time someone told me I couldn't do something just because they said life isn't fair...

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

Well, laws aren't written (usually) for individuals. Different people get married for different reasons. Sure it is great if the people are in love, truly in love not just imagined love, but it is not required (as unappealing as that is).

Now I also believe the primary purpose of marriage in society is having and raising of children. So laws are written to support that goal. Does that mean it is the only goal of marriage for people? No, of course not. But why does the government care whether two people are living together, sharing expenses and responsibilities. Because if there are children involved, the society wants them properly socialized and cared for. Why does the government give a crap about children, because if the parents don't take care of them then the government has to one way or the other.

Now of course, the point that there are mixed-sexed couples (whether either or both are heterosexual is not really relevant) who never have children due to choice or circumstance. Why should they be allowed to get or stay married?

Frankly there are two answers.
1. The secular answer is that there is a huge difference in violating a persons privacy by making them prove they are of different sexs and proving that the can and want to produce offspring. Lets face reality here, you put 100 mixed-sexed couples in 100 separate rooms, eventually your get some off-spring from some of them. You put 100 same-sexed couples in 100 separate rooms, there ain't going to be any off-spring (if there is then we got the second coming and that would sure shut some religious people up).

2. The religious answer, god made marriage between a man and woman. Your a woman and your mate is a man, you can get marriage in god's eyes. Of course if you don't have children because you don't want them, your probably going to get an earful of guilt trips (be fruitful damn it!). On the other hand, if you can not have children, the answer most fundamentalist is "keep trucking, you never know god works in mysterious was". Basically, most religious people never really give up hope that a married mixed-sex couple will have children.

Let me just say I have sympathy for people who can't have children, one of my sisters tried and for a long time. She has resigned herself to it, and for a while, yes she thought about divorcing her husband so that he could go have children with another woman, that is how much she loved him. I am happy that she didn't and trusted in her husband that he loved her enough to not feel it was necessary. Of course, now they are the pseudo-parents for his niece (her parents are a bit wacked).

But your right, people shouldn't give up if they think they are right. People say that a constitution ammendment means it is stuck. Nope, if people's views change, a new ammendment can always be passed (look at prohibition). So for those same-sex marriage supporters (and the polygamist, bestialityist (is that a word), etc). Don't give up, perhaps things got moving a little too fast, who knows in another 100 years. There may not even be any marriages (just like in heaven :D ).

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Poeple used to keep slaves; it doesn't make it right. It is now commonly accepted in our society that marriage is for love.

Your argument appears to be that giving gay people 'benefits' ie the same rights as everyone else amounts to encouraging homosexuality and suddenly the world will be full of gays. All the homosexuals I know say that they thought they were that way from a very early age, and certainly didn't decide that that was the way they were going to be when they grew up. Therefore it seems vanishingly unlikely that tax breaks will 'make' people gay.


And no, speaking as a lawyer, you can't imitate all of the rights as a heterosexual couple. And replicating those that you can costs money, and aren't beyond challenge. This causes real hardship in the gay community.

Life may not be fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make it better. On your analysis we should have stood by and admired slavery and told the little whingers to damned well suck it up.

And you can certainly have morality without religion. In fact, bearing in mind the sheer nastiness of the religious mind, and its inability to cope with ideas like justice, and its tendency to treat morality as some sort of process of literary criticism, you can only have morality without religion.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

Well, thank you for clearly showing everyone what a straw-man fallacy is. =D

For those that don't know:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

So let's see if I am as well versed as yourself.

You make arguments for same-sex marriage (again I make no distinction if both are hetero- or homo-sexual or some mix) that it is a "right" based on the fact that the peole entering it are in "love". Ok, then (here comes the straw man) because you say that anyone who is love with anyone else should be allowed to be married, then we can not justify limiting marriages to two people. Or to two adults, or to two members of the same species, or two non-close relatives (what is wrong with two brothers marrying?), or any standard at all.

