Obama said he had directed government agencies to offer a number of new benefits to the families of gay and lesbian federal employees, including family assistance services, hardship transfers and relocation expenses.I highly doubt that the text hinges on "gay" and "lesbian" – or would someone who is living with someone of the same sex really need to prove they are, in fact, attracted to each other or engaging in sex-like behavior with each other? If I recall correctly, something like that was going on in Florida, where a person had to sign paperwork vowing they were, in fact, lovers. How can we do things like that while also heeding the demand to stay out of their bedrooms?
His directive builds on a move he made last year to offer healthcare benefits, sick leave and medical evacuation for same-sex partners of federal employees.
Obama said in a statement that while his directive was an "important step on the path to equality," existing federal law prevented him from taking further action to provide same-sex domestic partners with the same benefits offered to heterosexual married couples.
Why should an employer, and in this case why should government-as-employer treat other kinds of relationships the same as a bride+groom relationship? The government has an interest in the kind of behavior and legal situation that unites both basic elements of society, that can naturally create new citizens, and can provide those children with both one male and one female role model who are legally obligated to them. Where is the state’s interest when two people of the same sex pair up? Why does the state care if those people are merely friends and roommates or also lovers?
What are the criteria, and will that criteria be applied equally to any two people, regardless of the sex of the individuals? What is the justification for using that criteria as opposed to other criteria? For example, will a man and woman with no legal arrangement be eligible? Seems to me that if an employer wants to treat all pairings the same, regardless of state marriage licensing, domestic partnership, or civil union laws, then it would have its own registry through which employees would enlist their partner.
Whenever someone seeks to treat nonmarriage as marriage, marriage is weakened,and there is less incentive for people to marry. To pre-empt my critics - no, I don't think a lot of homosexual people would marry someone of the opposite sex if only we'd stop offering marriage-like benefits to nonmarriage, and no, I didn't marry my wife for such benefits, nor did she marry me primarily for such benefits, as far as I can tell - but then, both of us had a religious motivation as one of our many motivations to marry. And I do think it is realistic that some male-female couples will have less motivation to marry if they can get benefits like these without marriage.
I highly doubt that the text hinges on "gay" and "lesbian" – or would someone who is living with someone of the same sex really need to prove they are, in fact, attracted to each other or engaging in sex-like behavior with each other? If I recall correctly, something like that was going on in Florida, where a person had to sign paperwork vowing they were, in fact, lovers. How can we do things like that while also heeding the demand to stay out of their bedrooms?
ReplyDeleteChuck & Larry was not a documentary. The fact of the matter is, you don't care whether or not a hetero married couples is "really" married, do you? You never bring it up. Hetero couples could be doing exactly what you accuse gay couples of doing, but all you care about are all those fake gays, scamming the system for the benefits.
I have gay friends, I spend quite a bit of time with them, and yet, I never hear about gay sex unless it's coming from the mouth of someone like you. Odd, that.
PF, I will try to get technical here. I don't talk sex much with my friends, even though they ask me with pinpointing ovulation to get preggers at times.
ReplyDeleteI don't know one heterosexual couple that is sexually active, but do not engage in conjugal act other then teenagers possibly. As in they perform all those other sexual acts, but not 'coitus'. It's about being as objective as possible here, because intended or unintended your can have a baby though heterosexual activity.
There are a lot on non-married relationships, along with homosexual ones that may be recognized and probably should. What's the litmus test to prove romantic over platonic? Why can't platonic relationships designate benefits to one another?
"Hetero couples could be doing exactly what you accuse gay couples of doing, but all you care about are all those fake gays, scamming the system for the benefits."
ReplyDeleteWrong. I support prosecution based on scam marriages, as happens in certain immigration cases. Such immigration fraud cases rest solely on whether or not the marriage was "real". Courts may determine such marriages are frauds even when they obtained a real marriage license.
Before no fault divorce took hold, marriage fraud was an issue in divorce, too.
"I have gay friends, I spend quite a bit of time with them, and yet, I never hear about gay sex unless it's coming from the mouth of someone like you. Odd, that."
Well that's because I like to dwell on it. I'm obsessed with it. I like thinking about it all day. Not really, but I just thought I would indugle you.
Laws deal with objective facts and behaviors. Sex and sex-like activity are behaviors. It is an issue when addressing topics of interpersonal relationships, marriage law, etc. It appears as though you'd like us to ignore the difference between heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior, even though that behabvior is precisely what makes a difference between mere friendship and partnership. You can't have it both ways. If we can't talk about sex, then platonic friends can't be excluded from the discussion.
Chuck & Larry was not a documentary.
ReplyDeleteYet I openly wonder, is there a reason why two people of the same sex have to be gay to get benefits? A majority of same-sex households with children (in my small sampling of the world) are not at all sexual relationships. They are mothers and daughters banding together to raise children. They are two friends who lost their wives (one by abandonment, the other by death) who are helping each other raise their kids. They are a teenage daughter who are living with an elderly uncle and aunt.
