Hong Kong one-upped us

The Core RPGC Main Forum
21

This is irrelevant. If society wishes to reward people for having children, it gives people benefits in exchange for having them, as indeed it does in the case of child tax credits, maternity leave, tax breaks for college tuition, and other things of this nature. These benefits are specifically directed at the children; they’re given to help with the costs of raising them. But these are not the benefits gay couples wish to receive (unless they also adopt children, which is a separate issue); rather, they say their partnerships should receive precisely those specific benefits that are given for the <i>formation</i> of heterosexual partnerships, unrelated to the process of having and raising children. Saying that marriage benefits are a “reward” for something that married couples haven’t done yet, are not obligated to do, and may have no plans of doing, on the grounds that they are likely to do it at some point in the future anyway, is like saying that finishing high school is the same thing as finishing college, because people who do the former are more likely to do the latter than people who don’t.

This also has no bearing on the point. The point is, a benefit such as the ability to visit one’s partner in the hospital has no relation to whether one has or wants children or not, and thus should not be given on that basis. It is a personal, private affair that concerns only the individuals involved. It is absolutely arbitrary to make it contingent on the ability to produce children. You might as well only give it out to couples who meet a certain SAT requirement, or who can do a lot of push-ups.

Well, then, why stop there? Why not distinguish between different <i>kinds</i> of heterosexual marriages (between people of various races, religions, economic groups, academic aptitudes, medical histories, and so forth), on the basis of these vaguely defined quantifiers that determine “productiveness”? Why not assign benefits to these various groups on a gradated scale, based on how “productive” we determine them to be according to our arbitrary standard? If society is entitled to not recognize, or not confer benefits on homosexual partnerships because it deems them to be “not productive,” it follows that there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be entitled to do the same for any other group. Unless, of course, society thinks that homosexuality in and of itself is the problem, and not some notion of “productiveness.”

22

Thanks for playing the satan on this one, SK. This is where I have the most fun on these boards, even when I’m wrong.

Of course it’s not the same thing. Relationships like that are private, and it’s a private decision to have children. Marriage, the public face of that private relationship, is the GOVERNMENT APPROVED ™ environment and kind of relationship society likes to see, both for keeping the peace, reinforcing the social order, and generating those all-important taxpayers of tomorrow. It’s not just one but all of these purposes that I think explain the primacy of monogamous marriage in Western civilization. They just taste better together.

Privileges afforded to married couples are recognition that they are on the right track. Government can’t mandate that they procreate, because our ideology says that government shouldn’t reach that far.

We <i>do</i> reward people for finishing high school. They get to put it on their resumes, and they get better jobs than dropouts. Not as good as collegiate graduates (just like married couples with kids get more tax breaks), but it’s a step along the way.

This also has no bearing on the point. The point is, a benefit such as the ability to visit one’s partner in the hospital should not require one to be able to produce children. Rather, it is a personal, private affair that concerns only two people and thus should not be contingent on whether or not someone contributes “new taxpayers” to society.

I agree, it shouldn’t. In order to establish on paper (for the benefit of all those bureaocrats n’suchlike) the relationship between people so we can allocate those privileges to them, we need to identify them somehow, to tell them apart from J. Random Citizen, who gets no special treatment. Anyone who would oppose granting these kinds of things to same-sex couples (damn, almost called them unisex there) is probably either being an asshole or operating on an emotional level based on their religious or political upbringing.

I doubt, however, that it’s realistic in America to expect that we’re going to classify same sex couples with conventional marriage licenses. They’re not quite the same, and while there’s getting to be no functional difference, not everybody thinks we’re there yet. I think we’ll be there in a decade or so, may even be there now, but I’m waiting for history’s verdict to be sure.

An important signpost may be when we stop talking about “gay marriages” and just refer to them as “marriages.”