All that you claim is required is that they have to love each other. When all relationships are equal, then all mean nothing. Just say what you really believe, that there should be no governmental support for marriage.

See isn't that great. =D

Or perhaps, you might see that most of my arguments are based on supporting mixed-sexed couples and not stopping same-sex couples. Give bonuses to same-sex couples, and do not punish mixed-sex couples. I know "emotionally" it feels like not getting a bonus is a punishment, yet that has little to do with logic.

I never said they could get all of the same benefits, I said most which is true. If it costs money, how much do you think a religious wedding costs? You don't like it and your a lawyer, you could perhaps do some work for gay couples pro bono.

In fact, bearing in mind the sheer nastiness of the religious mind, and its inability to cope with ideas like justice, and its tendency to treat morality as some sort of process of literary criticism, you can only have morality without religion.

Now I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. You hate religion and religious people don't you. It is ok, you can admit it. Of course your statements are completely illogical since most changes in social justice have been brought about by religious leaders **cough, cough** Reverend Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi as examples **cough, cough**.

Perhaps that is part of the problem here. The same groups of individuals who are claiming same-sex couples should be able to be married, are the ones who in the past have said, many other questionable moral activities are ok, and religion should butt out. Of course it is a logical fallacy to base the judgements of an argument on the person making the argument, but it is human nature. Many moral and/or religious people feel that some of the groups morals are questionable and therefore since they are supporting same-sex marriage it must also therefore be questionable.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

No, what I was doing was taking your arguments to their logical conclusion to demonstrate the flawed suppositions on which they were based.

And your attempt at a straw man is pretty flawed. I have no problem with more than two people in a marriage if they are indeed in love, and not put into that position by the constraints of society. Obviously it should be limited to adults, because children aren't capable of making rational decisions. If they can't enter into contracts, they certainly can't enter into marriage.

And if a cat told me it wanted to marry a dog, well it just might be entitled to do so. Provided it was true love of course and not some puppy love.

And neither do I necessarily dissent from the view that marriage shouldn't be supported by government. Why should it be? If it's about love, then people should marry for love, not because the Government thinks it's a good idea for society. Governments have been trying to reverse the decline of marriage for decades now, and have discovered that no amount of tax breaks can make someone stay with someone they don't love or respect.

If marriage is so bloody wonderful, why do so many people try and escape from it?

And your argument that giving advantages to one group doesn't amount to depriving another group of anything, whilst interesting in the field of games, is one that wouldn't hold water in court. If I turn up and say so-and-so got promoted at work and I didn't, the judge isn't going to say that I haven't been disadvantaged merely because I didn't get something that someone else did. He is going to say that I was disadvantaged and that that behaviour is discriminatory.

It is not for me to perpetuate the injustices of society by offering a sticking plaster to the problem. Nor is is sensible to compare the costs of religious wedding, which are incurred voluntarily and could be kept to the bare minimum of the licence, with the hardship of the surviving member of a homosexual couple having to sell the family home on the first death to meet the inheritance bill. And there is no planning available to mitigate that effect.

Yes, and for Gandhi and Martin Luther King, I can show you people who burn down abortion clinics, burn books, try to silence authors and film makers, honour killings, suicide bombers, murderers, rapists and thieves. the defect in religion is that it is authoritarian, and admits of no other explanations, picks and chooses its way through the old testament to select the bits it wants to ban whilst omitting the others, and seems to think that the choices that shepherds made five thousand years ago are directly related to issues like stem cell research.

If religious people rely on the old testament to say that homosexuality is an evil, then why aren't they keeping kosher. The rules are right next door to each other?

I really think that God, if he exists, has better things to do than hang around on clouds dressed in a nighty and worrying about who is buggering who. He might, instead, choose to look at whether people were living decent lives, and being nice to each other.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

No, what I was doing was taking your arguments to their logical conclusion to demonstrate the flawed suppositions on which they were based.

