Working from home today
Sep. 2nd, 2004 11:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anigoYay for motivation < /sarcasm>
So there will be much posting as I get border.. bo.. more bored.
But first, a caveat.
These are my opinions and under no circumstances am I expecting you to adopt any of them. I also encourage you to tell me your opinions. I may be enlightened, I may not. I will listen to anything anybody has to say. What I won't abide is nastyness. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, I wanna hear all of the opinions but nastyness will not be tolerated.
So...
Homosexuality. Or Bisexuality. Or anything that's not "the norm". Fun topic for this morning, huh? A bit out of character perhaps?![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tigermorph had a link in her journal to Sheri Dew and it got me thinkin'.
Again, it's all about choices, isn't it. And it's my opinion that your choice is just that. YOURS. It ain't mine or anybody elses. If I don't like your choice, as long as it's not hurting me, then I have no right to kvetch about it.
Here's a thot tho. And this is where I expect rebuttal. I *do* think, in the whole biological scheme of things, that a man is meant to be with a woman. That's how BABIES are made. Having a man with a man or a woman with a woman is not the way it *should* be. Now SIT DOWN. Hear me out. I mean this in a strictly biological way. I mean that a man and a man can't make a baby. I DO NOT mean that a man and a man cannot love each other. So, yes, homosexuality is not "the way it's supposed to be" BIOLOGICALLY, but emotionally, there it is. Another thing. I also believe (as many do) that homosexuality is not a choice. That being the case it can also be boiled down to a biological factor. However, so can having 6 toes. That's not a choice either, rather a deviation from the norm. Just because you have 6 toes doesn't mean your bad or evil or anything, it just means you're different from the majority of the rest of the population.
But having said all that, the above refers strictly to biology. STRICTLY to biology. It has nothing to do with emotion (and if anyone argues that emotions are chemical and therefore biological, I will whap you with this flame resistant salmon pink push-up bra thattigermorph loaned me.
If we're talking emotion, then yes. I believe that a man can love a man. I *know* a man can love a man. And if that's his choice, then I celebrate that. I will gladly dance at the wedding of anybody who invites me - be they straight, gay, or bisexual.
Now, some semantics.
Speaking of gay marriage.
I think that a religious institution should have the right to perform (or not perform) whatever ceramonies they believe is in accordance with their doctrine. I think if the Catholic Church does not "believe" in gay marriage, it's their right, and therefore their right to not perform them, just as it is the right of any other religion not to have to perform Catholic rituals. (And I'm just saying Catholic because it popped into my head first, I'm not picking on any religion/denomonation in particular). I think that if The Church of the Holy Foozeball Table wants to perform gay marriages, sobeit.
Now, here's the next thing. I think a religious wedding ceramony should have absolutely NOTHING to do with how the government or any other formal body (legal, whatever) sees a couple. I think a religious ceramony is just that. A time when a couple should be celebrating in front of the diety of their choice.
But it goes both ways. Just because you've been married in the Church of the Holy Foozeball Table doesn't mean that legally you should be deemed "a couple".
There should be different laws for that all together.
And they should have nothing to do with the church of your choice at all.
For that matter, they should have nothing to do with your sex, your religion, your age, anything. That, in my opinion, is completely discriminatory.
What I think, however, is that you should be able to call your "partner" any old person you choose. If you choose to call your child your partner, great. If you choose to call your roomie your partner, sobeit. Remember, this is your LEGAL PARTNER, it has nothing to do with your emotional ties, more along the lines of your financial ties.
For example.
If you are a single mother with a child, regardless of age, then you and the child are deemed to be "a couple" (or a unit, or something else, the name is irrelevant). And as "a couple" you are entitled to all the rights that currently married people enjoy. Benefits, Tax incentives, whatever. The majority of these "units", I suspect, will be married couples. But I don't think it should stop there. I don't think that "love" should be a basis for a tax write off. This could even apply to roommates, for example.
However, *this* is where you should be required to get the equivalent of a marriage licence, and there should be guidelines in place for what consitutes a "couple" You have to live together for more than a year? You have to spend at least so many hours under the same roof... whatever. But again, emotions should not be the basis of benefit eligability.
Church and state need to be divided.
In my scenario anybody who wanted to celebrate their unity in front of the diety of their choice could do so. You would not be restricted to the fundimental (little f) Judeao/Christian idea of marriage (not that that idea is a bad thing, it's just if it's not *your* thing, you're more than welcome to do your own thing!)
In this scenario, the 24 year old college student who is living with his 65 year old mother would also enjoy the same benefits that married couples do. Life insurance, benefits, tax deductions... whatever.
As for adoption - gay or otherwise, if you're a fit parent, who the hell should care if your partner happens to be the same sex. As long as he/she is a fit parent there should be no restrictions. Its PEOPLE who make good parents. These people should be judged by their committment to each other and to their family, not what they do behind closed doors.