I think this is one of those times when compromise is really necessary. Domestic partnerships aren’t marriage <i>per se</i> but it’s a good beginning. There won’t be, as the politicians call it, “movement on the issue,”

As for the “et cetera” bits, I was just commenting on things in general, not really arguing to any point. I think, and it’s just my theory, that marriage, which is a precedent handed down to us over many centuries, came about for some of the same reasons as superstitions and othe predjudices against left-handed people.

23

No. When we reward people for finishing high school, we do it not because they may go to college later on, but because they have already finished high school, and thus have reached whatever level of qualification that entails. Whether or not they do go to college later on, and whether or not they may ever finish it, and whatever else they may or may not do in the future, is absolutely irrelevant to the nature of the reward they receive upon completion of high school.

Similarly, when people get married, they receive benefits that are not contingent on whether or not they have or will ever have children, and have nothing to do with the process of raising them. What they may or may not do later has no effect whatsoever on what they receive now. Whether they can have children or not is completely immaterial, because either way, they can choose not to and still keep all of their marriage benefits. The formation of their partnership, in and of itself, is the sole actual requirement for obtaining the benefits. You can theorize justifications for this policy all you want, but the fact remains that a heterosexual couple can get married, stay childless forever, and be as “unproductive” as it pleases, and still receive these benefits, whereas, all other things being equal, a homosexual couple cannot. This is an unfair and arbitrary policy that has no reasonable grounds whatsoever.

This observation is true, but irrelevant to the subject at hand. A similar observation could be made about most civil rights controversies in history, but it says nothing about the ultimate desirability of those rights.

24

One of the things that pisses me off so much about the stupidity of the debate of gay marriage is the importance attributed to the word marriage. People try to find all sorts of bullshit terms like civil unions and domestic partnerships to define essentially the same thing about marriage. This is just like the whole bullshit with prisoners of war and combatants in guantanamo. In the end, the thing that matters are the rights of the individuals involved and not the fucking word used to classify that person so that you can more easily discriminate against them. I would’ve hoped that with everything that happened in the 60s, that the bullshit of “separate but equal” would’ve been deeply imbedded into everyone’s minds by now.

People everywhere need to stop beating around the bush and recognize what this is all about: civil rights, like those SK mentionned (being able to visit your spouse, tax benefits, etc). There is no such thing as separate but equal. There never has been and never will be. This only serves to empower the groups within society that choose to continue to discriminate others so that they can continue with their campaigns of intolerance and hate.

25

Well, yeah. It would be impractical to watch the behavior of every individual that closely (though growing less so with the implications of computer technology. Brrr), and besides, judging intent can be a damn slippery prospect. Some assumptions about a person’s probable behavior, based on their status, have to be made. These assumptions are becomming more innacurate all the time, which might be why the issue is on the table in the first place.

These policies <i>were</i> justified with a fair amount of practical reason when they were first adopted, and remained so long enough to become tradition, but the justifications have been steadily weakening and have basically disappeared entirely.

This observation is true, but irrelevant to the subject at hand. A similar observation could be made about most civil rights controversies in history, but it says nothing about the ultimate desirability of those rights.

No, it doesn’t; that part was commentary. I’m saying that it’s practical to go for a compromise first and push for the rest as time goes on. That way you still get to enjoy a slice, even while negotiating for the full half of the pie.

Ahem.

We’re just not there yet, apparently.

The main difference is that domestic partnerships are more likely to garner the support needed to push that through. If there’s no functional difference, why not go for it, and bang out the spelling differences later.

This is just like the whole bullshit with prisoners of war and combatants in guantanamo. In the end, the thing that matters are the rights of the individuals involved and not the fucking word used to classify that person so that you can more easily discriminate against them. I would’ve hoped that with everything that happened in the 60s, that the bullshit of “separate but equal” would’ve been deeply imbedded into everyone’s minds by now.

People everywhere need to stop beating around the bush and recognize what this is all about: civil rights, like those SK mentionned (being able to visit your spouse, tax benefits, etc). There is no such thing as separate but equal. There never has been and never will be. This only serves to empower the groups within society that choose to continue to discriminate others so that they can continue with their campaigns of intolerance and hate.