Chuck and Larry provide a very poor and sarcastic sampling which I believe have ill-colored your perception of the real reasons we should question why these benefits are targeted to gays and lesbians. It seems for a group of people expecting others to include them in benefits, they are being pretty stingy when they get them.
On lawn, I always wondered about the completely fatherless grandmother/mother/child scenario. Considering if the grandmother is reaching her pre-menopausal years, this seems to be a better scenario then two women of fertile age in which one gives birth but the other doesn't.
ReplyDeleteFor peer to peer female relationships can be very tenuous, when a friend or two who are trying for several months and see their friends and relatives having babies natural feelings of jealousy may likely occur. There have been studies, that there is a natural reason why woman hit menopause in evolutionary terms to assist their daughters rather then to compete with them.
"Whenever someone seeks to treat nonmarriage as marriage, marriage is weakened,and there is less incentive for people to marry."
ReplyDeleteIf this is fact and not opinion it should be provable. Can you verify this as factual? Massachusetts and several other states have gay marriage laws. Are those still "nonmarriage"?
Terry, counterfeits devalue the authentic.
ReplyDeleteA state calling a brideless or groomless pairing "marriage" might make it marriage in their law, but it doesn't really make it marriage any more than a state labeling a bottle of water "milk" makes it milk. Can anyone prove that the water isn't milk? We know it isn't - but can we prove it?
Milk has measurable differences to water just like same sex marriage is measurably different than heterosexual marriage. If I asked for something to drink and you gave me the choices of milk or water then that comparison would be similar to marriage equality states that offer either same sex or heterosexual marriage.
ReplyDeleteIs it your opinion that same sex marriages devalue all relationships, or is it just heterosexual marriages? How do we measure that devaluation?
We can have a law put on the books that mandates water be called milk, if the well owner wants it that way. But it wouldn't really make the water milk.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that when someone calls a brideless or groomless pairing "marriage", it devalues marriage, as well as the absent sex. When a state does it by issuing marriage licenses to a bridless or groomless couple, the state is contributing to that devaluation, and it also loses credibility.
Not eveything of importance can be measured in numbers. Some things are apparent to people on their face.
Same-sex pairings do not devalue all relationships. However, they do complicate the roles of platonic friendships between men and platonic friendships between women, the same way dominant sexuality (heterosexuality) complicates friendships between men and women. Two heterosexual men who share a close friendship, for example, may be subject to rumors about the nature of their friendship - and that's sad.
(I need to proofread my comments before posting.)
I agree that changing the name of something does not change its nature. If I stay with your analogy I would retort with this:
ReplyDeleteWhen eating dinner I prefer water to drink, but when I am eating cookies only milk will do. Both have their place and are valuable in the right situation. If there was a law passed that changed the name of milk to water it would change neither my preference nor its nature.
So we agree that there is a difference between opinion and fact, right? While we can have our own opinions we cannot have our own facts. I want to give your words more clout than just opinion, however I am finding the evidence of your points lacking.
I find no evidence of wrongfulness on the part of homosexual couples simply because rumors go around about two same sex friends. What I find sad is the rumor mill and those who would be a part of it. That to me is the wrong in your example. That is of course an opinion, not a fact. Facts can be measured and agreed upon.
Terry: What I find sad is the rumor mill and those who would be a part of it. That to me is the wrong in your example.
ReplyDeleteYes, spreading rumors is a sad thing. But how are we supposed to stop it? By stopping people from gossiping?
The point is not whether or not rumors are bad, but whether they are more or less likely to occur. And it is likely that the more the media advertises homosexuality, the more people will gossip about two same-sex friends being homosexual when they are not. Now, maybe we can come up with an experiment to determine if that is a fact or not, but it is definitely my hypothesis, and you are not disagreeing with it.
In response to RK:
ReplyDeleteI believe gossip deserves and receives social disdain. In the event I am presented with gossip I do not acknowledge it.
The media today seems to be little more than gossip dressed up in a good suit. I doubt the homosexual movement would have gotten so much attention if people weren't speaking against it so vocally, so in a way those who are against that lifestyle are in part responsible for their own woes. That's my opinion.
There are so many valid reasons not to like someone, like their behavior, that it seems trivial to me whether someone is gay or not. That said I will admit that I do not care for effeminate men or overbearing "man-hating" women, but that is not because of their sexuality, it's their behavior I find annoying.
I doubt the homosexual movement would have gotten so much attention if people weren't speaking against it so vocally, so in a way those who are against that lifestyle are in part responsible for their own woes. That's my opinion.
ReplyDeleteJust my observation over the last 45 years: People didn't start speaking against it so vocally until it did start getting so much attention.