Now, wouldn't that just be nice? Do I hear a motion? Anybody? Anybody?
And by the way. This is a long post and I can't be bothered to spell check, since LJ's spellcheck is a pain in the ass. This is my spelling. I am not ignorant, just a really bad speller.
So there will be much posting as I get border.. bo.. more bored.
But first, a caveat.
These are my opinions and under no circumstances am I expecting you to adopt any of them. I also encourage you to tell me your opinions. I may be enlightened, I may not. I will listen to anything anybody has to say. What I won't abide is nastyness. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, I wanna hear all of the opinions but nastyness will not be tolerated.
So...
Homosexuality. Or Bisexuality. Or anything that's not "the norm". Fun topic for this morning, huh? A bit out of character perhaps?
tigermorph had a link in her journal to Sheri Dew and it got me thinkin'. Again, it's all about choices, isn't it. And it's my opinion that your choice is just that. YOURS. It ain't mine or anybody elses. If I don't like your choice, as long as it's not hurting me, then I have no right to kvetch about it.
Here's a thot tho. And this is where I expect rebuttal. I *do* think, in the whole biological scheme of things, that a man is meant to be with a woman. That's how BABIES are made. Having a man with a man or a woman with a woman is not the way it *should* be. Now SIT DOWN. Hear me out. I mean this in a strictly biological way. I mean that a man and a man can't make a baby. I DO NOT mean that a man and a man cannot love each other. So, yes, homosexuality is not "the way it's supposed to be" BIOLOGICALLY, but emotionally, there it is. Another thing. I also believe (as many do) that homosexuality is not a choice. That being the case it can also be boiled down to a biological factor. However, so can having 6 toes. That's not a choice either, rather a deviation from the norm. Just because you have 6 toes doesn't mean your bad or evil or anything, it just means you're different from the majority of the rest of the population.
But having said all that, the above refers strictly to biology. STRICTLY to biology. It has nothing to do with emotion (and if anyone argues that emotions are chemical and therefore biological, I will whap you with this flame resistant salmon pink push-up bra that
tigermorph loaned me.If we're talking emotion, then yes. I believe that a man can love a man. I *know* a man can love a man. And if that's his choice, then I celebrate that. I will gladly dance at the wedding of anybody who invites me - be they straight, gay, or bisexual.
Now, some semantics.
Speaking of gay marriage.
I think that a religious institution should have the right to perform (or not perform) whatever ceramonies they believe is in accordance with their doctrine. I think if the Catholic Church does not "believe" in gay marriage, it's their right, and therefore their right to not perform them, just as it is the right of any other religion not to have to perform Catholic rituals. (And I'm just saying Catholic because it popped into my head first, I'm not picking on any religion/denomonation in particular). I think that if The Church of the Holy Foozeball Table wants to perform gay marriages, sobeit.
Now, here's the next thing. I think a religious wedding ceramony should have absolutely NOTHING to do with how the government or any other formal body (legal, whatever) sees a couple. I think a religious ceramony is just that. A time when a couple should be celebrating in front of the diety of their choice.
But it goes both ways. Just because you've been married in the Church of the Holy Foozeball Table doesn't mean that legally you should be deemed "a couple".
There should be different laws for that all together.
And they should have nothing to do with the church of your choice at all.
For that matter, they should have nothing to do with your sex, your religion, your age, anything. That, in my opinion, is completely discriminatory.
What I think, however, is that you should be able to call your "partner" any old person you choose. If you choose to call your child your partner, great. If you choose to call your roomie your partner, sobeit. Remember, this is your LEGAL PARTNER, it has nothing to do with your emotional ties, more along the lines of your financial ties.
For example.
If you are a single mother with a child, regardless of age, then you and the child are deemed to be "a couple" (or a unit, or something else, the name is irrelevant). And as "a couple" you are entitled to all the rights that currently married people enjoy. Benefits, Tax incentives, whatever. The majority of these "units", I suspect, will be married couples. But I don't think it should stop there. I don't think that "love" should be a basis for a tax write off. This could even apply to roommates, for example.
However, *this* is where you should be required to get the equivalent of a marriage licence, and there should be guidelines in place for what consitutes a "couple" You have to live together for more than a year? You have to spend at least so many hours under the same roof... whatever. But again, emotions should not be the basis of benefit eligability.
Church and state need to be divided.
In my scenario anybody who wanted to celebrate their unity in front of the diety of their choice could do so. You would not be restricted to the fundimental (little f) Judeao/Christian idea of marriage (not that that idea is a bad thing, it's just if it's not *your* thing, you're more than welcome to do your own thing!)
In this scenario, the 24 year old college student who is living with his 65 year old mother would also enjoy the same benefits that married couples do. Life insurance, benefits, tax deductions... whatever.
As for adoption - gay or otherwise, if you're a fit parent, who the hell should care if your partner happens to be the same sex. As long as he/she is a fit parent there should be no restrictions. Its PEOPLE who make good parents. These people should be judged by their committment to each other and to their family, not what they do behind closed doors.