Yeah, ok. This is what you said.

Your argument appears to be that giving gay people 'benefits' ie the same rights as everyone else amounts to encouraging homosexuality and suddenly the world will be full of gays.

Nope, never said anything about the number of people who are gay increasing or decreasing. What I said was that by given benefits for a certain unions, such as to same-sex couples (don't need to be gay or are we going to put a sexual preference requirement on same-sex marriages now?) that it would induce more individuals to enter those unions. This is the reasoning behind the current laws giving benefits to mixed-sex couples, to induce people to enter them instead of just screwing around and having kids popping out all over the place without anyone to care for them.

All the homosexuals I know say that they thought they were that way from a very early age, and certainly didn't decide that that was the way they were going to be when they grew up.

Fine and dandy, so what? Again, never said that allowing same-sex marriages would cause more gays, so what is your point? Or are we getting to homosexuality as a choice vs. a condition discussion?

Therefore it seems vanishingly unlikely that tax breaks will 'make' people gay

Indeed, but what does the government gain from giving them tax breaks? Certainly the government gains more money from two individuals then one union. So what is the outwaying factor to allow these same-sex marriages. For mixed-sex marriages in general, it is obvious. It is cheaper to give a couple a tax break then to pay to deal with their children, it is also healthier for society for children to be raised by their parents then to be missing one or both parents. So where is the benefit from same-sex marriages.

Fairness? Love? Please, I bow before no higher power, why would I bow before these vague concepts. Give me real benefits for society.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Your argument that heterosexual couples get tax breaks because of having children is undermined by the fact that the tax breaks are offered to the married couple and not according to the number (if any) of the children that they bear.

Nor does it take into account the fact that same-sex couples may well have children. On your own analysis, they should then have tax breaks.

Most people consider that a fair society is a society that is better for us all to live in. In fact, there are economists who can prove that fairness is a public good with value, and that people are prepared to trade off a certain amount of wealth in order to achieve it. In fact, there are experiments involving monkeys that show that they have a rudimentary sense of fairness. It has value in holding society together.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

Your argument that heterosexual couples get tax breaks because of having children is undermined by the fact that the tax breaks are offered to the married couple and not according to the number (if any) of the children that they bear.

Nor does it take into account the fact that same-sex couples may well have children. On your own analysis, they should then have tax breaks.

So if I could prove the opposite were true then my position would be justified correct? Well, anyone here know about how people can claim dependents (which may be children even up to their ~21st,22nd? year if they are going to college) and that these dependents actually lower the tax burden of the person. And that homosexual persons who have individuals that meet the definition of dependents also get these tax breaks, as no where on the tax code does it say anything about sexual preference.

At least that is how it is here in the U.S., other places I can't say. But it would seem that you have just reinforced my point. Thank you. :D

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Erm, no. Actually you've conceded my point.

You said that tax breaks were offered by the US system to support different sex marriages, and only different sex marriages because of their child-rearing, and that same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed to access these benefits. But then you say that tax breaks are offered to people with dependents regardless of their sexual preferences.

So that blows the bottom out of your argument.

There is therefore no reason to prohibit same sex marriages because the childbearing element of tax relief is already accounted for. They would not be accessing that which they would not otherwise be entitled to.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

Not just their child-rearing, but child having.

It is not possible for same-sex couples to have children from each other, therefore the probability that any random same-sex couple will have a child is small.

On the other hand, the probability that any random mixed-sex couple will have a child from each other is very high.

Now giving benefits to all couples (mixed- or same-sexed), loses the government money. On the other hand, having children with only one parent or no parents loses the government even more money. So if we had to say, which type of marriage is a better "investment", the fact is, the breeders are. Because they are going to breed anyway, it is best to try to get them to get into family units.