Sense of identity plays an important role in human psychology. We instinctually try to classify some cultural entity, “my group,” both by what it is and what it isn’t, so that we can tell ourselves apart from other groups. We see this instinct in action in our language, as with the NIMBY principle (Not In My BackYard), PLU (People Like Us), and NMP/SEP (Not My Problem/Someone Else’s Problem), as well as with racism, sexism, and some other ism’s that I’m probably missing.

And the trouble with instinct is that it’s hard to suppress in an individual, and impossible to suppress fully in a group as they get bigger.

The Civil Rights movement also taught us that it’s a battle; you cannot solve at a blow the problems that arise from the opinions of individuals, especially when they see your views as a threat to their group. It’s going to take time. When rolling a boulder up a hill, trying to propel it to the top with one shove would probably garner appropriately Sisyphean results. Take whatever ground you can, and continue pushing for the rest.

26

This is ridiculous. If it were true, a high school graduate who has not finished college would be justified in demanding a high-level job that requires a college education, solely on the grounds that his particular demographic is very likely to finish college, and therefore it’s okay to “assume” that he will do so sometime at a later date.

27

They’re not, “very likely,” but certainly more likely.

And, as I said eariler, when these policies were first adopted, and eventually became traditions, the state of birth control was such that for a heterosexual couple (like a marriage), pregnancy was almost a night-following-day event.

I’m not saying these assumptions aren’t based on obsolete data; I’m saying that they weren’t always impractical, illogical and in other ways unintelligent.

28

It doesn’t matter. Even if your demographic has historically had a 100% rate of finishing college, if you, personally, have not yet done so, you will not be able to use that as an argument for why you should be given a job that requires a college education. Similarly, you can’t collect marriage benefits before you get married, on the grounds that, historically, 100% of the people in your demographic have gotten married eventually. Nor can you collect retirement benefits before you retire, on account of the fact that you have a 100% chance of retiring eventually. This is because the past comes before the future, not after it.

29

The psychology behind it all is something I’m well aware of. If it isn’t obvious enough, I think it is fucking bullshit and a lot of hypocrisy. The point of my tirade was to show the facades that have been presented to support the continued oppression of a minority. This issue needs to be confronted for what it is.

30

Sorry. Should have recognized the shibboleths.

It’s not as much as getting a college-level job as getting a loan for college, in my opinion. “Here’s a tax break, in case you’re thinking of having a kid…” nudge nudge.

And as far as likelihoods go, we’re getting into philosophy. We cannot really know the future unless you defer to some kind of divine or New Age-ey source of information, but we can make a bet based on precedent. If you’d care to bet against the sun rising tomorrow or that thunder will follow lightning, both phenomena which have a 100% rate of happening, I’ve got a couple of twenties here that could use some company. I’ll even give you 2:1 odds (I’m too poor to cover a larger split)

31

This statement is completely inapplicable to marriage benefits, which do not require one to have children, do not obligate one to ever have them, have nothing to do with whether one wants to have them or not, are given regardless of whether one ever has them or not, and require only that two people wish to get married and nothing else.

This is a false analogy. You are essentially claiming that marriage benefits aren’t really marriage benefits, but “rewards” for having children, regardless of whether the married couples actually have them or intend to ever have them, on the grounds that married couples in general may be likely to have them in the future. An accurate analogy to this claim would go as follows: we automatically give free “rewards for finishing college” (e.g. good, high-paying jobs) to everybody who is in a demographic that has a very high college graduation rate, without actually requiring them to ever attend college, and we automatically deny these same rewards to everybody who is in a demographic that has a very low college graduation rate. Of course this policy makes no sense, but that’s because it’s based on a nonsensical claim.

This is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You have a 100% chance of dying, but your relatives still can’t claim items bequeathed to them in your will until the fact actually occurs. But, by your reasoning, your relatives should be able to obtain these “rewards” now, simply because you’re very likely to die at some point in the future.