 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
Hypothetical situation.
A man and woman are married and have three children. The woman is killed in an accident. The father spends a period in mourning and then when he begins to look outward again, the following may happen...
A. He meets a kind and loving woman and they get married. She formally adopts the children as she has come to love them and treat them as her own. Unfortunately, the man is critically injured in a car accident. The woman is recognised as guardian of her husband for his remaining time on Earth and is able to ensure that he is cared for in ways he would find appropriate. He didn't like the idea of living as a vegetable, and she was able to see to his wishes being carried out after a painful decision. After his passing she is entitled to control of their communal property and she goes on caring for the childern, her own now.
B. He loved his wife, but... he realises now that he is gay. He meets a kind and loving person and they move in together. Unfortunately they cannot get married, but this does not bother them except for the part where the new partner cannot adopt the children that he has come to love and treat as his own. More unfortunately, the man is critically injured in a car accident. At this point the parents of the man get involved. The partner is shut out of the hospital room. He is not even allowed to visit as the parents despise him (and their son's decision) so much. The partner is powerless to stop the parents from keeping their son on life support for years after he has become an irrecoverable vegetable, even though he knows how offensive that would be to the man. Nor is he allowed to see the children anymore; they are whisked away into the guardianship of the parents whom they hardly know. The new partner is even kicked out of the family home, as is was in the man's name and the partner's contributions to it were mainly in labour and upkeep. Worse yet, when the estate is settled, the new partner gets nada, zip, zilch, zero. He has no standing even though he gave emotional, domestic, and even financial support to the man in his successful business ventures.
The only difference between A and B is a chromosome (A was unable to have children of her own due to any number of factors). Tell me this is just. Furthermore, explain to me how I am being knee jerk, politically correct when I see a problem with the situation in B.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
quote:
notyoueither:
Tell me this is just. Furthermore, explain to me how I am being knee jerk, politically correct when I see a problem |
I will assume that was aimed at me.
It is not just, and seeing it as a problem does not necessarily mean you are one of the kneejerk politically correct.
To make my opinion clear: what genitalia you are born with and what you decide to insert/have inserted into them should have absolutely no bearing on your status in society.
What I objected to was the automatic acceptance of everything that the activist portion of an oppressed minority claims as "their right".
Forty acres and a mule? Not going to happen.
Ebonics? Really dumb idea.
Anti-discrimination laws, special hate crimes, racial hiring quotas? Using the wrong means to achieve a good end.
Defining marriage universally is almost impossible to do, to which most anthropologists will attest. Thus, it seems only prudent to think deeply and move carefully when making changes to this fundamental institution.
Debating it was fun though, until it descended into ad hominem attacks and repetitive arguments. Oh well, at least I never expected it get anywhere...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Drake - does that mean that LBJ quote:
...that those pushing for the extension of rights to homosexuals should look at their own tactics when faced with electoral failure rather than blaming Christians or "stupid" conservative voters. |
if you instead insert blacks that your statement would still apply? The internal logic would stay utterly consistant, and remember throughout the South there were miscegnation laws, you know, those ones about black marrying whites? "But that's different..." You know my opinion once that phrase is uttered. (You are the only one of the three posters to not support gay rights to post a valid point - that's why you are getting my attention. It's a dangerously valid point, IMHO).
However, Drake, you've hit upon a universal truth. Appeals to bigotry that are shared by a majority, or a substantial minority (with an uncaring center), is often a successful route to electoral success. The Republican Party played the race card in the South after LBJ finished forcing civil rights on the South (which is well documented in statements made by the Republican leadership of the time), which is how the party of Lincoln became identified with intolerant Southern whites. I watched our local Republican Party here deliberately target black districts with voter challengers (legal in Kentucky) in precincts they couldn't even be bothered to supply a poll worker for. This was in the 2004 election mind you.
So now the conservatives are finding a new bigotry to appeal to, play the gay card and fan the flames of intolerence with all kinds of bogus attacks, singling out a specific group for discrimination. I believe it was in 2000, when two or three gay Republican staffers were outed, that they were immediately fired. Are you trying to tell me that is NOT discrimination. You choose your bedfellows and I will choose mine. Be careful, though. If you have an accident and become crippled, you know, disabled, you might have need of those court decisions friendly to those who are disabled. If you become elderly, and suddenly have a fractured hip, you too might need some help from those - gasp - social programs.
Of course I don't even need to reply to the other ORD or the Datajack - my fellow posters, especially Imran  have done a very nice job, thank you.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2005 06:56
.......... 
|