Give all same-sex couples benefits just so that the (let's be generous) 10% that have children can be supported is a "bad investment" (higher cost, lower benefit). Giving all mixed-sex couples benefits just so that the (let's be kind of low) 90% that have children can be supported is a "good investment" (lower cost, higher benefit).

As for how do tax breaks for dependents figure in, yes there are for more support for children. But we assume that children in some situations are more desirable then putting children in others. Thus for the great majority of people who have children (that would be mixed-sex couples), they are motived to get married (and stay married) by additional benefits.

Again since without extreme governmental intrusion there is no way to tell whether a mixed-sex couple will want or be able to have a child at some point (and it is highly probable that they will). So it is better to motivate them to stay together (give them benefits to staying together), then not to.

The laws are written for the rare mixed-sex couple who don't want or can't have children, nor are the written for the rare same-sex couple that want children. There are written for the great majority of couples.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

I said childbearing not rearing.

Your answer to my point is to go behind the expressed purpose of the reliefs and to give them some implicit purpose that cannot be justified on their wording.

When people draft tax legislation they are perfectly capable of targetting reliefs at the most carefully defined class of individual rather than taking a scatter gun approach. If the legislature really intended to encourage marriage, then the reliefs would be drafted to benefit marriage and nothing else.

If dependent relief is given to people regardless of sexual orientation then the purpose of those reliefs cannot be to encourage heterosexual couples to have children. Because it would be quite easy to add a condition in the legislation, if so desired, that such relief would only be given where the parents were married. Then, and only then, would it be possible to argue that incentives were being given to promote different sex marriage as the best situation for child rearing.

[pres-man.livejournal.com]

Nice chatting with ya. This will be last post, but I leave the final word to you.

I said childbearing not rearing

Actually you said both, I just picked up on the rearing one, sorry.

If dependent relief is given to people regardless of sexual orientation then the purpose of those reliefs cannot be to encourage heterosexual couples to have children.

No its not, nor did I claim that it did. I said, that breeders are going to breed. Children are going to be born, and the government gives tax benefits to those that care for them (dependent relief), whoever that is (single parent, married parents, adoptive parents, whatever).

Yet additional benefits are given to the group most likely to care for chidren (that being their genetic parents who almost always are mixed-sex couples), to promote the children being raised in a stable environment (hopefully). That is why mixed-sex couples are given potential marriage benefits. They are group that is most likely to care for children (being the genetic parents) and to have (being mixed-sex vs. same-sex).

I know we will not see each others view so that is why I'm stepping out. I know you aren't going to be able to show me evidence that will prove to me that:
1. same-sex couples are harmed by not being given marriage benefits over other people of the same-sex who live together (long term roommates who have no sexual relationships for example).
2. that there is some signficant benefit to society for promoting same-sex marriages (and opening the door for many-partner marriages), other than a sense of "we did good".

I know I will not be able to prove to your satisfaction any justifable reason that same-sex partners shouldn't be given benefits. I have given reasons but you haven't accepted them as is your choice. Just as you have given me reasons for the benefits to society that same-sex marriages would promote and I haven't accepted them.

So all I can say is. Keep up the fight! If my position is truly wrong time will tell. Bigotry can never surpress righteousness forever (unless we can find a way of changing them pesky freakys' brain chemistry, lol, just kidding, or am I? ;) ) If my position is right then we shall see some bad effects in those parts of the world that have embraced same-sex marriages. The usually best way to tell if something is "good" or "bad" is to study the results.

For example, excessive premartial sex is usually "bad" because it promotes unsafe behaviour and can negatively affect a persons self-worth. Which brings up a thought, I wonder how often a group of homosexuals as said, "We want to get married because we believe premarital sex is wrong." It is an interesting position. Of course it would most likely not be based on religion as most religions don't accept homosexual behaviour and therefore would never accept homosexual marriages. Though, I think there are some very legitmate secular reasons why a person might support the idea of how premartial sex is wrong.

Oh well, have fun. Got to get back to life and get off these sites. Take it easy.