Now, wouldn't that just be nice? Do I hear a motion? Anybody? Anybody?
And by the way. This is a long post and I can't be bothered to spell check, since LJ's spellcheck is a pain in the ass. This is my spelling. I am not ignorant, just a really bad speller.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 09:05 am (UTC)Under common law in the US, people can be considered legally married even though they never got a license or officially formed a union. But up till now, I believe, common law marriage only applied to one man and one woman. Maybe in the future it will apply to any two people who maintain a common household for some period of time. And should it be limited to two people? What about three people who form a household? Hmmm. [Note: I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman's understanding only].
Once you decide that a civil union can be formed between any two people, then how (why) would it be limited only to a pair of people? How about a commune? Couldn't 20 people join in non-holy matrimony before a judge and thereby become a civil union? Would tax liability and parental responsibility be shared among all 20 members? Would spousal medical benefits have to be extended to the other 19 people? Could a school get written parental consent from any member? Could any member get a divorce and divide the property and arrange child custody? Does the child have two biological parents, or does he have 20 civil parents? Hmmmm.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 09:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 09:23 am (UTC)You see, there are homosexuals in nature too, ie animals, from higher primates down to fish all have a certain percentage of their population who are homosexual.
The logic seems to be that there's less difference than you'd think ebtween males and females. There are rare cases of individuals who are gentically male, but due to a single mutant either don't produce testosterone, or don't have the receptors for it. Those individuals look and behave like females.
Logically, hmosexuality can be argued to be a mutation somewhere that causes behavior [including sexual attraction] appropriate to one gender, when in fact the individual is of the other gender.
As such, it can be inherated [dispite certain jokes] and isn't "cureable". Or at least not yet, since we don't know which genes control behavioral development. Theoritically at some point in the future it might be possible to develop a gene therapy to alter a person's gentic predispostion towards homosexuality, before they're born.
[and won't that be a hellish can of worms!]
However, also from observation of the animal kingdom, we might not want to elimate the 'homosexual genes' because homosexuals seem to play an important part in social structures.
gay males of many species seem to fulfil the role of stand-by child-carers [and dare I say it, are tempramentally suited to cope better in some primate species]. lesbian individuals are also essential, generally as 'female guards' and female-alternate leaders. Although female sexuality in a lot of species is more, flexiable. [ok, there's more bi-females than bi-males usually].
It's only western 21st century humans, with our weird puritanical morals that fight aginst what is a clear pattern in nature. I mean, we call homosexuality 'unnatural' when in fact every other single vertibrate species on the planet has 'em ?
I say we should quit fightening it, it's probably one of the major causes of neuroese going, and bring our laws more into line.
What you suggest is getting there, couple are couples, and goddess knows, there's enough lousy parents around that we shouldn't deny the right to those that would quite probably be better at it!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 09:48 am (UTC)Maybe, then, unnatural is not the word since, yes, it does happen naturally, but so does dwarfism or any other 'genetic mutation'. It's unfortunate that statements like that put such a negative spin on it. In theory, it could be as "natural" as the genetic colour of a person's eyes, ya?
And I agree. We should stop fighting it. Live and let live.
I wonder, for the sake of curiosity, how animals in nature react to animals with homosexual tendancies.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 11:37 am (UTC)And I know some bears who would rather stay home and decorate the cave than chase down dinner.
And gene research to "correct" homosexuality? Imagine outraged demonstrations outside the lab of any scientist poking around into that subject. I can't wait to hear Rosie O'Donnell's sweat reasoning on that one.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 01:27 pm (UTC)A thought on the matter..
Date: 2004-09-04 08:24 am (UTC)1 - I agree with you: Live and Let Live. What consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors sexually is THEIR own business. The government should KEEP OUT.
2 - I am not sure if I understood your take on the specifics of gay marriage from a legal standpoint, but I am on record as being AGAINST it. Civil unions, on the other hand, is something I can wrap my arms around with no reservations. To me, it really is all about the semantics.
3 - Churches are private organizations (not affiliated with the government) and should NOT be told whom they have to hire, help or marry. Your Church of the Holy Foozeball Table is a most excellent example of what I am trying to articulate.
4 - I dated a bisexual once (maybe more, but I'd never know about it), and I am neither threatened by, or worried by their existence. Bi-curiousity is something everybody entertains in their heads, if only for a moment. After that, those who continue along with it, well, that is their business.
Thanks for an interesting post. I will have to jump onboard that train in my own LJ one day.
Re: A thought on the matter..
Date: 2004-09-05 05:48 am (UTC)I think we're on the same page here. Yes, it's all about semantics. If you want to call "marriage" a ceremoy reserved for churches and the like, then who gets "married" should be decided by the church of your choice. I'd like to think that the term "marriage" and "civil union" is interchangable, but I can see your point.